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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 11 pharmacotherapies for recurrent glioblastoma in the USA and China

Background

Several studies have systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of progressive or recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). However, the discernible limitations of efficacy and the elevated costs of interventions instigate an investigation into the cost-effectiveness of these treatments.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate cost-effectivenesses of 11 pharmacotherapeutic interventions for recurrent GBM from the perspective of healthcare payers in the United States (US) and China.

Design

A model-based pharmacoeconomic evaluation.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was employed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 11 distinct drug-based treatments. The clinical efficacy and safety data were obtained from a network meta-analysis, while the medical expenditure and health utility were primarily derived from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to scrutinize the impact of potential uncertainties to ensure the robustness of the model. The primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results

Among the therapeutic interventions evaluated, lomustine emerged as the cheapest option, with costs amounting to $78,998 in the United States and $30,231 in China, respectively. Regorafenib displayed the highest quality-adjusted life years at 0.475 in the United States and 0.465 in China. The one-way sensitivity analyses underscored that drug price was a key factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Both scenario and PSA consistently demonstrated that, considering the willingness-to-pay thresholds, lomustine was a cost-effective treatment with probability of more than 94%.

Conclusion

In comparison to the alternative antitumor agents, lomustine was likely to be a cost-effective option for relapsed GBM patients from the perspective of healthcare payers in both the United States and China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Home Parenteral Nutrition for Incurable Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients

Background

Appropriate nutritional support, including supplemental home parenteral nutrition (sHPN), may improve prognosis and quality of life (Qol) of malnourished cancer patients. We aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of sHPN for incurable gastrointestinal cancer patients from the Chinese healthcare perspective.

Method

Clinical data were extracted from a randomized controlled trial (NCT02066363). Patients were randomized into the sHPN group or the non-sHPN group (receiving best practice nutritional care). A Markov model was established with a 6-week cycle length. Costs were acquired from local hospitals, effect parameters included quality-adjusted life year (QALY), Qol, body mass index, fat-free mass (FFM), FFM index, handgrip strength, and a 6-min walking test. Sensitivity analyses were conducted with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) set at 3 per capita gross domestic product ($29,307/QALY).

Results

When considering QALY as a utility, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $24,289.17, with an incremental cost of $2,051.18 and an incremental QALY of 0.0844 between the sHPN group and the non-sHPN group. Furthermore, we explored the cost-effectiveness of sHPN from multidimensions, where we analyzed various effect parameters at different visits; the results showed a superior benefit for patients in the sHPN group except for the handgrip parameter at visit 2. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the influence of utilities in the sHPN group, but the sHPN group was still cost-effective with a WTP of $2,500/QALY.

Conclusion

In China, sHPN was cost-effective for patients with incurable gastrointestinal cancer, which suggested further applications in clinical practice and provided references for clinical decisions and pricing.

Comprehensive Comparison Between Adjuvant Targeted Therapy and Chemotherapy for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Patients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

Chemotherapy has been the current standard adjuvant treatment for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, while recent studies showed benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to comprehensively evaluate the benefit of EGFR-TKI compared with chemotherapy for early-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients after resection from the perspective of the Chinese health care system.

Method

A Markov model was established. Clinical data were based on the phase 3, ADJUVANT trial, where stage II-IIIA, EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients were randomized into gefitinib group or chemotherapy group after resection. Cost parameters mainly included costs of drugs, examinations, and adverse events (AEs). Effect parameters were evaluated by quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Outcomes contained incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER), average cost-effective ratio (ACER), and net benefit. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set as 3 times per capita gross domestic product ($30,828/QALY). Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to verify the stability of the model.

Results

Patients who received gefitinib had both a higher cost ($12,057.98 vs. $11,883.73) and a higher QALY (1.55 vs. 1.42) than patients who received chemotherapy. With an ICER of $1,345.62/QALY, adjuvant gefitinib was of economic benefit compared with chemotherapy. The ACER and net benefit were also consistent (gefitinib vs. chemotherapy, ACER: $7,802.30/QALY vs. $8,392.77/QALY; net benefit: $35,584.85 vs. $31,767.17). Sensitivity analyses indicated the stability of the model and the impact of utility.

Conclusion

Adjuvant EGFR-TKI application for early-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients was cost-effective compared with chemotherapy, which might provide a reference for clinical decision-making and medical insurance policy formulation in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients

Objectives

Recent studies showed prolonged survival for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)‐mutant non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with both monotherapies and combined therapies. However, high costs limit clinical applications. Thus, we conducted this cost‐effectiveness analysis to explore an optimal first‐line treatment for advanced EGFR‐mutant NSCLC patients.

Materials and Methods

Survival data were extracted from six clinical trials, including ARCHER1050 (dacomitinib vs. gefitinib); FLAURA (osimertinib vs. gefitinib/erlotinib); JO25567 and NEJ026 (bevacizumab +erlotinib vs. erlotinib); NEJ009 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib); and NCT02148380 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib vs. chemotherapy) trials. Cost‐related data were obtained from hospitals and published literature. The effect parameter (quality‐adjusted life year [QALY]) was the reflection of both survival and utility. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER), average cost‐effectiveness ratio (ACER), and net benefit were calculated, and the willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) threshold was set at $30828/QALY from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the stability of results.

Results

We compared treatment groups with control groups in each trial. ICERs were $1897750.74/QALY (ARCHER1050), $416560.02/QALY (FLAURA), ‐$477607.48/QALY (JO25567), ‐$464326.66/QALY (NEJ026), ‐$277121.22/QALY (NEJ009), ‐$399360.94/QALY (gefitinib as comparison, NCT02148380), and ‐$170733.05/QALY (chemotherapy as comparison, NCT02148380). Moreover, ACER and net benefit showed that the combination of EGFR‐TKI with chemotherapy and osimertinib was of more economic benefit following first‐generation EGFR‐TKIs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the impact of utilities and monotherapy could be cost‐effective with a 50% cost reduction.

Conclusion

First‐generation EGFR‐TKI therapy remained the most cost‐effective treatment option for advanced EGFR‐mutant NSCLC patients. Our results could serve as both a reference for both clinical practice and the formulation of medical insurance reimbursement.