Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer

Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

First-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to osimertinib, according to the FLAURA2 trial.

METHODS

We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib plus chemotherapy with that of osimertinib alone. Clinical data were obtained from the FLAURA and FLAURA2 trials, and additional data were extracted from online resources and publications. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. We used A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The main outcomes were QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and incremental net health benefit. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to patients' mutation type and central nervous system (CNS) metastatic status.

RESULTS

In a 20-year time horizon, the ICER of osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib alone was $223,727.1 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses identified the cost of osimertinib and the hazard ratio for overall survival as the top 2 influential factors and a 1.9% probability of osimertinib plus chemotherapy to be cost-effective. The subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $132,614.1, $224,449.8, $201,464.1, and $130,159.7 per QALY gained for L858R mutations, exon 19 deletions, CNS metastases, and no CNS metastases subgroups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the United States health care system, osimertinib plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective compared to osimertinib alone for treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, but more favorable cost-effectiveness occurs in patients with L858R mutations and patients without baseline CNS metastases.

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.

The Smokers Health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) Trial: Study Design and Results of the Baseline Round

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality in high-risk subjects. Cigarette smoking is linked to up to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Even more so, it is a key risk factor for many other cancers and cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of an integrated program based on the early detection of smoking-related thoraco-cardiovascular diseases in high-risk subjects, combined with primary prevention. A new multi-component screening design was utilized to strengthen the framework on conventional lung cancer screening programs. We report here the study design and the results from our baseline round, focusing on oncological findings.

METHODS

High-risk subjects were defined as being >55 years of age and active smokers or formers who had quit within 15 years (>30 pack/y). A PLCOm2012 threshold >2% was chosen. Subject outreach was streamlined through media campaign and general practitioners' engagement. Eligible subjects, upon written informed consent, underwent a psychology consultation, blood sample collection, self-evaluation questionnaire, spirometry, and LDCT scan. Blood samples were analyzed for pentraxin-3 protein levels, interleukins, microRNA, and circulating tumor cells. Cardiovascular risk assessment and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring were performed. Direct and indirect costs were analyzed focusing on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years gained in different scenarios. Personalized screening time-intervals were determined using the "Maisonneuve risk re-calculation model", and a threshold <0.6% was chosen for the biennial round.

RESULTS

In total, 3228 subjects were willing to be enrolled. Out of 1654 eligible subjects, 1112 participated. The mean age was 64 years (M/F 62/38%), with a mean PLCOm2012 of 5.6%. Former and active smokers represented 23% and 77% of the subjects, respectively. At least one nodule was identified in 348 subjects. LDCTs showed no clinically significant findings in 762 subjects (69%); thus, they were referred for annual/biennial LDCTs based on the Maisonneuve risk (mean value = 0.44%). Lung nodule active surveillance was indicated for 122 subjects (11%). Forty-four subjects with baseline suspicious nodules underwent a PET-FDG and twenty-seven a CT-guided lung biopsy. Finally, a total of 32 cancers were diagnosed, of which 30 were lung cancers (2.7%) and 2 were extrapulmonary cancers (malignant pleural mesothelioma and thymoma). Finally, 25 subjects underwent lung surgery (2.25%). Importantly, there were zero false positives and two false negatives with CT-guided biopsy, of which the patients were operated on with no stage shift. The final pathology included lung adenocarcinomas (69%), squamous cell carcinomas (10%), and others (21%). Pathological staging showed 14 stage I (47%) and 16 stage II-IV (53%) cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCTs continue to confirm their efficacy in safely detecting early-stage lung cancer in high-risk subjects, with a negligible risk of false-positive results. Re-calculating the risk of developing lung cancer after baseline LDCTs with the Maisonneuve model allows us to optimize time intervals to subsequent screening. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial offers solid support for policy assessments by policymakers. We trust that this will help in developing guidelines for the large-scale implementation of lung cancer screening, paving the way for better outcomes for lung cancer patients.

