Health state utilities in non-small cell lung cancer: An international study

Cost Effectiveness of Ceritinib and Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib improved survival in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the long-term economic outcomes of using ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib are still unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the Chinese healthcare setting.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with ceritinib, alectinib or crizotinib. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the hazard ratios of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib by pooling published trials. Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. The primary outputs included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Treatment with alectinib and ceritinib yielded an additional 1.00 and 1.09 QALYs and incremental costs of $62,232 and $15,165, resulting in an ICER of $62,231 and $13,905 per QALY compared with crizotinib, respectively. Parameters related to drug costs and progression-free survival were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ceritinib and alectinib had a 99.9% and 0% probability of being cost effective, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28,410/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that compared with crizotinib and alectinib, ceritinib is a cost-effective option for treatment-naïve patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the United States (US) payers' perspective in the first-line treatment.

METHODS

A mathematical Markov model was developed to estimate cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab combination therapy versus carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel alone in the first-line therapy of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the data of IMpower130. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were analyzed, and model robustness was assessed by sensitivity analysis. Additional subgroup analyses were performed as well.

RESULTS

Compared to chemotherapy, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy yields an increase of 0.16 QALYs with an increase in cost of $109,809.13, resulting in an ICER of $670,309.66 per QALY. The most influential factor in this model was the cost of atezolizumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was 0% probability that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) values of $150,000 per QALY. The results of subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained greater than $150,000/QALY across the all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel is not a cost-effective option in patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biomarker-Guided Treatment for Metastatic Gastric Cancer in the Second-Line Setting

BACKGROUND

The 5-year survival rate of patients with metastatic gastric cancer (GC) is only 5%. However, trials have demonstrated promising antitumor activity for targeted therapies/immunotherapies among chemorefractory metastatic GC patients. Pembrolizumab has shown particular efficacy among patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biomarker-guided second-line GC treatment.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov decision-analytic model using clinical trial data. Our model compared pembrolizumab monotherapy and ramucirumab/paclitaxel combination therapy for all patients and pembrolizumab for patients based on MSI status or PD-L1 expression. Paclitaxel monotherapy and best supportive care for all patients were additional comparators. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, follow-up, and management of adverse events were estimated from a US payer perspective. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY over 60 months. Secondary outcomes were unadjusted life years (survival) and costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model uncertainty.

RESULTS

The most effective strategy was pembrolizumab for MSI-H patients and ramucirumab/paclitaxel for all other patients, adding 3.8 months or 2.0 quality-adjusted months compared to paclitaxel. However, this strategy resulted in a prohibitively high ICER of $1,074,620/QALY. The only cost-effective strategy was paclitaxel monotherapy for all patients, with an ICER of $53,705/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Biomarker-based treatments with targeted therapies/immunotherapies for second-line metastatic GC patients substantially improve unadjusted and quality-adjusted survival but are not cost-effective at current drug prices.

Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The economic assessment of immuno-oncology agents in Chinese patients is limited despite a need for new therapies. Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China, and it significantly prolongs overall survival. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab, it is urgent to assess its value in China in terms of both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line setting for NSCLC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model consisting of three health states, was designed to evaluate the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC patients. Clinical data was derived from the CheckMate 078 phase III clinical trial, which included 504 patients predominantly from China. Parametric survival models to fit and extrapolate survival data were chosen based on clinical rationality, visual fit and statistical goodness-of-fit. Lifetime costs and health outcomes were calculated, and US$28,899 and $63,564 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were selected as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values for general regions and affluent regions, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the model. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In base case analysis, Nivolumab yielded an additional 0.24 QALYs, at a cost of $93,307 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the results to be most sensitive to the price of nivolumab per kg (mean $60.00; range $26.00-$60.00) and the mean patient weight (65 kg, range 52-78 kg). Utility values in progression-free survival state (mean 0.804; range 0.643-0.965) and overall survival hazard ratio (0.68; 97.7% CI 0.52-0.90) had moderate impact on the model results. Subgroup analyses indicated that nivolumab was most cost-effective for patients who were 65 years of age or older ($85,171/QALY), followed by female patients ($85,273/QALY) and patients with tumor PD-L1 expression at least 1% ($90,309/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with docetaxel for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC in China. Ensuring that nivolumab is included in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) may be a valid mean of meeting extensive treatment demands in China.

