Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Immunotherapy regimens for TKI-resistant NSCLC are not cost-effective without significant price reductionsNew lung cancer treatments show better results but higher costs

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that immunotherapy-based regimens for TKI-resistant NSCLC are not cost-effective under current pricing models.

This network meta-analysis evaluated the clinical and economic outcomes of three immunotherapy-based regimens (Ivon-Chem, Sint-Beva-Chem, and Atez-Beva-Chem) compared to chemotherapy for patients with TKI-resistant non-sqNSCLC in China. The analysis utilized a Markov model simulation to determine cost-effectiveness.

The study found that all three immunotherapy combinations improved efficacy compared to chemotherapy alone. However, none of the regimens were considered cost-effective or economically acceptable under current pricing conditions. Specific ICER values were reported as $61,882.3/QALY for Ivon-Chem, $68,657.0/QALY for Sint-Beva-Chem, and $188,820.5/QALY for Atez-Beva-Chem.

Scenario analyses suggested that cost-effectiveness could be achieved with significant price reductions: - Ivon-Chem requires a reduction of at least 47.2%. - Sint-Beva-Chem requires reductions of 59.3% for both sintilimab and bevacizumab. - Atez-Beva-Chem requires reductions of 84.4% for both atezolizumab and bevacizumab.

While these regimens offer improved efficacy, they are associated with poorer safety profiles than chemotherapy. These findings suggest that while immunotherapy provides survival benefits, current economic models in the Chinese healthcare system do not support their use without substantial price concessions.

How this fits prior evidence

This finding addresses a gap regarding the economic viability of advanced therapies for TKI-resistant NSCLC. While previous evidence noted that ivonescimab-containing chemoimmunotherapy can trigger rare iTTP, this study focuses on the cost-effectiveness of such regimens in China. It confirms that while these combinations improve efficacy over chemotherapy, they are currently not cost-effective without significant price reductions.

Living with lung cancer that has become resistant to standard treatments is incredibly hard. A recent study looked at three specific drug combinations compared to standard chemotherapy for patients in China with a specific type of non-small cell lung cancer.

The results showed that these newer combinations—including drugs like ivonescimab, sintilimab, and atezolizumab—actually improved the effectiveness of treatment compared to chemotherapy alone. However, there is a catch: these treatments also came with more side effects and were not considered cost-effective under current healthcare systems.

To make these better outcomes available to more people, the study suggests significant price cuts would be needed. For example, one drug combination would only become cost-effective if its main component's price dropped by at least 47.2%. While the medicine works better for the body, the high costs remain a major hurdle for the system.

What this means for you:
Newer lung cancer treatments work better than chemotherapy but are currently too expensive to be cost-effective.

Common questions

Are these new treatments more effective than chemotherapy?

Yes. The study found that three specific drug combinations—Ivon-Chem, Sint-Beva-Chem, and Atez-Beva-Chem—all showed better efficacy compared to standard chemotherapy for patients with this type of lung cancer.

Are these new treatments safer than chemotherapy?

No. The study reported that the three newer drug combinations were associated with poorer safety profiles, meaning they had more side effects, than the standard chemotherapy treatment.

Why are these drugs not currently used more often?

While they work better for patients, they are not currently cost-effective in the healthcare system. They would only be considered economically acceptable if the prices of the medications were significantly reduced.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BackgroundImmunotherapy combined with anti-angiogenic agents and chemotherapy has emerged as a novel therapeutic option for non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-sqNSCLC) after resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these regimens in patients with TKI-resistant non-sqNSCLC in China.MethodsA network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of ivonescimab plus chemotherapy (Ivon-Chem), sintilimab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy (Sint-Beva-Chem), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy (Atez-Beva-Chem). A Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Ivon-Chem, Sint-Beva-Chem, Atez-Beva-Chem, and chemotherapy until the survival probability fell below 1% in any regimen. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were estimated using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $41,859. Sensitivity analyses and scenario simulations were also performed.ResultsIvon-Chem, Sint-Beva-Chem, and Atez-Beva-Chem improved efficacy but were associated with poorer safety profiles than chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, Ivon-Chem, Sint-Beva-Chem, and Atez-Beva-Chem were not cost-effective, with ICERs of $61,882.3/QALY, $68,657.0/QALY, and $188,820.5/QALY, respectively. Moreover, the NMBs of Ivon-Chem, Sint-Beva-Chem and Atez-Beva-Chem were all negative, indicating that none of these regimens was economically acceptable. Scenario analyses indicated that, compared with chemotherapy, Ivon-Chem would become cost-effective if the price of ivonescimab were reduced by at least 47.2%. Similarly, Sint-Beva-Chem and Atez-Beva-Chem would achieve cost-effectiveness following price reductions of 59.3% for both sintilimab and bevacizumab, and 84.4% for both atezolizumab and bevacizumab, respectively.ConclusionThese immunotherapy-based regimens provided significant survival benefits in patients with TKI-resistant non-sqNSCLC. However, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, Ivon-Chem, Sint-Beva-Chem, and Atez-Beva-Chem were not cost-effective. Substantial price reductions would be required to improve their economic viability.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.