Trial-Based Cost-Utility Analysis of Icotinib versus Gefitinib as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib was approved several years ago as a first-line drug for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, its high price and broad side effects when administered at the standard dose have limited its clinical use. A clinical trial (NCT02072031) confirmed that anlotinib could be used as the first-line treatment for mRCC. This study was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib as a first-line treatment for mRCC compared to that of sunitinib in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib with that of sunitinib. Clinical data were obtained from a multi-center phase II trial (clinical trial information: NCT02072031). Utility values were obtained from the literature. Total costs were calculated from a Chinese societal perspective. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the model uncertainty. The life-year (LY), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis over a lifetime horizon of 10 years showed that the anlotinib group had 2.196 LYs and 1.487 QALYs at a total cost of $68,597.84. The sunitinib group had 2.194 LYs and 1.432 QALYs at a total cost of $88,060.02. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of anlotinib versus sunitinib of $-9,210,858.93 per LYs and $-354,117.07 per QALYs, suggesting that anlotinib is a more effective and less costly strategy than sunitinib.

CONCLUSION

Anlotinib may be a more cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for mRCC than sunitinib in China.

Trastuzumab biosimilar HLX02 versus reference trastuzumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a model-based economic evaluation for China

BACKGROUND

HLX02 is a newly marketed trastuzumab biosimilar in China, but whether its price reflects a potential benefit in terms of its value remains unclear. In addition, the development of biosimilars in China is just beginning, and the state encourages health economic evaluation of newly marketed biosimilars.

METHODS

Based on the previously published randomized controlled trial data, a Markov model was used to perform health economic evaluation of HLX02 and trastuzumab in the treatment of HER2-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and evaluate the robustness of the model with sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The model results showed that the 5-year mortality rate was 84.4% in the HLX02 group, while the mortality rate was 91.2% in the trastuzumab group. When without accounting for the cost of second-line treatment, patients treated with HLX02 had an increased life expectancy of 0.138 QALYs and a $421.11 lower cost compared with patients in the trastuzumab group, with an ICER value of -$3,051.52/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/QALY in China, HLX02 is more cost-effective than trastuzumab. However, the relevant systems for the regulation of biosimilars still need to be improved.

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%.

PD-L1 Test-Based Strategy With Nivolumab as the Second-Line Treatment in Advanced NSCLC： A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in China

OBJECTIVE

Our previous economic assessment found that nivolumab was not cost-effective for Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and without EGFR mutations or ALK translocations, when compared with the standard second-line drug docetaxel. However, a greater survival benefit with nivolumab was observed for patients with 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. In view of this, we designed the present analysis to explore whether it is cost-effective to use the PD-L1 test to guide second-line nivolumab treatment in China.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model was established to project the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of three second-line treatment strategies: nivolumab and docetaxel (strategies without a PD-L1 test) and PD-L1 test-based strategy. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our results. Additional price reduction and willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold scenario analyses were performed to explore the impact of economic and health policies with Chinese characteristics on our results.

RESULTS

The PD-L1 test-based strategy costs approximately CNY 194,607 (USD 28,210) or more and yielded an additional 0.27 QALYs compared to the docetaxel strategy without a PD-L1 test, equating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CNY 731,089 (USD 105,978)/QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that the price of nivolumab was the strongest source of variation in the ICERs. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that the probability for the PD-L1 test-based strategy being cost-effective increases with the increase of WTP thresholds.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, using a PD-L1 test to guide second-line nivolumab treatment was not cost-effective. The National Healthcare Security Administration negotiation on the price reduction of nivolumab was found to be the most effective action to improve its cost-effectiveness in China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatic Arterial Infusion of FOLFOX Combined Sorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Portal Vein Invasion

Background

Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) plus sorafenib has a more desirable effect versus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with portal vein invasion. However, considering the high cost of hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy (HAIC), this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HAIC plus sorafenib (SoraHAIC) versus standard care for HCC patients from the Chinese health system perspective.