Cost-effectiveness of icotinib versus whole-brain irradiation with or without chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with brain metastases

PURPOSE

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with brain metastases (BM) have a poor prognosis. Despite the traditional methods including radiotherapy and chemotherapy, epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) might benefit patients on survival and quality of life. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of icotinib compared with whole-brain irradiation (WBI) with or without chemotherapy for NSCLC patients with BM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was conducted based on the data of BRAIN trial. We compared the economic benefit between icotinib and the combination of WBI and WBI plus chemotherapy group. We considered disease progression as intracranial progression and overall progression separately. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe the stability of the model. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set as 3× per capita gross domestic product ($25929/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) from the Chinese healthcare perspective.

RESULTS

When considering progression as intracranial progression and overall progression, respectively, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $14 882.64/QALY and $13 484.21/QALY between icotinib and WBI/WBI-chemotherapy. Besides, both of the average cost-effective ratio (ACER) and net benefit showed advantage of icotinib (ACER: $34 521.42/QALY for intracranial progression and $36 562.63/QALY for overall progression; net benefit: -$8407.36 for intracranial progression and -$9836.41 for overall progression). One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that no thresholds were encountered. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed even at a WTP under $18 000/QALY, icotinib could be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Icotinib was cost-effective compared with WBI with or without chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with PD-L1 test for the first-line treatment of NSCLC

Background

Pembrolizumab (Pembro) in combination with chemotherapy has been approved for the treatment of pretreated advanced NSCLC in the United States and China for its significant efficacy. However, the cost‐effectiveness is unknown considering Pembro's high price. The impact of programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) test on the cost‐effectiveness is also unknown. The current study assessed the cost‐effectiveness of combination therapy for nonsquamous NSCLC from the United States and China public payers’ perspective.

Materials and Methods

A literature‐based Markov model was conducted using KEYNOTE‐189 trial data to compare cost and quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) of three treatment strategies for nonsquamous NSCLC: Pembro‐chemotherapy combination and chemotherapy strategy without PD‐L1 test, and treatment strategy according to their PD‐L1 status.

Results

In base case analysis, the combination strategy generated an additional 0.78 QALYs and 0.59 QALYs over chemotherapy in the United States and China respectively, resulting in an ICER of $132 392/QALY in the United States and $92 533/QALY in China. In the PD‐L1 ≥1% base case, the ICERs were $77 754/QALY and $56 768/QALY respectively in the United States and China for PD‐L1 test strategy. In the PD‐L1 ≥50% base case, the ICERs were $44 731/QALY and $34 388/QALY respectively in the United States and China for PD‐L1 test strategy. Lowering Pembro price can also partly decrease the ICERs.

Conclusion

Compared with chemotherapy, the combination strategy is not cost‐effective for the treatment of NSCLC in the American and Chinese health care system at WTP threshold of $100 000/QALY for the United States and $27 351/QALY for China. Using PD‐L1 test for patient selection and price reduction could improve the cost‐effective probabilities of immunotherapy for nonsquamous NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus video assisted thoracic surgery in medically operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A modeling study

OBJECTIVES

Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be treated with either Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) resection. To support decision making, not only the impact on survival needs to be taken into account, but also on quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SBRT to VATS resection with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) lived and costs in operable stage I NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient level and aggregate data from eight Dutch databases were used to estimate costs, health utilities, recurrence free and overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias in these studies. A microsimulation model predicting lifetime outcomes after treatment in stage I NSCLC patients was used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Model outcomes for the two treatments were overall survival, QALYs, and total costs. We used a Dutch health care perspective with 1.5 % discounting for health effects, and 4 % discounting for costs, using 2018 cost data. The impact of model parameter uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Patients receiving either VATS resection or SBRT were estimated to live 5.81 and 5.86 discounted QALYs, respectively. Average discounted lifetime costs in the VATS group were €29,269 versus €21,175 for SBRT. Difference in 90-day excess mortality between SBRT and VATS resection was the main driver for the difference in QALYs. SBRT was dominant in at least 74 % of the probabilistic simulations.

