ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
First-line enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab versus nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic urothelial cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recent phase III programs, EV-302 and CheckMate-901, showed that enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV + P) and nivolumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin (N + GC) deliver superior clinical outcomes when used as initial therapy for advanced urothelial cancer. What remains uncertain is their relative economic value when assessed under Chinese and US payer conditions. To address this gap, we compared the value for money of EV + P versus N + GC as first-line management for la/mUC from the perspectives of healthcare payers in China and the US. Methods: We performed a model-based economic evaluation using a time-dependent state-transition framework implemented in TreeAge Pro (2022). Health benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from health-state utilities, and comparative value was expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The robustness of the model was assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) to evaluate the impact of key parameter uncertainties. Results: In the US, EV + P cost $1,863,624.32 and provided 3.34 QALYs, while N + GC cost $881,979.07 for 2.36 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $1,001,626.19 per QALY, exceeding the $150,000/QALY threshold. In China, EV + P cost $485,374.69 and provided 2.95 QALYs, compared to $203,811.61 for 2.15 QALYs with N + GC, yielding an ICER of $351,960.68/QALY, above the $40,451.64/QALY threshold. Therefore, N + GC is the more cost-effective first-line strategy in both countries. Conclusion: Under current pricing and reimbursement assumptions, N + GC is economically preferable to EV + P as a first-line strategy for la/mUC in both the US and China. EV + P may warrant consideration only in tightly selected scenarios or with substantial coordinated price reductions and policy changes. Meanwhile, it should be noted that due to the inherent limitations of the indirect comparison method between drugs, the conclusions of this study should be regarded as exploratory analysis results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.