Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Serplulimab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy for Treatment of US and Chinese Patients with Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Inform Drug Pricing

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
BioDrugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Serplulimab is a potential valuable therapy, while patients, physicians, and decision-makers are uncertain about the cost-effectiveness of this novel drug and its corresponding reasonable price. This study aimed to simulate the price at which serplulimab was cost-effective as first-line therapy for United States (US) and Chinese extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients.

Methods

In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of US and Chinese payers. Baseline characteristics of patients and critical clinical data were obtained from ASTRUM-005. Costs and utilities were collected from open-access databases and published literature. Cumulative costs (in US dollars), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured and compared. Price simulation was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The robustness of the model was assessed via sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses; subgroup analyses were also included.

Results

Base-case analysis indicated that serplulimab ($818.16/100 mg) would be cost-effective in the US at the WTP threshold of $150,000, with improved effectiveness of 0.61 QALYs and an additional cost of $64,918 (ICER $106,757). Serplulimab ($818.16/100 mg, patient assistance program considered) was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.58 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $19,369 (ICER $33,392). The price simulation results indicated that serplulimab was favored in the US when the price was less than $762.11/100 mg and $1261.57/100 mg at the WTP threshold of $100,000 and $150,000, respectively; it was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $38,184 when the price was less than $373.37/100 mg in China. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. Subgroup analysis results indicated an overall trend for subgroups with better survival advantages to have a higher probability of cost-effectiveness, despite serplulimab not being cost-effective in some subgroups.

Conclusions

Serplulimab might be a valuable and cost-effective therapy in both the US and China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about the budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rudin CM, Ismaila N, Hann CL, et al. Treatment of small-cell lung cancer: American Society of clinical oncology endorsement of the American College of chest physicians guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(34):4106–11. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.7918.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Byers LA, Rudin CM. Small cell lung cancer: where do we go from here? Cancer. 2015;121(5):664–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29098.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Farago AF, Keane FK. Current standards for clinical management of small cell lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7(1):69–79. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2018.01.16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Socinski MA, Smit EF, Lorigan P, et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin compared with etoposide plus carboplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4787–92. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23.1548.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang J, Zhou C, Yao W, et al. Adebrelimab or placebo plus carboplatin and etoposide as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CAPSTONE-1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(6):739–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00224-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Horn L, Mansfield AS, Szczesna A, et al. First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(23):2220–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1809064.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu SV, Reck M, Mansfield AS, et al. Updated overall survival and PD-L1 subgroup analysis of patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide (IMpower133). J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(6):619–30. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.01055.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldman JW, Dvorkin M, Chen Y, et al. Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(1):51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30539-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paz-Ares L, Chen Y, Reinmuth N, et al. Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: 3-year overall survival update from CASPIAN. ESMO Open. 2022;7(2): 100408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Rudin CM, Awad MM, Navarro A, et al. Pembrolizumab or placebo plus etoposide and platinum as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-604 study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(21):2369–79. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.00793.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee A. Serplulimab: first approval. Drugs. 2022;82(10):1137–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-022-01740-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Qin S, Li J, Zhong H, et al. Efficacy and safety of HLX10, a novel anti-PD-1 antibody, in patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient solid tumors: a single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(15):2566–2566. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.2566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheng Y, Han L, Wu L, et al. Serplulimab, a novel anti-PD-1 antibody, plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: an international randomized phase 3 study. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16):8505–8505. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.8505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheng Y, Han L, Wu L, et al. Effect of first-line serplulimab vs placebo added to chemotherapy on survival in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: the ASTRUM-005 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;328(12):1223–32. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.16464.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines for Small Cell Lung Cancer. https://www.nccn.org/profile?ReturnURL=https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/sclc.pdf. Accessed 28 August, 2022