CONCLUSION

Using a microsimulation model to combine available evidence on survival, costs, and health utilities in a cost-effectiveness analysis for stage I NSCLC led to the conclusion that SBRT dominates VATS resection in the majority of simulations.

Combined cancer patient-reported symptom and health utility tool for routine clinical implementation: a real-world comparison of the ESAS and EQ-5D in multiple cancer sites

Background

We assessed whether the presence and severity of common cancer symptoms are associated with the health utility score (hus) generated from the EQ-5D (EuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam, Netherlands) in patients with cancer and evaluated whether it is possible pragmatically to integrate routine hus and symptom evaluation in our cancer population.

Methods

Adult outpatients at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre with any cancer were surveyed cross-sectionally using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (esas) and the EQ-5D-3L, and results were compared using Spearman correlation coefficients and regression analyses.

Results

Of 764 patients analyzed, 27% had incurable disease. We observed mild-to-moderate correlations between each esas symptom score and the hus (Spearman coefficients: -0.204 to -0.416; p < 0.0001 for each comparison), with the strongest associations being those for pain (R = -0.416), tiredness (R = -0.387), and depression (R =-0.354). Multivariable analyses identified pain and depression as highly associated (both p < 0.0001) and tiredness as associated (p = 0.03) with the hus. The ability of the esas to predict the hus was low, at 0.25. However, by mapping esas pain, anxiety, and depression scores to the corresponding EQ-5D questions, we could derive the hus using partial esas data, with Spearman correlations of 0.83-0.91 in comparisons with direct EQ-5D measurement of the hus.

Conclusions

The hus derived from the EQ-5D-3L is associated with all major cancer symptoms as captured by the esas. The esas scores alone could not predict EQ-5D scores with high accuracy. However, esas-derived questions assessing the same domains as the EQ-5D-3L questions could be mapped to their corresponding EQ-5D questions to generate the hus, with high correlation to the directly measured hus. That finding suggests a potential approach to integrating routine symptom and hus evaluations after confirmatory studies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of EGFR Mutation Testing And Afatinib Versus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin As First-Line Therapy For Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer In China

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the combined use of afatinib and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing versus gemcitabine-cisplatin as the first-line treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.

Methods

A decision-analytic model, based on clinical phase III trials, was developed to simulate patient transitions. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 5-year lifetime horizon. Model robustness was conducted in sensitivity analyses.

Results

For the base case, EGFR mutation testing followed by afatinib treatment for advanced NSCLC increased 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy at an additional cost of $5069.12. The ICER for afatinib maintenance was $33,416.39 per QALY gained. The utility of PFS and the cost of afatinib had the most important impact on the ICER. Scenario analyses suggested that when a patient assistance program (PAP) was available, ICER decreased to $22,972.52/QALY lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($26,508/QALY).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that gene-guided maintenance therapy with afatinib with the PAP might be a cost-effective treatment option compared with gemcitabine – cisplatin in China.

First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from China

BACKGROUND

IMpower 133 trial first confirmed the efficacy and safety of adding atezolizumab or placebo to first-line treatment with chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). While, overprice limited its broad use in clinical. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in treatment of extensive SCLC as first line in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was established by extracting data from the IMpower 133 trial with untreated extensive SCLC patients. Utility values were obtained from published studies, and the costs were acquired from real world and literature. Additionally, sensitivity analyses based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold were performed to identify the uncertain parameters of Markov model.

RESULTS

Total costs of atezolizumab group were $48,129, while cost of chemotherapy alone was just $12,920 in placebo group. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in atezolizumab group was just 0.072 higher than that in placebo group (0.858 QALYs vs. 0.786 QALYs). The cost-effectiveness ratio between atezolizumab combination with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone was $489,013/QALY in China. The net benefit of placebo group was significantly higher than atezolizumab group. One-way sensitivity analyses highlighted that utilities of the progression-free survival (PFS) and progression disease state in placebo group were the most influential parameter.

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab combination therapy was not more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone at a WTP threshold of $25,929/QALY in China.

