Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib as a Second-line Treatment in Patients With EGFR-mutated Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

QALY-type preference and willingness-to-pay among end-of-life patients with cancer treatments: a pilot study using discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a dominant measurement of health gain in economic evaluations for pricing drugs. However, end-of-life (EoL) patients' preference for QALY gains in life expectancy (LE) and quality of life (QoL) during different disease stages remains unknown and is seldom involved in decision-making. This study aims to measure preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) towards different types of QALY gain among EoL cancer patients.

METHODS

We attributed QALY gain to four types, gain in LE and QoL, respectively, and during both progression-free survival (PFS) and post-progression survival (PPS). A discrete choice experiment including five attributes (the four QALY attributes and one cost attribute) with three levels each was developed and conducted with 85 Chinese advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in 2022. All levels were set with QALY gain/cost synthesised from research on anti-lung cancer drugs recently listed by Chinese National Healthcare Security Administration. Each respondent answered six choice tasks in a face-to-face interview. The data were analysed using mixed logit models.

RESULTS

Patients valued LE-related QALY gain in PFS most, with a relative importance of 81.8% and a WTP of $43,160 [95% CI 26,751 ~ 59,569] per QALY gain. Respondents consistently preferred LE-related to QoL-related QALY gain regardless of disease stage. Patients with higher income or lower education levels tended to pay more for QoL-related QALY gain.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a prioritised resource allocation to EoL-prolonging health technologies. Given the small sample size and large individual heterogeneity, a full-scale study is needed to provide more robust results.

Effectiveness and safety of the bevacizumab and erlotinib combination versus erlotinib alone in EGFR mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The EGFR gene encodes a protein that stimulates molecular pathways that allow the growth and development of the tumor microenvironment. The current preferred tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the first-line treatment of EGFRm metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is osimertinib. However, the combination of angiogenesis inhibitors and TKI has produced discordant results. We aimed to assess the effects of the bevacizumab and erlotinib combination in EGFRm metastatic NSCLC.

Methods

Using eligibility criteria focused on patients with EGFRm metastatic NSCLC treated with bevacizumab and erlotinib, we searched databases including clinical trial randomized studies and reviews published until April 15, 2023 in Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and Embase. Eight clinical trials (1,052 patients) were selected from 1,343 articles for quantitative and qualitative assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data were synthesized through random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

The bevacizumab and erlotinib combination significantly improved the progression-free survival (PFS) (log(HR) = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54-0.73, p < 0.001) and overall response ratio (ORR) (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97, p = 0.03). However, it did not improve the overall survival (log(HR) = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.10, p = 0.38) and was associated with higher serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 3.48; 95% CI, 1.76-6.88, p = 0.005). A subgroup analysis suggested similar benefits in different mutation subtypes and brain metastasis condition. The evidence is limited by a moderate risk of bias across studies and heterogeneity in the reporting of SAEs.

Conclusions

The bevacizumab and erlotinib combination significantly improved PFS and ORR in EGFRm metastatic NSCLC but were also associated with higher-grade (≥3) adverse events. These results suggest that while the combination therapy may enhance progression-free survival and overall response, it does not improve the overall survival and is associated with higher toxicity. Thus, the treatment should be personalized based on individual patient comorbidities. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, identifier CDR 42022364692.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The increasingly widespread of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the field of antitumors has brought a new dawn for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC). However, the choice of treatment needs to be supported by economic evaluation. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness comparison of first-line durvalumab or pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) treatment of aBTC was explored from the perspective of American and Chinese healthcare systems.

METHODS

Ground on the TOPAZ-1 and KEYNOTE-966 trials, the Markov model with a 15-year horizon including three health states to imitate cost and effective outcomes was established. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100 000/QALY and $37 408/ALY in the USA and China was used as the most important indicator. Other endpoint indexes included total cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). To verify the robustness, sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Durvalumab plus GemCis ($322 211 [2.94 QALYs] and $35 695 [2.76 QALYs]) increased cost (effectiveness) by $63 777 (.22 QALYs) and $5234 (.20 QALYs) than pembrolizumab plus GemCis ($258 434 [2.72 QALYs] and $30 461 [2.56 QALYs]) in the USA and China, respectively. The corresponding ICER was $288 725/QALY and $26 401/QALY, with INHB of -.42 and .06 QALYs, respectively. The cost of ICIs was the most important factor influencing results.