Methods

A Markov multi-state model was constructed to simulate the disease course and source consumption of SoraHAIC. Costs of primary therapeutic drugs were calculated based on the national bid price, and hepatic artery catheterization fee was collected from the Fujian Provincial Price Bureau. Clinical data, other costs, and utility values were extracted from references. Primary outcomes included life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of model was verified by uncertainty sensitivity analyses.

Results

SoraHAIC gained 1.18 QALYs (1.68 LYs) at a cost of $65,254, while the effectiveness and cost of sorafenib were 0.52 QALYs (0.79 LYs) and $14,280, respectively. The ICER of SoraHAIC vs sorafenib was $77,132/QALY ($57,153/LY). Parameter that most influenced the ICER was utility of PFS state. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that SoraHAIC was not cost-effective in the WTP threshold of 3*Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of China ($30,492/QALY). But about 38.8% of the simulations were favorable to SoraHAIC at the WTP threshold of 3*GDP per capita of Beijing ($72,000/QALY). When 3*GDP per capita of Fujian ($47,285/QALY) and Gansu Province ($14,595/QALY) were used as WTP threshold, the acceptability of SoraHAIC was 0.3% and 0%, respectively.

Conclusions

The study results indicated that SoraHAIC was not cost-effective in medium-, and low-income regions of China. In developed areas of China (Beijing), there was a 38.8% probability that the SoraHAIC regimen would be cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding ramucirumab to the first-line erlotinib treatment for untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab plus erlotinib compared with placebo plus erlotinib in the first-line setting for patients with EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

DESIGN

A Markov model consisting of three health states using clinical survival data from the RELAY phase III randomised clinical trial, a lifetime horizon for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab plus erlotinib. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. Additional price reduction scenario analyses were performed.

SETTING

The Chinese healthcare system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with confirmed previously documented ex19del or Leu858Arg mutation stage IV NSCLC, and without known epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Thr790Met mutation and central nervous system metastases.

INTERVENTIONS

Ramucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

In base-case analysis, ramucirumab plus erlotinib yield an additional 4.21 QALYs at a cost of $540 590, resulting in an ICER of $128 302/QALY. In price reduction scenario analysis, the ICER ($65 227/QALY) was decreased significantly when the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) negotiation was available for ramucirumab, and the ICER ($131 554/QALY) was increased slightly when the NRDL negotiation was unavailable for erlotinib. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated our results to be most sensitive to the unit cost of ramucirumab (10 mg/kg), and more than 52.1% reduction in the price of ramucirumab resulted in the ICER under the willingness-to-pay threshold set for affluent regions ($70 353/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Ramucirumab plus erlotinib is unlikely to be cost-effective for patients with untreated EGFR-mutated mNSCLC in China. Reducing the price of ramucirumab through the National Healthcare Security Administration negotiation was found to be the most realistic action to improve cost-effectiveness.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Therapeutic Schedule Evaluation for Brain-Metastasized Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with A Probabilistic Linguistic ELECTRE II Method

With the rapid development of modern medicine, therapeutic schedules of brain-metastasized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are expanding. To assist a patient who suffers from brain-metastasized NSCLC to select the most suitable therapeutic schedule, firstly, we establish an indicator system for evaluating the therapeutic schedules; then, we propose a probabilistic linguistic ELECTRE II method to handle the corresponding evaluation problem for the following reasons: (1) probabilistic linguistic information is effective to depict the uncertainty of the therapeutic process and the fuzziness of an expert’s cognition; (2) the ELECTRE II method can deal with evaluation indicators that do not meet a fully compensatory relationship. Simulation tests on the parameters in the proposed method are provided to discuss their impacts on the final rankings. Furthermore, we apply the proposed method to help a patient with brain-metastasized NSCLC at the Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute to choose the optimal therapeutic schedule, and we present some sensitive analyses and comparative analyses to demonstrate the stability and applicability of the proposed method.