Economic burden of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: an assessment of healthcare resource utilization and medical costs

Aim: To quantify the economic burden of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) among patients with and without adjuvant therapy. Methods: All-cause and NSCLC-related healthcare resource utilization and medical costs were assessed among patients with resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC in the SEER-Medicare database (1 January 2011-31 December 2019), from NSCLC diagnosis to death, end of continuous enrollment, or end of data availability (whichever occurred first). Results: Patients receiving adjuvant therapy had the lowest mean NSCLC-related medical costs (adjuvant [n = 1776]: $3738; neoadjuvant [n = 56]: $5793; both [n = 47]: $4818; surgery alone [n = 3478]: $4892, per-person-per-month), driven by lower NSCLC-related hospitalization rates. Conclusion: Post-surgical management of early-stage NSCLC was associated with high economic burden. Adjuvant therapy was associated with numerically lower medical costs over surgical resection alone.

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 of ensartinib for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in China

Background: Crizotinib and ensartinib improved survival in patients with ALK arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the economic outcomes of using ensartinib versus crizotinib are still unclear. Aim: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ensartinib versus crizotinib for ALK-positive NSCLC patients from the perspective of China's healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable, progressive and death) was developed. Survival data were obtained from published eXalt3 clinical trials of ensartinib verses crizotinib for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Parametric models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the trial period. The drug cost comes from the local drug procurement platform. Other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. Results: In the whole life cycle, the average annual cost of ensatinib was US$77,636.63, and utility value was 5.5 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Patients receiving crizotinib had 3.315QALYs and US$32,935.88 costs over the same time horizon. The incremental cost utility ratio is US$19,810.55/QALYs. In 2021, the per capita GDP of China is US$12,721.33, and the incremental cost utility is lower than the threshold of willingness to pay US$38,163.99. Conclusion: Compared with crizotinib, ensatinib is economical in the treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC and should be promoted.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus placebo in resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in China

PURPOSE

We aim to assess whether osimertinib postoperative adjuvant therapy, compared with placebo, is cost-effective in China.

METHODS

We set up the Markov model that contains three health states over a 20-year period. Data were collected from the ADAURA trial that included transition probabilities and safety data. Through the analysis of literature and local charges, we explore both the cost and utility values. Sensitivity analyses were employed using TreeAge Pro software to access model stability.

FINDINGS

Patients in the osimertinib group had 1.46 more Quality-adjusted Life Years (8.45 QALYs vs 6.99 QALYs) than the placebo group at an incremental cost of $14098.51($39962.99 vs $25864.48). Compared with the placebo group, the treatment strategy with osimertinib postoperative adjuvant therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9661.97/QALY. The probability of the osimertinib-assisted therapy strategy being cost-effective will reach 100% if the threshold of willingness to pay is above $15,000/QALY.

IMPLICATIONS

From the perspective of the Chinese Healthcare System, the treatment strategy with osimertinib postoperative adjuvant therapy is more cost-effective than the placebo strategy.

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.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments, such as erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib, for patients diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Two Bayesian NMAs were performed independently, by using the polynomial fraction method to fit Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and progression-free survival. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty.

RESULTS

The ICER was calculated for the four first-line treatments by comparing them with gefitinib, and the ratios obtained were as follows: €166,416/QALY for osimertinib, €183,682/QALY for dacomitinib, €167,554/QALY for afatinib, €36,196/QALY for erlotinib. It was seen that patients who received osimertinib presented higher QALYs (0.49), followed by dacomitinib (0.33), afatinib (0.32), erlotinib (0.31), and gefitinib (0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Gefitinib is the most cost-effective treatment. In terms of QALYs gained, Osimertinib was more effective than all other TKIs. Nevertheless, with a Spanish threshold of €24,000/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 70%, to obtain a cost-effectiveness alternative.

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.

Optimal sequencing strategies in the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness

Purpose

To summarize current understanding of the efficacy, role, and cost-effectiveness of the available epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and to evaluate sequencing strategies based on the available evidence.