CONCLUSIONS

In China, first-line durvalumab plus GemCis versus pembrolizumab plus GemCis was a cost-effective option for patients with aBTC, but not in the USA.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for biliary tract cancer

Objective

The TOPAZ-1 trial reported a significant survival benefit of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, no studies have evaluated the economics of this treatment option. The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of durvalumab plus chemotherapy compared to placebo plus chemotherapy from the perspective of US and Chinese payers.

Methods

Based on clinical data from the TOPAZ-1 trial, a Markov model was developed to simulate 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with BTC. The treatment group received durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy and the control group received placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary outcomes analyzed included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty in the analysis results was assessed by sensitivity analysis.

Results

For US payers, the placebo plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $56,157.05 and a utility of 1.10 QALYs, while the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $217,069.25, a utility of 1.52 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $381,864.39/QALY. For Chinese payers, the ICER of durvalumab plus chemotherapy group was $367,608.51/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that the analysis was most sensitive to the price of durvalumab. For US and Chinese payers, under the respective willing to pay thresholds, the likelihood of the durvalumab plus chemotherapy arm being cost-effective was 0%.

Conclusions

Both in China and in the US, durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective option for the first-line treatment of BTC compared with chemotherapy.

Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list

PURPOSE

To assess the reporting quality of published economic evaluations of the negotiated oncology drugs listed for China's 2020 National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in China's 2020 NRDL using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, and WanFang Database up to March 31, 2021. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist scored the reporting quality between 0 and 100. A linear regression analysis was employed to examine the influence of various characteristics on the reporting quality scores.

RESULTS

Eighty papers were included in the study, with the majority published during the past decade. Furthermore, more than half of the articles (57.5%, or 46 out of 80) were written in English. The average CHEERS score was 74.63 ± 12.75 and ranged from 43.48 to 93.75. The most inadequately reported items included choice of model, characterization of heterogeneity, and discussion, as well as currency, price date and conversion. Higher scores were associated with articles published from 2019 to 2021 and English publications.

CONCLUSION

The economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in 2020 NRDL had moderate reporting quality. The Chinese economic evaluation publications could improve the reporting quality if the CHEERS checklist is consistently implemented. Also, the Chinese journals maybe explore introducing a reporting standard for economic evaluations.

Osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in patients with previously treated EGFR T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer: An updated AURA3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

A recently overall survival (OS) analysis from the AURA3 trial indicated that osimertinib improves median OS versus platinum-pemetrexed for patients with previously treated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of second-line osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, from the perspectives of the United States payer and the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in second-line treatment of EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC. Life years (LYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was examined in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and central nervous system (CNS) metastases population.

Results

In the United States, compared with platinum-pemetrexed, osimertinib yielded additional effectiveness of 0.43 QALYs and -0.12 QALYs, with incremental costs of $67,588 and $16,465 in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. The ICERs of osimertinib over platinum-pemetrexed were $159,126/QALY and $-130,830/QALY, respectively. The probability of osimertinib being cost-effective was 37% and 5.76%, respectively, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. In China, osimertinib showed incremental effectiveness of 0.34 QALYs and -0.14 QALYs, with incremental costs of $1,663 and $-505, resulting in ICERs of $4,950/QALY and $3,754/QALY in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. At the WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, there was a 100% and 26% likelihood that osimertinib was cost-effective in the ITT population and CNS metastases population.

Conclusion

In the United States, second-line osimertinib treatment for EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC is not cost-effective compared to platinum-pemetrexed under the current WTP threshold. When the osimertinib price reduces, the economic outcome may become favorable. In China, assuming a WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, osimertinib is the dominant treatment strategy compared with platinum-pemetrexed in the ITT population and provides cost savings for CNS metastases patients.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China

Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the outcomes and direct medical costs of osimertinib or standard EGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. Individual patient survival data were extracted from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial. Clinical costs and utilities’ input estimates were collected from the local hospital and available literature reports. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net health benefit (INHB) were calculated for the two treatment strategies over a 10-year lifetime horizon. In addition, one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model.

Results: On baseline analysis, osimertinib achieved additional 0.39 QALYs and $15,443.78 incremental costs compared with standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib), which resulted in the ICER of $39,369.53/QALY. The INMB was -$755.11, and the INHB was -0.02 QALYs at a WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of PFS had the strongest association with the ICER. Osimertinib had approximately 46.4% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY.

