A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Licensed Drugs Used for Previously Treated Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Negative Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

The cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients in China

Background

Iruplinalkib is a second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which is independently developed by a Chinese pharmaceutical company. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in the Chinese healthcare setting.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes. Efficacy was derived using unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature and experts' opinions. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to evaluate the model's robustness.

Results

Treatment with iruplinalkib versus alectinib resulted in a gain of 0.843 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $20,493.27, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24,313.95/QALY. Parameters related to relative efficacy and drug costs were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the PSA, iruplinalkib had a 90% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,863.56/QALY.

Conclusion

Compared to alectinib, iruplinalkib is a cost-effective therapy for patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) was primarily carried out with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and platinum-etoposide (EP). It is likely to be more effective in treating ES-SCLC than EP alone, but could result in high healthcare costs. The study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy for ES-SCLC.

METHODS

We searched literature from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies on cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy for ES-SCLC. The literature search period was up to April 20, 2023. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 16 eligible studies were included in the review. All studies met CHEERS recommendations, and all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in these studies were rated as having low risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The treatment regimens compared were ICIs plus EP or EP alone. All studies mainly used incremental quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes. Most ICIs plus EP treatment regimens were not cost-effective based on corresponding willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Adebrelimab plus EP and serplulimab plus EP were probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in China, and serplulimab plus EP was probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in the U.S. Lowering the price of ICIs and selecting ES-SCLC patients who were sensitive to ICIs could improve the cost-effectiveness of the ICIs-combined treatment.

Cost-benefit analysis of ALK diagnosis vs. non-diagnosis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Spain

Introduction

In recent years, target therapies to specific molecular alterations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been identified and have shown superior efficacy compared to non-targeted treatments. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) is one of the therapeutic targets; nevertheless, ALK diagnosis is not performed in all NSCLC patients in Spain. The objective of this study is to estimate in monetary terms the benefit for the Spanish society of ALK diagnosis in advanced NSCLC patients.

Methods

A cost-benefit analysis of ALK diagnosis vs. non-diagnosis in advanced NSCLC patients was carried out from the Spanish social perspective, with a time horizon of 5 years. Costs, benefits and the cost-benefit ratio were measured. The analysis has considered the overall survival in advanced NSCLC patients treated with the ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) alectinib. The natural history of NSCLC was simulated using a Markov model. A 3% discount rate was applied to both costs and benefits. The result was tested using a deterministic sensitivity analysis.

Results

The cost of ALK diagnosis vs. non-diagnosis in the base case would be €10.19 million, generating benefits of €11.71 million. The cost-benefit ratio would be €1.15. In the sensitivity analysis, the cost-benefit ratio could range from €0.89 to €2.10.

Conclusions

The results justify the universal application of ALK diagnosis in advanced NSCLC, which generates a benefit for Spanish society that outweighs its costs and allows optimal treatment with targeted therapies for these patients.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Lorlatinib in Patients Previously Treated with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Inhibitors for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Greece

Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which accounts for about 80%-85% of lungcancer cases, is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Lorlatinib is a potent third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC previously treated with at least one second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Objective: The present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib vs pemetrexed with platinum combination of carboplatin or cisplatin (P-ChT) in Greece. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states, referring to pre-progression, progressed disease, and death, was locally adapted from a Greek payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Clinical and safety data and utility values applied in the model were extracted from the literature. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of lorlatinib and P-ChT was performed. Only direct medical costs (€) from 2020 were included in the analysis. Primary outcomes were patient life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per QALY and LY gained. All future outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for model uncertainty. Results: The analysis showed that, over a lifetime horizon, the estimated total costs of lorlatinib and P-ChT were €81 754 and €12 343, respectively. Lorlatinib was more effective than P-ChT with 2.4 and 1.5 more LYs and QALYs gained, respectively. The generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of lorlatinib compared with P-ChT were €28 613 per LY gained and €46 102 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the deterministic results. Conclusion: The present analysis suggests that lorlatinib may be considered as a cost-effective option compared with P-ChT in Greece for the treatment of patients with advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC whose disease has progressed after at least one second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor. In addition, this option addresses a significant unmet medical need.