Summary. EGFR TKIs are the current standard of care for patients with EGFR mutation–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Five EGFR TKIs are currently approved in the United States for use in a first-line setting; these TKIs differ in mechanism of action, efficacy, safety, and cost. Most patients develop resistance to first-line EGFR TKIs and require subsequent therapy with additional EGFR TKIs, chemotherapy, and/or other targeted agents. A major consideration when selecting EGFR TKIs, both as first-line or subsequent treatment options, is cost-effectiveness. Although clinical trials have shown that the second- and third-generation EGFR TKIs are superior in efficacy to the first-generation agents, pharmacoeconomic studies suggest that the first-generation agents are the most cost-effective, with the second-generation TKI afatinib also considered cost-effective in some studies. Despite its impressive efficacy, osimertinib appears to be less cost-effective due to substantially higher acquisition costs.

Conclusion

Preliminary data suggest that first-line afatinib followed by osimertinib may offer promising survival outcomes and, on the basis of efficacy alone, may represent an optimal sequencing strategy in the majority of patients with EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC, in particular Asian patients and those with Del19-positive tumors. However, considerably more research into outcomes and costs associated with consecutive sequencing of EGFR TKIs is needed before any conclusions can be reached.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

Osimertinib is a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is clinically effective in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the use of this treatment is limited by its high cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration in China and the United States was conducted in the present study. Markov models were established based on data from the FLAURA and AURA3 trials. First-line osimertinib was compared with both first-generation EGFR-TKIs and second-line osimertinib after the failure of first-generation EGFR-TKIs. The analysis also considered different payment modalities available in China. Additionally, one-way and probability sensitivity analyses, with a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of three times the per capita gross domestic product [$27,783/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for China and $100,000/QALY for the United States], were performed. The first-line osimertinib group displayed higher QALYs and costs than those of the first-generation EGFR-TKI group. The first generation EGFR-TKI group displayed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $212,252/QALY in China and $151,922/QALY in the United States. In addition, the ICERs were negative in the second-line osimertinib group, with higher QALYs and lower costs compared with those in the first-line osimertinib group. Furthermore, osimertinib company donation was of benefit in China, with an average cost-effectiveness of $836/QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis highlighted the influence of utilities in different states. First-line osimertinib could be cost-effective either with higher WTP or a price reduction of 68% in China and 9% in the United States. Although first-line osimertinib therapy could have health benefits, it was not cost-effective compared with first-line first-generation EGFR-TKIs and second-line osimertinib therapy. However, paying via company donation may be a good choice in China.

The cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EGFRm NSCLC) in Sweden

AIMS

Although the benefit of first-line epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) over chemotherapy in EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated in clinical trials, the optimal treatment sequence remains unclear. The objective of our study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib in Sweden vs afatinib and osimertinib in first-line treatment of EGFRm NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed with three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. Progression-free and overall survival curves were used to inform movements between states. Clinical data were taken from randomized trials, compared via a network meta-analysis (NMA). Utility data were taken from published studies and costs from national Swedish sources. The model used a 15-year time horizon and a Swedish healthcare payer perspective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that dacomitinib accrued a total of 2.10 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a total cost of Swedish krona (SEK) 874,615. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for dacomitinib vs afatinib was SEK 461,556 per QALY gained. The ICER of osimertinib vs dacomitinib, where the small QALY gains of the former came at a high additional cost, was SEK 11,444,709. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results; changes to drug and medical resource use costs and overall survival had the greatest impact on ICER estimates.

LIMITATIONS

This model is subject to uncertainty associated with extrapolating long-term treatment effects from shorter trial follow-up periods, although this would also be a limitation when using direct comparison or time-dependent hazard ratios. The NMA was limited by the use of indirect comparison, although sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model demonstrated that dacomitinib is cost-effective for first-line EGFRm NSCLC treatment in Sweden vs afatinib and osimertinib.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ3: reference-based pricing

AIMS

Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The third dimension (δ3) estimates prices on the basis of international drug price referencing methods. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The reference-based pricing dimension utilizes a six-step method: (1) selecting foreign countries based on a set of four criteria (drug is available in the foreign country, price information is available in the foreign country, foreign countries are members within the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, pricing methods in the foreign countries involve value assessment); (2) adjusting for exchange rates; (3) generating reference price (RP) scenarios; (4) adjusting with the medical inflation rate; (5) pooling all generated RP scenarios and calculating average and standard deviation (SD); (6) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the dimension-specific DSP_Reference. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021).