Conclusion: First-line osimertinib therapy might not be cost-effective in China for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC compared with standard EGFR-TKI based on its current marketed price. A significantly more favorable cost-effectiveness could be achieved when the price of osimertinib was reduced by 5%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of personalised versus standard dosimetry for selective internal radiation therapy with TheraSphere in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Aims

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing personalised dosimetry with standard dosimetry in the context of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with TheraSphere for the management of adult patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the Italian Healthcare Service perspective.

Materials and methods

A partition survival model was developed to project costs and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were retrieved from a published randomised controlled trial. Health resource utilisation inputs were extracted from the questionnaires administered to clinicians in three oncology centres in Italy, respectively. Cost parameters were based on Italian official tariffs.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, the model estimated the average QALYs of 1.292 and 0.578, respectively, for patients undergoing personalised and standard dosimetry approaches. The estimated mean costs per patient were €23,487 and €19,877, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of personalised versus standard dosimetry approaches was €5,056/QALY.

Conclusions

Personalised dosimetry may be considered a cost-effective option compared to standard dosimetry for patients undergoing SIRT for HCC in Italy. These findings provide evidence for clinicians and payers on the value of personalised dosimetry as a treatment option for patients with HCC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Donafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of donafenib compared to sorafenib and lenvatinib as first-line treatments for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of donafenib, sorafenib, and lenvatinib for advanced HCC. The key clinical data of these targeted therapies were assessed through a network meta-analysis. The cost and health utilities were mainly collected from the literature. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were the primary outcomes. Model uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

For health outcomes, donafenib gained the highest QALYs among the three treatments, followed by lenvatinib and sorafenib (1.106, 0.999, and 0.915 QALYs, respectively). For cost, donafenib was the cheapest option, followed by sorafenib and lenvatinib ($42,116, $43,193, and $44,261). The PSA indicated that the probability of being cost-effective for donafenib was 86.98% and 93.56% when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were one and three times the gross domestic product per capita in China, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses also found the results to be robust.

CONCLUSION

Compared to sorafenib and lenvatinib, donafenib was likely to be a cost-effective treatment with the highest QALYs and the lowest cost for patients with advanced HCC in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of 12 First-Line Treatments for Patients With Advanced EGFR Mutated NSCLC in the United Kingdom and China

Background

Lung cancer is imposing significant pressure on the national health insurance system worldwide, especially under the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the cost-effectiveness of all available first-line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 first-line treatments for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC from the perspective of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service and Chinese health care system.

Methods

We used a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 12 treatments, including 6 EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 4 combination treatments and 2 chemotherapies. The key clinical efficacy and safety data were from a network meta-analysis. The cost and health preference were mainly collected from the literature. The most cost-effective treatment was inferred through a sequential analysis. Uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20000 to £50000 and £8000 to £24000 per QALY in the UK and China respectively.

Results

For clinical effectiveness, osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT) yielded the highest QALYs, while two chemotherapy treatments gained the lowest QALYs. For costs, gefitinib treatment was the cheapest option in both countries (£24529 in the UK and £12961 in China). For cost-effectiveness, 4 treatments including gefitinib, gefitinib plus pemetrexed, gefitinib plus PbCT, and osimertinib formed the cost-effectiveness frontier in both countries. Gefitinib alone (70.7% and 80.0% under the threshold of £20000 and £8000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) and gefitinib plus PbCT (62.3% and 71.2% under the threshold of £50000 and £24000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) were most likely to be cost-effective compared with other first-line treatments.

Conclusions

Gefitinib and gefitinib plus PbCT were likely to be cost-effective for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC in both countries.

Chemo-Immunotherapy Regimes for Recurrent or Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Introduction: In 2021, two phase III clinical trials confirmed that toripalimab or camrelizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (TGP or CGP) provide more benefits in the first-line treatment of R/M NPC than GP. Fortunately, TGP and CGP were recently approved as first-line treatments for cases experiencing R/M NPC by the China National Medical Products Administration in 2021. However, due to the high cost and variety of treatment options, the promotion of chemo-immunotherapeutics in the treatment of R/M NPC remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness assessment of the two newly approved treatment strategies to assess which treatments provide the greatest clinical benefits at a reasonable cost.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis and network meta-analysis network meta-analysis was conducted based on the JUPITER-02 and CAPTAIN-first Phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A Markov model was expanded for the evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of TGP, CGP, and GP chemotherapy with a 10-years horizon and measured the health achievements in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and life-years (LYs). We constructed a treatment strategy and other parameters based on two clinical trials and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity experiments for the evaluation of the uncertainty in the model.