Mutational profiling of non-small-cell lung cancer patients resistant to first-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors using next generation sequencing

Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring sensitive epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations invariably develop acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Identification of actionable genetic alterations conferring drug-resistance can be helpful for guiding the subsequent treatment decision. One of the major resistant mechanisms is secondary EGFR-T790M mutation. Other mechanisms, such as HER2 and MET amplifications, and PIK3CA mutations, were also reported. However, the mechanisms in the remaining patients are still unknown. In this study, we performed mutational profiling in a cohort of 83 NSCLC patients with TKI-sensitizing EGFR mutations at diagnosis and acquired resistance to three different first-generation EGFR TKIs using targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) of 416 cancer-related genes. In total, we identified 322 genetic alterations with a median of 3 mutations per patient. 61% of patients still exhibit TKI-sensitizing EGFR mutations, and 36% of patients acquired EGFR-T790M. Besides other known resistance mechanisms, we identified TET2 mutations in 12% of patients. Interestingly, we also observed SOX2 amplification in EGFR-T790M negative patients, which are restricted to Icotinib treatment resistance, a drug widely used in Chinese NSCLC patients. Our study uncovered mutational profiles of NSCLC patients with first-generation EGFR TKIs resistance with potential therapeutic implications.

Cost-effectiveness of gefitinib, icotinib, and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are becoming the standard treatment option for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an EGFR mutation, but the economic impact of this practice is unclear, especially in a health resource-limited setting. A decision-analytic model was developed to simulate 21-day patient transitions in a 10-year time horizon. The health and economic outcomes of four first-line strategies (pemetrexed plus cisplatin [PC] alone, PC followed by maintenance with pemetrexed, or initial treatment with gefitinib or icotinib) among patients harboring EGFR mutations were estimated and assessed via indirect comparisons. Costs in the Chinese setting were estimated. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed. The icotinib strategy resulted in greater health benefits than the other three strategies in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations. Relative to PC alone, PC followed by pemetrexed maintenance, gefitinib and icotinib resulted in ICERs of $104,657, $28,485 and $19,809 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The cost of pemetrexed, the EGFR mutation prevalence and the utility of progression-free survival were factors that had a considerable impact on the model outcomes. When the icotinib Patient Assistance Program was available, the economic outcome of icotinib was more favorable. These results indicate that gene-guided therapy with icotinib might be a more cost-effective treatment option than traditional chemotherapy.

First-line icotinib versus cisplatin/pemetrexed plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (CONVINCE): a phase 3, open-label, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Icotinib has been previously shown to be non-inferior to gefitinib in non-selected advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients when given as second- or further-line treatment. In this open-label, randomized, phase 3 CONVINCE trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of first-line icotinib versus cisplatin/pemetrexed plus pemetrexed maintenance in lung adenocarcinoma patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible participants were adults with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma and exon 19/21 EGFR mutations. Participants were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive oral icotinib or 3-week cycle of cisplatin plus pemetrexed for up to four cycles; non-progressive patients after four cycles were maintained with pemetrexed until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent response evaluation committee. Other end points included overall survival (OS) and safety.

RESULTS

Between January 2013 and August 2014, 296 patients were randomized, and 285 patients were treated (148 to icotinib, 137 to chemotherapy). Independent response evaluation committee-assessed PFS was significantly longer in the icotinib group (11.2 versus 7.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.87; P = 0.006). No significant difference for OS was observed between treatments in the overall population or in EGFR-mutated subgroups (exon 19 Del/21 L858R). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) in the icotinib group were rash (14.8%) and diarrhea (7.4%), compared with nausea (45.9%), vomiting (29.2%), and neutropenia (10.9%) in the chemotherapy group. AEs (79.1% versus 94.2%; P < 0.001) and treatment-related AEs (54.1% versus 90.5%; P < 0.001) were significantly fewer in the icotinib group than in the chemotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line icotinib significantly improves PFS of advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients with EGFR mutation with a tolerable and manageable safety profile. Icotinib should be considered as a first-line treatment for this patient population.