Health Utility Book (HUB)-Cancer: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review of Health State Utility Values in Cancer

Background. Treatment options in oncology are rapidly advancing, and public payer systems are increasingly under pressure to adopt new but expensive cancer treatments. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are used to estimate the relative costs and effects of competing interventions, where health outcomes are measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health state utility values (HSUVs) are used to reflect health-related quality of life or health status in the calculation of QALYs. To support reimbursement agencies in the appraisal of oncology drug submissions, which typically include a CUA component, we have proposed a systematic literature review of published HSUV estimates in the field of oncology. Methods. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and CINAHL. A team of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, will evaluate abstracts and full-text publications for eligibility against broad inclusion criteria. Studies using a direct, indirect, or combination approach to eliciting preferences related to cancer or cancer treatments are eligible. Data extraction will capture details of study methodology, participants, health states, and corresponding HSUVs. We will summarize our findings with descriptive analyses at this stage. A pilot review in thyroid cancer is presented to illustrate the proposed methods. Discussion. This systematic review will generate a comprehensive summary of the oncology HSUV literature. As a component of the Health Utility Book (HUB) project, we anticipate that this work will assist both health economic modelers as well as critical reviewers in the development and appraisal of CUAs in oncology.

Osimertinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost–effectiveness analysis

Aim: Osimertinib improves progression-free survival in first-line EGFR mutation–positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials & methods: A Markov cohort model including costs, utilities and disutilities, was conducted to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost–effectiveness ratio when treating with osimertinib versus standard first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Results: Osimertinib presented higher QALYs (0.61) compared with standard EGFR–TKIs (0.42). Osimertinib costs were €83,258.99, in comparison with €29,209.45 for the standard EGFR–TKIs. An incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of €273,895.36/QALY was obtained for osimertinib. Conclusion: Osimertinib was more effective in terms of QALYs gained than comparators (erlotinib–gefitinib). However, to obtain a cost–effectiveness alternative, a discount greater than 60% in osimertinib acquisition cost is required.

Dynamic Changes of Health Utility in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Different Treatments: A 7-Year Follow-up

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to estimate the utility values of all subtypes of lung cancer. The trajectories after different kinds of treatments and their major determinants were explored on the basis of real-world data and repeated measurements.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2017, all patients with lung cancer who visited a medical center were invited to fill out the EuroQol Five-Dimension and WHO Quality of Life-Brief questionnaires at each visit. Utility values of quality of life (QoL) after diagnosis and treatments were depicted using a kernel smoothing method. We constructed linear mixed models to predict health utility in each time period and cross-validated them with domain scores of the WHO Quality of Life-Brief.

RESULTS

A total of 1715 patients were enrolled, with 6762 QoL measurements. Utility values were lower in patients with advanced-stage disease and older patients. Patients receiving second-line targeted therapy showed higher utility values at 0 to 3 months, 3 to 6 months, and 6 months and beyond (0.89, 0.90, and 0.88, respectively) than did those undergoing chemotherapy (0.81, 0.85, and 0.80, respectively). After using mixed models to control confounders, including poor performance status and disease progression, patients receiving second-line chemotherapy showed health utility similar to that at quasi-baseline, whereas utility values related to second-line targeted therapy were higher at 3 to 6 months and 6 months and beyond (β = 0.07, p = 0.010 and β = 0.07, p < 0.001, respectively). There was convergent validity between the utility values and scores of the physical and psychological domains.

CONCLUSION

Targeted therapy provided treated patients with a higher health utility value than was provided to those treated with chemotherapy. Development of the longitudinal trajectory may help predict changes in QoL and improve the care of lung cancer survivors.

The Impact of Brain Metastases and Associated Neurocognitive Aspects on Health Utility Scores in EGFR Mutated and ALK Rearranged NSCLC: A Real World Evidence Analysis

BACKGROUND

In lung cancer, brain metastases (BM) and their treatment are associated with high economic burden and inferior health-related quality of life. In the era of targeted therapy, real world evidence through health utility scores (HUS) is critical for economic analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective observational cohort study (2014-2016), outpatients with stage IV lung cancer completed demographic and EQ-5D-3L surveys (to derive HUS). Health states and clinicopathologic variables were obtained from chart abstraction. Patients were categorized by the presence or absence of BM; regression analyses identified factors that were associated with HUS. A subset of patients prospectively completed neurocognitive function (NCF) tests and/or the FACT-brain (FACT-Br) questionnaire, which were then correlated with HUS (Spearman coefficients; regression analyses).