  17. Zhou K, Zhou J, Huang J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2019;130:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.01.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ding D, Hu H, Li S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2020.7796.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tong YH, Ding HY, Xin WX, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus etoposide: platinum in the first-line therapy of extensive stage small-cell lung cancer from the Chinese payers’ perspective. Tumori. 2022;108(1):33–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300891620985309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu G, Kang S. Cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2022;22(1):85–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2021.1888717.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Li L, Wang H, Chen X, Li W, Cui J. First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2019;132(23):2790–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000000536.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Redsenol. The price and the PAP of Serplulimab. https://redsenol.com/28821.html. Accessed 29 August, 2022

  23. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Value Health. 2022;25(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goulart B, Ramsey S. A trial-based assessment of the cost-utility of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Value Health. 2011;14(6):836–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu B, Chen H, Shen J, Ye M. Cost-effectiveness of adding rh-endostatin to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther. 2011;33(10):1446–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.09.016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Williams C, Lewsey JD, Mackay DF, Briggs AH. Estimation of survival probabilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses: a comparison of a multi-state modeling survival analysis approach with partitioned survival and markov decision-analytic modeling. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(4):427–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16670617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ishak KJ, Kreif N, Benedict A, Muszbek N. Overview of parametric survival analysis for health-economic applications. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(8):663–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0064-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Su D, Wu B, Shi L. Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib as first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2): e210037. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0037.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Dieleman JL, Cao J, Chapin A, et al. US health care spending by payer and health condition, 1996–2016. JAMA. 2020;323(9):863–84. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0734.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Guoen L. Chinese guidelines for pharmacoeconomics evaluation 2020. China Market Press; 2020

  31. National Bureau of Statistics. 2021 Statistical Bulletin of National Economic and Social Development. http://www.stats.gov.cn/xxgk/jd/sjjd2020/202202/t20220228_1827972.html. Accessed 25 March, 2022

  32. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20. Accessed 29 August, 2022

  33. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness–the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796–7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1405158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kearns B, Stevenson MD, Triantafyllopoulos K, Manca A. Generalized linear models for flexible parametric modeling of the hazard function. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(7):867–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19873661.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE DSU technical support document 21: Flexible Methods for Survival Analysis. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-02/TSD21-Flex-Surv-TSD-21_Final_alt_text.pdf. Accessed 3 April, 2022

  37. Federico PV, Kurt M, Zhang L, et al. Heterogeneity in survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors and its implications for survival extrapolations: a case study in advanced melanoma. MDM Policy Pract. 2022;7(1):23814683221089660. https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221089659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. MENET. MENET.com.cn. https://www.menet.com.cn/. Accessed 25 March, 2022

  39. Yaoch. YAOZH.com. https://www.yaozh.com/. Accessed 25 March, 2022

  40. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2022 ASP Drug Pricing Files. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-part-b-drug-average-sales-price/2022-asp-drug-pricing-files. Accessed 28 August, 2022

  41. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2022 Physician Fee Schedule. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/physician-fee-schedule/search. Accessed 28 August, 2022

  42. Amiri-Kordestani L, Wilkerson J, Balasubramaniam S, Bates SE, Fojo AT. Difference between duration of treatment (DOT) and progression-free survival (PFS) as a marker of unbalanced censoring. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):2548–2548. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.2548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shao T, Ren Y, Zhao M, Tang W. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC in China. Front Public Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.912921.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Rui M, Fei Z, Wang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab + chemotherapy versus camrelizumab + chemotherapy for the treatment of first-line locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in China. J Med Econ. 2022;25(1):618–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2022.2071066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bullement A, Nathan P, Willis A, et al. Cost effectiveness of avelumab for metastatic merkel cell carcinoma. Pharmacoecon Open. 2019;3(3):377–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-018-0115-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kuznik A, Smare C, Chen CI, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab versus standard of care in the united states for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression >/=50. Value Health. 2022;25(2):203–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.08.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Atezolizumab with carboplatin and etoposide for untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta638/evidence. Accessed 28 August, 2022