Results: For the model of patients with treatment-R/M NPC, TGP was associated with a total cost of $48,525 and 2.778 QALYs (4.991 LYs), leading to an ICER of $15,103 per QALY ($10,321 per LY) compared to CGP. On comparing the GP chemotherapy, we found TGP and CGP incurred substantial health costs, resulting in ICERs of $19,726 per QALY and $20,438 per QALY, respectively. The risk of adverse events (AEs) and the price of the drugs had significant impacts on the ICER. At the assumed willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $35,673 per QALY, there were approximately 75.8 and 68.5% simulations in which cost-effectiveness was achieved for TGP and CGP, respectively.

Conclusion: From the Chinese payer’s perspective, TGP is more possible to be a cost-effective regimen compared with CGP and GP for first-line treatment of patients with R/M NPC at a WTP threshold of $35,673 per QALY.

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Chinese Patients With Advanced Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Two targeted drugs (apatinib and lenvatinib) show clinical efficacy in first-line treatment of Chinese patients with radioactive advanced iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR-DTC) and are recommended by the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. Considering the high clinical cost of long-term vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor administration and to determine which of the two targeted drugs is preferable, we opted to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and network meta-analysis (NMA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The results of NMA and CEA included in the two phase III randomized clinical trials REALITY (NCT03048877) and Study-308 (NCT02966093), in which Bayesian NMA and CEA were performed on 243 and 149 Chinese patients, respectively, were retrieved. Overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) for apatinib versus lenvatinib were determined by NMA. CEA involved the development of a 20-year Markov model to obtain the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and this was followed by sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with lenvatinib, apatinib therapy provided a 0.837 improvement in QALY and $6,975 reduction in costs. The hazard ratio of apatinib versus lenvatinib and the cost of the targeted drugs had a significant impact on the model. According to the sensitivity analysis, apatinib was more cost-effective and had no correlation with willingness-to-pay in China. Subgroup analysis showed that apatinib maintained PFS more economically.

CONCLUSION

NMA and CEA demonstrated that apatinib was more cost-effective compared to lenvatinib in the first-line treatment of Chinese RAIR-DTC patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Pemetrexed and Platinum Versus Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment in Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Reconstruction of Partitioned Survival Model Based on Time Dependent Pricing Mechanism of Patient Assistance Program

Objectives

A new patient assistance program (PAP) for pembrolizumab was started in China in 2021. The researchers aimed to evaluate the economic outcomes of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and platinum versus chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, based on the pricing mechanism of PAP.

Material and Methods

Survival analysis and partitioned survival model were performed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the pembrolizumab group compared with the chemotherapy group. Survival probabilities were extracted from the data of the KEYNOTE-189 trial. Cost and utility data were gathered from published literature. The pricing mechanism of PAP was set in each cycle in the partitioned survival model, according to the progression-free survival (PFS) data of the KEYNOTE-189 trial, which included PFS-1 and PFS-2. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted.

Results

The ICER of the pembrolizumab group versus chemotherapy group was $65,272/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which still exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China ($33,581.22), although PAP was calculated. Sensitivity analysis implied that the price of chemotherapeutic drugs combined with pembrolizumab was one of the main influencing factors of ICER.

Conclusions

Due to various prices set by PAP and the payment for combined chemotherapy, the economic advantage of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still not achieved in China.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The most common type of lung cancer is advanced and mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have reconstructed the care of these patients, the resistance of TKIs to the secondary EGFR-T790M mutation in advanced or metastatic NSCLC led to the introduction of the third generation of them, like osimertinib. Osimertinib has represented a remarkable increase in progression-free survival (PFS) and a decrease in death and hazard ratios in patients with required T790 mutation and sensitizing EGFR mutation without T790M. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the treatment of these patients compared to chemotherapy or immunotherapy with the last generations of EGFR-TKIs.

AREAS COVERED

Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, , Web of Knowledge, NHSEED, NHS Health Technology assessment (CRD), and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases. Related articles were reviewed from January 2015 to the end of August 2020. Out of 2708 initial studies, 10 articles had the inclusion criteria.