RESULTS

Of 519 patients with 1,686 EQ-5D-3L-derived HUS, 94 (18%) completed NCF tests and 107 (21%) completed FACT-Br; 301 (58%) never developed BM, 24 (5%) developed first BM during study period, and 194 (37%) had BM at study entry. The sample was enriched (46%) for EGFR mutations (EGFRm) and ALK-rearrangements (ALKr). There were no HUS differences by BM status overall and in subsets by demographics. In multivariable analyses, superior HUS was associated with having EGFRm/ALKr (p < .0001), no prior radiation for extracranial disease (p < .001), and both intracranial (p = .002) and extracranial disease control (p < .01). HUS correlated with multiple elements of the FACT-Br and tests of NCF.

CONCLUSION

Having BM in lung cancer is not associated with inferior HUS in a population enriched for EGFRm and ALKr. Patients exhibiting disease control and those with oncogene-addicted tumors have superior HUS.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the setting of EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangement non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a diagnosis of brain metastases no longer consigns the patient to an inferior health state suggesting that new economic analyses in NSCLC are needed in the era of targeted therapies. Additionally, the EQ-5D questionnaire is associated with measures of health-related quality of life and neurocognitive scores suggesting this tool should be further explored in prospective clinical studies.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialist oncology centers in France

BACKGROUND

Evidence from clinical trials suggests that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer improves progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS). However, a retrospective analysis of real-world data from the French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (FCCC) through the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) Research Program, suggested that in this setting, the addition of bevacizumab may confer a significant benefit in terms of both PFS and OS. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer at specialist oncology centers in France.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using a three-state Markov model and clinical input data from N = 3426 HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone. The analysis was performed from a third party payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon; future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel led to incremental gain of 0.72 life years and 0.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to paclitaxel alone. The incremental lifetime cost of the addition of bevacizumab was EUR 27,390, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 56,721 per QALY gained for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone. In a subgroup of triple negative patients the ICER was EUR 66,874 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis indicated that the combination of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is likely to be cost-effective compared with paclitaxel alone for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialized oncology centers in France.

Evidence-based sizing of non-inferiority trials using decision models

Background

There are significant challenges to the successful conduct of non-inferiority trials because they require large numbers to demonstrate that an alternative intervention is “not too much worse” than the standard. In this paper, we present a novel strategy for designing non-inferiority trials using an approach for determining the appropriate non-inferiority margin (δ), which explicitly balances the benefits of interventions in the two arms of the study (e.g. lower recurrence rate or better survival) with the burden of interventions (e.g. toxicity, pain), and early and late-term morbidity.

Methods

We use a decision analytic approach to simulate a trial using a fixed value for the trial outcome of interest (e.g. cancer incidence or recurrence) under the standard intervention (p_S) and systematically varying the incidence of the outcome in the alternative intervention (p_A). The non-inferiority margin, p_A – p_S = δ, is reached when the lower event rate of the standard therapy counterbalances the higher event rate but improved morbidity burden of the alternative. We consider the appropriate non-inferiority margin as the tipping point at which the quality-adjusted life-years saved in the two arms are equal.

Results

Using the European Polyp Surveillance non-inferiority trial as an example, our decision analytic approach suggests an appropriate non-inferiority margin, defined here as the difference between the two study arms in the 10-year risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, of 0.42% rather than the 0.50% used to design the trial. The size of the non-inferiority margin was smaller for higher assumed burden of colonoscopies.

Conclusions

The example demonstrates that applying our proposed method appears feasible in real-world settings and offers the benefits of more explicit and rigorous quantification of the various considerations relevant for determining a non-inferiority margin and associated trial sample size.