RESULTS

The United Kingdom and Canada met the four criteria. For the osimertinib 1-year contract price, the average of eight RP scenarios, adjusted for inflation by 0.44%, was $8,892 (SD = $2,606) for a 30-day prescription. MCS yielded a DSP_Reference estimate of $9,395 or -35.72% of the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $14,616. For the 2-year contract, the average, adjusted for inflation by 0.72%, was $8,928 (SD = $2,610). MCS yielded a DSP_Reference estimate of $9,442 or -35.40% of the WAC of $14,616.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that international price referencing methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ1: cost effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis-based pricing

AIMS

Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The first dimension (δ1) estimates prices on the basis of cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA). We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CEA and CUA were performed using established methods. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC), specifically the PSA incremental cost-effectiveness (PSA ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio generated CEACs (PSA ICUR). Price of treatment was estimated at three certainty levels (0%, turning point%, 100%). The marketed drug price at turning point was used to estimate prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels, as per PSA ICER and PSA ICUR-generated CEACs. The resulting prices were pooled, inflated, and simulated by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) methods to estimate the dimension-specific price based on CEA and CUA (DSP_CEA/CUA). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-years (2019-2021).

RESULTS

Turning points were estimated at the 50% certainty level in both PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACS. At these points, the wholesale acquisition cost for osimertinib was $14,616 (30-day prescription); inflated by 0.44% for 1-year and by 0.72% for 2-year contracts. Additional prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels were quantified based on the PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACs. The MCS yielded a DSP_CEA/CUA of $16,391 for the 1-year contract and a DSP_CEA/CUA at $16,677 for the 2-year contract for a 30-day prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that conventional CEA and CUA methods generate price estimates at varying levels of certainty that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib as second-line therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the CELESTIAL trial for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cabozantinib showed improved survival compared with placebo but comes at a price. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective of the USA, UK and China.

METHODS

We developed Markov models to simulate the patients pre-treated with first-line sorafenib following the CELESTIAL trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated for the treatment with cabozantinib or best supportive care. The list price for drugs was acquired from the Red Book, the British National Formulary, West China hospital and reported literature. Adverse events, utilities weights, and transition likelihood between states were sourced from the published randomized phase III trial. A willing-to-pay threshold was set $150 000/QALY in the USA, $70 671/QALY (£50 000/QALY) in the UK and $26 481/QALY (3x GDP per capita) in China. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to test the models' uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, treatment with cabozantinib increased effectiveness by 0.13 QALYs, resulting in an ICER vs best supportive care of $833 497/QALY in the USA, $304 177/QALY in the UK and $156 437/QALY in China. The models were most sensitive to assumptions about transitions to progression with both cabozantinib and best supportive care, the utility associated with being progression free. These results were robust across a range of scenarios and sensitivity analyses, including deterministic and probabilistic analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Cabozantinib at its current cost would not be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective in the USA, UK or China. Substantial discounts are necessary to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Lessons learned from routine, targeted assessment of liquid biopsies for EGFR T790M resistance mutation in patients with EGFR mutant lung cancers

Background: Plasma cfDNA evaluation at acquired resistance to targeted therapies in lung cancer is routine, however, reports of extended clinical application and pitfalls in laboratory practice are still limited. In this study we describe our experience with cfDNA testing using EGFR T790M as a prototype.Methods: Patients with metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients who underwent plasma EGFR T790M testing at acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKI) from January 2016 through August 2017 were identified. Molecular laboratory records were reviewed to assess performance of testing by digital PCR, concordance between plasma and tissue testing, turnaround time (TAT), plasma T790M variant allele frequency (VAF), and its correlations with metastatic sites and clinical outcomes.Results: 177 patients underwent T790M cfDNA testing during this period. Plasma T790M was positive in 32% of patients. The median TAT was shorter for plasma T790M compared to tissue PCR (9 vs. 15 days, p < .0001), and led to osimertinib use in 84% of positive patients. In 52 patients with plasma and tissue T790M evaluation, the concordance was 77%. Plasma T790M VAF did not correlate with time to osimertinib discontinuation (p = .4). Plasma T790M status correlated with a higher number of metastatic sites (4 vs. 3, p < .001) and bone metastases (p = .0002).Conclusion: Plasma EGFR T790M testing had shorter TAT compared to tissue testing, however, it was longer than anticipated. Test sensitivity is higher in patients with osseous metastases and with higher metastatic burden suggesting a more limited role for early detection. T790M VAF was not associated with clinical outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of Ceritinib And Alectinib Versus Crizotinib In The Treatment Of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib versus ceritinib or alectinib as first-line-targeted drug therapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Methods

