scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding ramucirumab to the first-line erlotinib treatment for untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in China

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040691
Author(s):  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Xia Luo ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Egfr Mutated

ObjectiveTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab plus erlotinib compared with placebo plus erlotinib in the first-line setting for patients with EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.DesignA Markov model consisting of three health states using clinical survival data from the RELAY phase III randomised clinical trial, a lifetime horizon for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab plus erlotinib. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. Additional price reduction scenario analyses were performed.SettingThe Chinese healthcare system perspective.ParticipantsA hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with confirmed previously documented ex19del or Leu858Arg mutation stage IV NSCLC, and without known epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Thr790Met mutation and central nervous system metastases.InterventionsRamucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib.Primary outcome measureCosts, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsIn base-case analysis, ramucirumab plus erlotinib yield an additional 4.21 QALYs at a cost of $540 590, resulting in an ICER of $128 302/QALY. In price reduction scenario analysis, the ICER ($65 227/QALY) was decreased significantly when the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) negotiation was available for ramucirumab, and the ICER ($131 554/QALY) was increased slightly when the NRDL negotiation was unavailable for erlotinib. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated our results to be most sensitive to the unit cost of ramucirumab (10 mg/kg), and more than 52.1% reduction in the price of ramucirumab resulted in the ICER under the willingness-to-pay threshold set for affluent regions ($70 353/QALY).ConclusionsRamucirumab plus erlotinib is unlikely to be cost-effective for patients with untreated EGFR-mutated mNSCLC in China. Reducing the price of ramucirumab through the National Healthcare Security Administration negotiation was found to be the most realistic action to improve cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals First-Line Durvalumab Plus Platinum-Etoposide Versus Platinum-Etoposide for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Longfeng Zhang ◽  
Yongfu Hang ◽  
Maobai Liu ◽  
Na Li ◽  
Hongfu Cai
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide as first-line treatments for small-cell lung cancer from the perspective of the US payer.MethodsThis study established a partition survival model for three health states, metastasis probability, and safety data based on the CASPIAN clinical trial. The health utility value was mainly derived from the published literature. Only direct medical costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsDurvalumab plus platinum–etoposide increased QALY by 0.220 compared to that observed with platinum–etoposide only. The cost increased by $78,198.75 and the incremental cost per QALY increased by $355,448.86. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses indicated that the model parameters varied within a limited range and had no significant effect on the results.ConclusionsAlthough durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide can improve quality of life, it also substantially increases the cost of medical treatment. Under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, durvalumab does not have a cost-effective comparative advantage.

scholarly journals Modelled Economic Analysis for Dacomitinib–A Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Patients With EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-feng Yu ◽  
Luan Luan ◽  
Fan-fan Zhu ◽  
Peng Dong ◽  
Li-Heng Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesTo establish the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib compared to gefitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.PatientsAdvanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.MethodsPartitioned survival analysis was undertaken to examine the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib utilising individual patient data (IPD) from the pivotal randomised controlled trial (RCT) (ARCHER 1050). The three health states modelled were progression-free, post-progression, and death. Parametric survival distributions were fitted to IPD against the Kaplan-Meier survival curves corresponding to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes by randomised groups. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, outpatient management (outpatient consultation and examinations), and best supportive care costs. Utility weights were sourced from the pivotal trial and other published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.ResultsIn the base case, dacomitinib (CNY 265,512 and 1.95 QALY) was associated with higher costs and QALY gains compared to gefitinib (CNY 247,048 and 1.61 QALYs), resulting in an ICER of CNY 58,947/QALY. Using the empirical WTP/QALY threshold, dacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that dacomitinib had a 97% probability of being cost-effective.ConclusionsDacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy in treating patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib could be reduced if long-term survival data become available. Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT01024413

First-Line Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youwen Zhu ◽  
Huabin Hu ◽  
Dong Ding ◽  
Shuosha Li ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Background：The phase III clinical trial Keynote-604 indicated that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ES-SCLC). We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC from the United States (US) payers’ perspective.Methods: A synthetical Markov model was used to evaluate cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) versus EP in first-line therapy for ES-SCLC from the data of Keynote-604. Lifetime costs life-years (LYs), quality adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In addition, We also considered subgroup cost-effectiveness.Results: Pembrolizumab plus EP resulted in additional 0.18 QALYs (0.32 LYs) and corresponding incremental costs $113,625, resulting an ICER of $647,509 per QALY versus EP. The most influential factor in this model was the cost of pembrolizumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed there was 0% probability that pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) values of $150,000 per QALY in the US. The results of subgroup probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that all subgroups were not cost-effective.Conclusion: From the perspective of the US payer, pembrolizumab plus EP is not a cost-effective option as first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for previously untreated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the USA