  48. Vedadi A, Shakik S, Brown MC, et al. The impact of symptoms and comorbidity on health utility scores and health-related quality of life in small cell lung cancer using real world data. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(2):445–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02615-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Nafees B, Lloyd AJ, Dewilde S, Rajan N, Lorenzo M. Health state utilities in non-small cell lung cancer: an international study. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017;13(5):e195–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12477.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Li Y, Chen X, Shen Z, et al. Electrolyte and acid-base disorders in cancer patients and its impact on clinical outcomes: evidence from a real-world study in China. Ren Fail. 2020;42(1):234–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886022X.2020.1735417.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Tolley K, Goad C, Yi Y, et al. Utility elicitation study in the UK general public for late-stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(5):749–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-012-0419-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hatswell AJ, Bullement A, Schlichting M, Bharmal M. What is the impact of the analysis method used for health state utility values on QALYs in oncology? A simulation study comparing progression-based and time-to-death approaches. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(3):389–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00620-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Enstone A, Greaney M, Povsic M, et al. The economic burden of small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoecon Open. 2018;2(2):125–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0045-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mor V, Wagner TH, Levy C, et al. Association of expanded VA hospice care with aggressive care and cost for veterans with advanced lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(6):810–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0081.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Wu B, Li T, Cai J, Xu Y, Zhao G. Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant chemotherapies in patients presenting with gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:984. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-984.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Zhu Y, Hu H, Ding D, et al. First-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2021;19:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-021-00329-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhang L, Hang Y, Liu M, Li N, Cai H. First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Front Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.602185.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Liu Q, Luo X, Yi L, Zeng X, Tan C. First-line chemo-immunotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a united states-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Front Oncol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.699781.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Kang S, Wang X, Zhang Y, et al. First-line treatments for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:740091–740091. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.740091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang Y, Rui M, Yang L, et al. Economic evaluation of first-line atezolizumab for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in the US. Front Public Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.650392.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Lin S, Luo S, Gu D, et al. First-line durvalumab in addition to etoposide and platinum for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a US-basedcost-effectiveness analysis. Oncologist. 2021;26(11):e2013–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13954.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Liu Q, Tan C, Yi L, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(11): e0258605. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258605.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Ionova Y, Vuong W, Sandoval O, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab versus durvalumab as first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in the USA. Clin Drug Investig. 2022;42(6):491–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-022-01157-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Karve SJ, Price GL, Davis KL, et al. Comparison of demographics, treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs among elderly patients with extensive-stage small cell and metastatic non-small cell lung cancers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:555. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0555-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Choudhury NJ, Riely GJ. Serplulimab with chemotherapy in extensive-stage SCLC. JAMA. 2022;328(12):1205–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.16442.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Taihang Shao and Mingye Zhao contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, 639 Longmian Road, Jiangning District, Nanjing, 211198, China

    Taihang Shao, Mingye Zhao, Leyi Liang & Wenxi Tang

  2. Department of Public Affairs Management, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China

    Wenxi Tang

Authors
  1. Taihang Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mingye Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leyi Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wenxi Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenxi Tang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Taihang Shao, Mingye Zhao, Leyi Liang, and Wenxi Tang declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this article.

Author contributions

TS is the corresponding author. TS had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: All the authors. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: TS, MZ, LL. Drafting of the manuscript: TS. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: MZ, LL, WT. Statistical analysis: TS, MZ. Obtained funding: WT. Administrative, technical, or material support: WT. Supervision: WT.

Funding

This work was sponsored by the General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72174207).

Role of the funder/sponsor

The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data availability statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article and its supplementary materials.

Code availability

The models and codes for reproducing this study can be found on GitHub (https://github.com/TaihangShao/Serplulimab_drug_pricing).

Ethics approval, Consent for participation and publication

Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 8854 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shao, T., Zhao, M., Liang, L. et al. Serplulimab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy for Treatment of US and Chinese Patients with Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Inform Drug Pricing. BioDrugs 37, 421–432 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-023-00586-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-023-00586-6

Search

Navigation