Cost-utility of afatinib and gefitinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Aim: To evaluate the cost-utility of gefitinib and afatinib as first-line EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer treatments from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Materials & methods: A Markov model was established, state transition probabilities were extracted from the LUX-Lung7 trial and utility values were from previous studies. The cost was extracted from local charge or relevant literature. Incremental cost–effectiveness ratio was calculated for intention-to-treat, EGFR exon 19 deletion (del19) and exon Leu858Arg (21L858R, L858R) muation subgroups.  Results: For the entire population, the afatinib regimen afforded additional 0.29 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost–effectiveness ratios were US$9820.41/QALY, US$18,529.65/QALY and US$1585.51/QALY for intention-to-treat, L858R and del19, respectively. Conclusion: First-line afatinib was more cost–effective than gefitinib for EFGR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China.

A Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone for Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in China

BACKGROUND

The first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy resulted in a clinical efficacy for Chinese patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Some economic analyses have carried out various methods to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab as the first-line treatment for NSCLC in other countries. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone for the first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

METHODS

A Markov model was applied from the perspective of the Chinese health care system to assess cost-effectiveness. It was based on the clinical trial BEYOND that compared bevacizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (B+CP) with placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (PI+CP) for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Ten-year quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed.

RESULTS

QALYs were 1.17 years in the B+CP group and 0.83 years in the PI+CP group, resulting in a difference of 0.34 years. The ICER was $130,937.09/QALY, which was far beyond the willing-to-pay threshold of $24,314/QALY. At a threshold of $130,584/QALY, addition of bevacizumab had a 50% probability of being cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Bevacizumab is not cost-effective when combined with chemotherapy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC based on the Chinese health care system, resulting in a less demand in the Chinese market.

Disease severity-based evaluation of utility weights for lung cancer-related health states in Korea

BACKGROUND

Utility weight, a measure of health-related quality of life, is used in disease burden measurements and economic evaluations. In this study, we used the visual analogue scale (VAS) and standard gamble (SG) method to determine the utility weights of lung cancer health states in South Korea from a societal perspective.

METHODS

Six hypothetical health states for lung cancer or a related health state reflective of disease severity were developed: 1) Stage I, 2) Stage II, 3) Stage IIIa, 4) Stage IIIB, 5) Stage IV, and 6) Pulmonary nodule. The description of each health state description was divided into four parts: diagnosis, symptoms, treatment, and progression and prognosis. A total of 515 representative adult Korean participants used a VAS and SG to evaluate these six health states via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. The means, standard deviations, and median utility weights of the six health states were estimated by valuation method.

RESULTS

The two valuation methods of the scenarios yielded the same mean utility rankings. Pulmonary nodule received the highest rank (VAS, 0.66 and SG, 0.83), whereas Stage 4 was assigned the lowest rank (VAS, 0.09 and SG, 0.31). For all health states, the mean utility weights calculated using the SG were greater than those calculated using the VAS. The differences between the utility weights obtained using the two valuation methods ranged from 0.14 (Stage I) to 0.22 (Stage IV). The two approaches tended to yield larger differences for more severe stages.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined utilities for squamous cell lung cancer that will be useful for estimating the burden of lung cancer and for conducting economic evaluations of lung cancer interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of ALK testing and first-line crizotinib therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement gene testing is used increasingly to identify patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are most likely to benefit from crizotinib. This study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the ALK tests followed by crizotinib compared to the standard chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A 10-year Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of crizotinib with standard chemotherapy, guided by the ALK rearrangement tests: next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel tests and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The health states included progression-free survival (PFS), progressed survival, and death. The costs examined included cost of drugs (pemetrexed, standard chemotherapy, salvage chemotherapy, and crizotinib), follow-up, palliative care, supportive care, severe adverse events, and ALK rearrangement testing.

RESULTS

Under Patient Assistance Program (PAP), the model demonstrated that the patients using NGS panel tests spent US $31,388 and gained 0.780 QALYs, whereas patients using multiplex PCR spent US $31,362 and gained 0.780 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of crizotinib with PAP compared to the control strategy were projected at $14,384 (NGS) and $13,740 (multiplex PCR) per QALY gained, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed the utility of PFS and the costs of crizotinib and pemetrexed were the most impactful factors on the model outcomes. The results were robust to changes in all parameters.