The Markov model was used to simulate the medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients using crizotinib, ceritinib, or alectinib over a 10-year period by establishing three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. Randomized controlled clinical data were collected from the open-label, randomized phase 3 trials ALEX and ASCEND-4. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges and literature. Sensitivity analyses included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Compared with patients who used crizotinib as first-line treatment, patients in the ceritinib and alectinib groups yielded an additional 1.32 and 3.30 QALYs with an incremental cost of $84,728.20 and $339,114.36, respectively. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $64,398.83 and $102,675.74 per QALY in the ceritinib and alectinib groups, respectively. Alectinib was estimated to be more effective (4.68 QALY) and more costly ($432,063.06) with an ICER of $128,019.42 per QALY compared with ceritinib (2.69 QALY and $177,676.90). Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

As a first-line treatment regimen, ceritinib and alectinib can extend the survival time of patients compared with crizotinib, but the medical cost also increases accordingly. According to the World Health Organization's three-percent GDP measurement, first-line treatment with Crizotinib is the most cost-effective.

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.

Curative effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in the treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of the experimental evidence

Background

Osimertinib is an EGFR-TKI that is selective for both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of this study was conducting a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of osimertinib in the treatment for NSCLC.

Methods

Using “osimertinib” as a keyword combined with “non-small-cell lung cancer” and “randomized controlled trial” as medical subject headings, the following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included randomized controlled trials, the RevMan 5.3 software and R meta package were applied for meta-analysis of objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

Results

Ten studies met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 3,260 participants. The meta-analysis showed that osimertinib therapy was superior to the control therapy alone in ORR (combined RR=1.53, 95% CI: 0.87–2.71, P=0.14), DCR (combined RR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.79–1.44, P=0.66), PFS (combined RR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.24–0.44, P<0.00001), and OS (combined RR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.47–0.70, P<0.00001). In addition, osimertinib led to some toxicities, and the overall prevalence of all-grade diarrhea was 40% (95% CI: 33–47), paronychia 26% (95% CI: 20–33), rash 40% (95% CI: 34–47), dry skin 28% (95% CI: 23–33), and stomatitis 15% (95% CI: 9–23).

Conclusion

Our study showed that osimertinib demonstrated a significant improvement in the ORR, DCR, PFS, and OS with tolerable adverse effects for NSCLC patients. However, because of some clear limitations (heterogeneity and publication bias), these results should be interpreted with caution.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib in the First-Line Treatment of Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Importance

The survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations has improved substantially in the last decade with the development of targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients who develop EGFR T790M mutations, has recently shown improved clinical outcomes compared with gefitinib and erlotinib for treatment-naive patients.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we extracted individual patient data from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial and used findings of our earlier meta-analysis to develop a decision-analytic model and determine the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib (AZD9291) compared with first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs over a 10-year time horizon. All direct costs were based on US and Brazilian payer perspectives.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by using osimertinib compared with first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs in previously untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Results

In the base case using the data as reported in the FLAURA trial, the incremental QALY for osimertinib was 0.594 compared with the first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs. In the United States, the osimertinib ICERs were $226 527 vs erlotinib, $231 123 vs gefitinib, and $219 874 vs afatinib. In Brazil, the ICERs were $162 329, $180 804, and $175 432, respectively. The overall survival (95% CI) reported in the FLAURA trial (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88) had the strongest association with the ICER (ranging from $84 342 to $859 771). Osimertinib price adjustments to the FLAURA trial data improved cost-effectiveness. For example, a discount of 10% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 20% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER, and a discount of 20% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 40% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER.

Conclusions and Relevance

At current costs, by World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold criteria, osimertinib is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC in either the United States or Brazil.