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e031019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaohui Zeng ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Ye Peng ◽  
Fang Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesEvaluating the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus standard chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US payer perspective.DesignA Markov model was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Health outcomes were estimated in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost information was from Medicare in 2018. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the impact of uncertainty and assumptions on the results.SettingThe US payer perspective.ParticipantsA hypothetical US cohort of patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations.InterventionsPembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy.Primary outcome measuresCosts, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy expressed as cost per QALY gained compared with chemotherapyResultsThe base case analysis demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.78 QALYs at incremental cost of $151 409, resulting in an ICER of $194 372/QALY. ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was >$149 680/QALY in all of our univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsPembrolizumab in addition to chemotherapy provides modest incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY for the treatment of previously untreated metastatic NSCLC.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0258605
Author(s):  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Chongqing Tan ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
The Cost

Background The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective. Methods A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model. Results Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest. Conclusion From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
Xiaohui Zeng ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Ye Peng ◽  
Qiao Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Objective: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US payer perspective.Materials and methods: A Markov model wasdeveloped to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. The survival benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab were based on the results of the CheckMate 227 trial. The main endpoints of the model were cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty. Additonal subgroup analyses were also performed.Results: nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced a gain of 0.62 QALYs, at a cost of $104238 per QALY. The variables that had the greatest influence on the ICER were body weight and overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR). The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effectiveness compared to chemotherapy is 50.7 and 66.2% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value is $ 100,000 and $ 150,000 per QALY. The results of subgroup analyses showed the ICER remained below $150,000/QALY regardless of the PD-L1 expression level.Conclusions: nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC at a WTP threshold from 100,000/QALY to 150,000/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibition in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20504-e20504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaqi Han ◽  
Huabin Hu ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
Longjiang She ◽  
Linli Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The U.S

e20504 Background: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation have improved survival with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatments, but the economic efficiency of this application is unclear, especially in limited health resource settings. To inform policy makers about the value of these medications, we developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy, gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib and osimertinib treatments from a public payers’ perspective in the U.S and China. Health states consisted of progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Model transition, adverse event probabilities, disease progression, and death were obtained from randomized clinical trials and network meta-analysis. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 10-year lifetime horizon were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by multiple potentially modifiable parameters. Results: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors were more cost-effective than chemotherapy treatment in both the U.S and China. In the U.S, compared with erlotinib, afatinib had an ICER of $241,420/QALY while osimertinib had an ICER of $351,315/QALY. In China, the incremental utility for osimertinib versus gefitinib was 0.68QALYs, and the ICER was $25,622/QALY. The probability sensitivity analyses also illustrated that the erlotinib was the optimal treatment at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in the U.S and osimertinib was the most cost-effective treatment at a WTP of $26,508/QALY in China. Conclusions: Based on our current analysis, erlotinib appears to be the preferred first-line treatment for advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients in the US at a WTP of $150,000/QALY. However, because of the price reduction and more health benefits, osimertinib was considered to be most cost-effective at a WTP of $26,508/QALY in China.

scholarly journals Assessment of Clinical and Economic Effectiveness of Alectinib for Patients with ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer without Previous Experience of Targeted Therapy

2019 ◽  
pp. 87-100
Author(s):  
Sergey Vladimirovich Nedogoda ◽  
Alla Sergeevna Salasyuk ◽  
Irina Nikolaevna Barykina ◽  
Victoria Olegovna Smirnova ◽  
Ekaterina Andreevna Popova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
One Year

Aim: to assess economic consequences of alectinib compared with the recommended therapy schemes for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumor expression of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK+) without previous experience of targeted therapy from the Russian healthcare system perspective. Material and methods. Markov model was developed in Microsoft Excel 2010 software for cost calculation. 5-year costs of alectinib, crizotinib and ceritinib were calculated, taking into account the differences in clinical effectiveness and safety of the compared drugs. Data about clinical effectiveness and safety were derived from the network meta-analysis Steenrod A. et al, 2018, where alectinib showed superior effectiveness in the first line of therapy for ALK+ NSCLC vs crizotinib and ceritinib: relative risk (RR) of progression-free survival (PFS) was 0,50 (95% confidence interval 0,36–0,70) and 0,41 (0,25–0,67) respectively. Safety of alectinib in the first line therapy was superior to the safety of ceritinib – RR of severe adverse events (SAE)3–4 grade 0,36 (95% CI 0,17–0,79), – and was comparable with safety of chemotherapy and crizotinib – RR of SAE 3–4 grade 0,81 (95% CI 0,44–1,52) and 0,65 (95% CI 0,51–1,04) respectively. Cost effectiveness analyses and budget impact analysis were conducted from the Russian healthcare system perspective. Results. Cost of one year course of alectinib was 3 431 970 rubles, which was comparable with crizotinib (3 435 405 rub.) and 55% higher than the one-year cost of ceritinib. Cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for alectinib compared with crizotinib, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for alectinib vs crizotinib was 2 735 900 rub., which was 66% lower than ICER for ceritinib vs crizotinib. Given the number of patients eligible for alectinib, it’s impact on State Guarantees Program of Free Medical Care is not much. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results of budget impact assessment are stable. Conclusion. Alectinib is a preferred option for patients with ALK+ NSCLC from economic point of view. It doesn’t have a significant impact on the budget within the State Guarantees Program of Free Medical Care, and also has higher effectiveness compared with crizotinib and ceritinib and better safety when compared with ceritinib.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document