CONCLUSION

ALK-rearrangement test positive followed by crizotinib may be cost-effective compared to standard chemotherapy from the Chinese healthcare system perspective when PAP was available.

Cost-Effectiveness of Osimertinib in Treating Newly Diagnosed, Advanced EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess cost and effectiveness of osimertinib in treating newly diagnosed advanced non-small cell lung cancer with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation from a public payer's perspective in the U.S. and China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Markov models were developed to compare three treatment strategies: first-line use of osimertinib, first-line use of the standard first-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) followed by the second-line use of osimertinib, and the standard first-generation EGFR-TKI therapy (standard care [SOC]). Clinical data, cost, and utility data were mainly derived from published literatures. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) between the treatments.

RESULTS

The resultant incremental cost per QALY gained for the first-line osimertinib versus SOC was $312,903 in the U.S. and $41,512 in China. The incremental cost per QALY for the second-line osimertinib versus SOC was $284,532 in the U.S. and $38,860 in China. The probability of the SOC strategy being cost-effective is 1.0 if the willingness to pay threshold is below $150,000/QALY in the U.S. and below $30,000/QALY in China.

CONCLUSION

Osimertinib as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits in comparison with standard EGFR-TKIs or second-line use of osimertinib. However, because of the high cost of treatment, the cost-effectiveness analyses were not in favor of the first-line use of osimertinib from a public payer's perspective in the U.S. and China.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Osimertinib as first-line treatment yielded the greatest health outcomes but is not a cost-effective strategy for lung cancer in the U.S. and China. The price of osimertinib has a substantial impact on economic outcomes.

Systematic review of health state utility values in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with a focus on previously treated patients

BACKGROUND

Health state utility values (HSUVs) are an important input to economic evaluations and the choice of HSUV can affect the estimate of relative cost-effectiveness between interventions. This systematic review identified utility scores for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), as well as disutilities or utility decrements relevant to the experience of patients with mNSCLC, by treatment line and health state.

METHODS

The MEDLINE®, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched (September 2016) for publications describing HSUVs in mNSCLC in any treatment line. The EQ-5D website, the School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database (ScHARRHUD) and major pharmacoeconomic and clinical conferences in 2015-2016 were also queried. Studies in adults with previously treated mNSCLC were selected for further analysis. The information extracted included study design, description of treatment and health state, respondent details, instrument and tariff, HSUV or (dis) utility decrement estimates, quality of study, and appropriateness for use in economic evaluations.

RESULTS

Of 1883 references identified, 36 publications of 34 studies were included: 19 reported EQ-5D scores; eight reported HSUVs from valuations of vignettes made by members of the public using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO); two reported SG or TTO directly elicited from patients; two reported EQ-5D visual analogue scale scores only; one reported Assessment of Quality of Life instrument scores; one reported HSUVs for caregivers to patients with mNSCLC using the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey; and one estimated HSUVs based on expert opinion. The range of HSUVs identified for comparable health states showed how differences in study type, tariff, health state and the measures used can drive variation in HSUV estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a set of published HSUVs that are relevant to the experience of adult patients previously treated for mNSCLC. Our review begins to address the challenge of identifying reliable estimates of utility values in mNSCLC that are suitable for use in economic evaluations, and also highlights how varying estimates result from differences in methodology.

Health state utilities in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China

AIM

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a leading global health threat that impairs patient health outcomes. Health state utilities are fundamental values in economic evaluation and significantly vary across countries. Given the scarce data on the Chinese population, the current study measured utility values in the Chinese patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a cross-sectional survey of patients with advanced NSCLC at the Shanghai Chest Hospital. Utility values were assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) instrument and scored based on the Chinese-specific value algorithm. Predictors of utility values were examined using a subgroup analysis and a multiple regression model.

RESULTS

The mean EQ-5D utility value of recruited patients was 0.814. The regression analysis revealed that tumor stage, treatment regimen and line of therapy were the potential predictors of utility values.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the Chinese-specific health utility data for advanced NSCLC using the EQ-5D.