Biased Survival Predictions When Appraising Health Technologies in Heterogeneous Populations

INTRODUCTION

Time-to-event data from clinical trials are routinely extrapolated using parametric models to estimate the cost effectiveness of novel therapies, but how this approach performs in the presence of heterogeneous populations remains unknown.

METHODS

We performed a simulation study of seven scenarios with varying exponential distributions modelling treatment and prognostic effects across subgroup and complement populations, with follow-up typical of clinical trials used to appraise the cost effectiveness of therapies by agencies such as the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). We compared established and emerging methods of estimating population life-years (LYs) using parametric models. We also proved analytically that an exponential model fitted to censored heterogeneous survival times sampled from two distinct exponential distributions will produce a biased estimate of the hazard rate and LYs.

RESULTS

LYs are underestimated by the methods in the presence of heterogeneity, resulting in either under- or overestimation of the incremental benefit. In scenarios where the overestimation of benefit is likely, which is of interest to the healthcare provider, the method of taking the average LYs from all plausible models has the least bias. LY estimates from complete Kaplan-Meier curves have high variation, suggesting mature data may not be a reliable solution. We explore the effect of increasing trial sample size and accounting for detected treatment-subgroup interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

The bias associated with heterogeneous populations suggests that NICE may need to be more cautious when appraising therapies and to consider model averaging or the separate modelling of subgroups when heterogeneity is suspected or detected.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy as a Second- or Third-Line Treatment in Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)-Positive Non-small-cell Lung Cancer in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Lorlatinib is a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with a second-generation ALK inhibitor or with first- and second-generation ALK inhibitors. We examined the cost-effectiveness of second- or third-line+ (2L+ or 3L+) lorlatinib in Sweden, versus chemotherapy.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression free, progressed, or death) was used. Lorlatinib relative efficacy versus chemotherapy was derived using unanchored matching adjusted indirect treatment comparisons from a phase 2 clinical trial. Utility data were derived from the same trial and published studies. Costs (year 2019) were obtained from Swedish national data. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum using a societal perspective (base case). Model robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

For 2L+, the average discounted total quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain was 1.29 years. Total incremental costs were Swedish krona (SEK) 731,791, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 566,278 per QALY gained. Non-discounted survival gain amounted to 1.94 years. For 3L+, the average discounted total QALY gain was 1.25 years. Total incremental costs were SEK 754,801, resulting in an ICER of SEK 603,934 per QALY gained. Non-discounted survival gain was 1.88 years. Sensitivity analyses were consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

ICERs ranged from SEK 421,000 to SEK 384,066 less than the boundary for a cost-effective treatment for a high-severity disease in Sweden (SEK 988,000), suggesting 2L+ or 3L+ lorlatinib is a cost-effective treatment for ALK-positive NSCLC versus chemotherapy.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Licensed Drugs Used for Previously Treated Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Negative Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers. There are many published studies of cost-effectiveness analyses of licensed treatments, but no study has compared these studies or their approaches simultaneously.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the methodology used in published economic analyses of licensed interventions for previously treated advanced/metastatic NSCLC in patients without anaplastic lymphoma kinase or epidermal growth factor receptor expression.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed, including a systematic search of key databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Cost-effectiveness Registry) limited to the period from 01 January 2001 to 26 July 2019. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and quality appraised identified studies. The reporting quality of the studies was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklists.

RESULTS

Thirty-one published records met the inclusion criteria, which corresponded to 30 individual cost-effectiveness analyses. Analytical approaches included partitioned survival models (n = 14), state-transition models (n = 7) and retrospective analyses of new or published data (n = 8). Model structure was generally consistent, with pre-progression, post-progression and death health states used most commonly. Other characteristics varied more widely, including the perspective of analysis, discounting, time horizon, usually to align with the country that the analysis was set in.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a wide range of approaches in the modelling of treatments for advanced NSCLC; however, the model structures are consistent. There is variation in the exploration of sensitivity analyses, with considerable uncertainty remaining in most evaluations. Improved reporting is necessary to ensure transparency in future analyses.