Table 3.

Cost-effectiveness results.

Cost of EV + P	Incremental cost, $ a	Incremental benefits a		ICER a		INHB, QALYs a	Comments a
		LYs	QALYs	$/LY	$/QALY
The United States
Full cost (baseline results)	294,794	1.34	1.10	220,735	267,491	−0.87	Not cost-effective
70% cost	192,806	1.34	1.10	144,369	174,949	−0.19	Not cost-effective
60% cost	158,810	1.34	1.10	118,914	144,102	0.04	Cost-effective
50% cost	124,814	1.34	1.10	93,458	113,254	0.27	Cost-effective
10% cost	−11,170	1.34	1.10	Dominant b	Dominant b	1.18	Cost-effective
China
Full cost (baseline results)	263,575	1.25	1.04	210,206	254,339	−6.45	Not cost-effective
70% cost	186,418	1.25	1.04	148,672	179,887	−4.26	Not cost-effective
60% cost	160,699	1.25	1.04	128,161	155,069	−3.53	Not cost-effective
50% cost	134,981	1.25	1.04	107,650	130,251	−2.80	Not cost-effective
10% cost	32,106	1.25	1.04	25,605	30,980	0.13	Cost-effective

^aEV + P versus the chemotherapy.

^bDominant, EV + P showed higher effectiveness and lower cost, as compared with chemotherapy.

EV + P, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; INHB, incremental net health benefits; LYs, life-years; QALYs, quality-adjusted life-years.