EXPERT OPINION

Although osimertinib improves the quality of life and PFS for the mentioned patients based on its greater efficacy compared to standard EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy, its high cost prevents considering it a cost-effective option. And, since most entered studies have been done in developed countries, it certainly does not true to extend these results to low-income and developing countries. Therefore, further studies in those countries are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for sensitizing EGFR mutation without T790M and required T790M in advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Durvalumab consolidation therapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer after concurrent chemoradiation: a China-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in post-chemoradiotherapy patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

The study developed a five-health state Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab consolidation therapy in post-chemoradiotherapy patients based on the PACIFIC clinical trial. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Durvalumab consolidation therapy provided an additional 1.22 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an incremental cost of $24,397 compared to no consolidation therapy in unselected patients. Durvalumab consolidation therapy was cost-effective as it yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $20,000 per QALY gained at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $31,494 per QALY. In the patient subgroup with PD-L1-expressing tumors (≥1%), durvalumab was associated with an ICER of $33,058/QALY, resulting in a slight skewing away from the given cost-effectiveness threshold. The sensitivity analysis showed that ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of durvalumab, the cost of pembrolizumab, and the body weight of patients, regardless of PD-L1 expression selection.

CONCLUSION

Durvalumab consolidation therapy is likely to be cost-effective in China, which indicates that expensive immunotherapies can gain clinical benefits at a justifiable cost in developing countries as well.

Cost-effectiveness of precision diagnostic testing for precision medicine approaches against non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review

Precision diagnostic testing (PDT) employs appropriate biomarkers to identify cancer patients that may optimally respond to precision medicine (PM) approaches, such as treatments with targeted agents and immuno-oncology drugs. To date, there are no published systematic appraisals evaluating the cost-effectiveness of PDT in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To address this gap, we conducted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses searches for the years 2009-2019. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards were employed to screen, assess and extract data. Employing base costs, life years gained or quality-adjusted life years, as well as willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for each country, net monetary benefit was calculated to determine cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Thirty-seven studies (50%) were included for analysis; a further 37 (50%) were excluded, having failed population-, intervention-, comparator-, outcomes- and study-design criteria. Within the 37 studies included, we defined 64 scenarios. Eleven scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with non-guided therapy [epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), n = 5; programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), n = 6]. Twenty-eight scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with chemotherapy alone (anaplastic lymphoma kinase, n = 3; EGFR, n = 17; PD-L1, n = 8). Twenty-five scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with chemotherapy alone, while varying the PDT approach. Thirty-four scenarios (53%) were cost-effective, 28 (44%) were not cost-effective, and two were marginal, dependent on their country's WTP threshold. When PDT-guided therapy was compared with a therapy-for-all patients approach, all scenarios (100%) proved cost-effective. Seven of 37 studies had been structured appropriately to assess PDT-PM cost-effectiveness. Within these seven studies, all evaluated scenarios were cost-effective. However, 81% of studies had been poorly designed. Our systematic analysis implies that more robust health economic evaluation could help identify additional approaches towards PDT cost-effectiveness, underpinning value-based care and enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib vs Docetaxel-bevacizumab in Third-line Treatment in EGFR T790M Resistance Mutation Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China from the perspective of the health care system.

METHODS

To explore modeling uncertainty, 2 different model methods (a Markov model and a partitioned survival [PS] model) were developed to simulate costs and health outcomes during a lifetime. Both models consisted of 3 health states: progression-free survival, postprogression survival, and death. Efficacy and safety data of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in patients who had acquired EGFR T790M resistance mutation were derived from a key head-to-head clinical trial. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges, the literature, the China Drug Bidding Database, and patients' health care documents. Two scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the results.

FINDINGS

In the Markov model, compared with docetaxel and bevacizumab, osimertinib yielded 0.69 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an additional cost (in US dollars) of $17,311 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $25,463 per QALY. In the PS model, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.69 QALYs with an incremental cost of $17,827 for an ICUR of $25,951 per QALY. From the Markov model, the ICUR was $29,416 per QALY in scenario 1 and $25,543 per QALY in scenario 2. From the PS model, the ICUR was $30,264 per QALY and $25,947 per QALY for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, osimertinib treatment had a 21%-63% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $9777 to $29,330 per QALY (1-3 times the gross domestic product per capita).

IMPLICATIONS

The findings from the present analysis suggest that osimertinib could be cost-effective vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.