Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of afatinib after platinum-based therapy for the treatment of squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in France

Do people with different sociodemographic backgrounds value their health differently? Evaluating the role of positional objectivity

Objective

The fundamental disconnect between the actual and the perceived health of an individual raises considerable skepticism on the self-reported health data as it may be confounded by an individual's socio-economic status. In this light, the present study aims to assess if people with different sociodemographic backgrounds value their health differently.

Methods

The health-state valuation using time-trade off was performed in a cross-sectional survey among a representative sample of 2,311 adults from India. Individuals were selected using a multistage stratified random sampling from five Indian states to elicit their present health-state, and to perform the health-state valuation exercise using computer assisted personal interviewing. A single block of standardized health-states was valued by multiple individuals, each belonging to different socio-demographic group. The difference in the valuation of health was assessed using bivariate analysis. The impact of different sociodemographic factors on the health-state valuation was evaluated using Tobit regression model.

Results

Differences in the valuation of health were observed among different groups of age, religion, family type, state of residence, substance abuse, presence of ailments at the time of valuation, and number of dependent members in the household. Even after controlling for the severity of the administered health states, factors having a significant association with the valuation of health are age, religion, state of residence, substance abuse, family type, number of dependent members in the household, and presence of chronic or both acute and chronic ailments. Younger individuals place a higher value to their health as compared to their older counterparts. As compared to a healthy individual, a person with ailments rates the same health-state as worse.

Conclusion

Inequalities in self-reported ill-health cannot be attributed to positional objectivity; age, religion, state of residence, substance abuse, family type, dependents, and ailments impact individual health valuation.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

INTRODUCTION

Although tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the efficacy of treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the accessibility of TKIs is limited due to high costs. Despite the critical role of the cost-effectiveness of TKIs on decision-making, no systematic reviews have compared the cost-effectiveness of comparable TKIs. Therefore, we systemically reviewed the economic evaluation studies on various TKIs for NSCLC.

AREAS COVERED

We searched PubMed and the Cochran Library to identify the published economic evaluation studies of TKIs in NSCLC patients that were published by January 2022. All of the included studies (n = 38) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-TKIs (n = 29) or anaplastic lymphocyte kinase (ALK)-TKIs (n = 9). The cost-effectiveness results were reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year, except for three studies.

EXPERT OPINION

We found that the economic evaluation studies of the first and second generation of EGFR-TKIs and ALK-TKIs varied by the country and study settings, such as comparator and input parameters. In 12 studies, osimertinib (EGFR-TKI) was not cost-effective compared to other first/second EGFR-TKIs, regardless of the study settings. More evidence can be provided about cost-effectiveness of the third-generation TKIs in future research.

Modelled Economic Analysis for Dacomitinib-A Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Patients With EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

Objectives

To establish the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib compared to gefitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Patients

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

Methods

Partitioned survival analysis was undertaken to examine the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib utilising individual patient data (IPD) from the pivotal randomised controlled trial (RCT) (ARCHER 1050). The three health states modelled were progression-free, post-progression, and death. Parametric survival distributions were fitted to IPD against the Kaplan-Meier survival curves corresponding to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes by randomised groups. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, outpatient management (outpatient consultation and examinations), and best supportive care costs. Utility weights were sourced from the pivotal trial and other published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

Results

In the base case, dacomitinib (CNY 265,512 and 1.95 QALY) was associated with higher costs and QALY gains compared to gefitinib (CNY 247,048 and 1.61 QALYs), resulting in an ICER of CNY 58,947/QALY. Using the empirical WTP/QALY threshold, dacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that dacomitinib had a 97% probability of being cost-effective.

Conclusions

Dacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy in treating patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib could be reduced if long-term survival data become available.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT01024413

Cost-Effectiveness of Lenvatinib Compared with Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Australia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib showed superior clinical benefits to sorafenib in terms of progression-free survival and was non-inferior for overall survival in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with advanced HCC in Australia.

METHOD

A partitioned-survival model was built to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing lenvatinib and sorafenib from an Australian health-system perspective. Survival curves were obtained from the REFLECT trial and fitted with parametric survival functions for extrapolation purposes beyond the trial follow-up. Cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were accrued over the 10-year time horizon of the model. Deterministic and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were carried out to verify the validity of the model.

RESULTS

Lenvatinib incurred higher costs (A$96,325) and superior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.205), while sorafenib had lower costs (A$92,394) and inferior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.086). Thus, lenvatinib yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio of A$33,028/QALY gained. Further, the results of the PSA found that the probability of lenvatinib being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY was 64%.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that, at current prices, lenvatinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC.

Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung: Current Treatment Approaches and the Role of Afatinib

Options for the treatment of squamous cell lung carcinoma expanded in recent years with the introduction of the immune checkpoint inhibitors into routine clinical practice in both the first- and second-line settings but are still limited. As a result, pembrolizumab, given either alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, is now a standard first-line treatment for squamous cell lung cancer. However, few options exist once patients have progressed on immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy. In this setting, the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, has a potential role as second or subsequent therapy for some patients. The Phase III LUX-Lung 8 study demonstrated that afatinib significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival compared with erlotinib in patients with squamous cell lung carcinoma. Notably, retrospective, ad-hoc biomarker analyses of a subset of patients from LUX-Lung 8 suggested that patients with ErbB family mutations derived particular benefit from afatinib, especially those with ErbB2 (HER2) mutations. Afatinib has a manageable and predictable safety profile, and adverse events can be managed with the use of a tolerability-guided dose modification protocol. Until more data are available, afatinib could be considered as a potential second-line treatment option for patients who have progressed on combined pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy and are ineligible for more established second-line options, or as a third-line option in patients who have received first-line immunotherapy, and second-line chemotherapy or chemotherapy and antiangiogenesis therapy. However, further data are required to support the use of afatinib following immunotherapy. Given that treatment options are limited in both of these settings, investigating an agent with an entirely new mechanism of action is warranted. If available, molecular analysis to identify ErbB family mutations or the use of proteomic profiling could help to further isolate patients who are likely to derive the most benefit from afatinib.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

In a global, phase III, open-label, noninferiority trial (REFLECT), lenvatinib demonstrated noninferiority to sorafenib in overall survival and a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, lenvatinib became the first agent in more than 10 years to receive approval as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC, along with the previously approved sorafenib. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib as a first-line therapy of unresectable HCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A state-transition model of unresectable HCC was developed in the form of a cost-utility analysis. The model time horizon was 5 years; the efficacy of the model was informed by the REFLECT trial, and costs and utilities were obtained from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Lenvatinib dominated sorafenib in the base case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that lenvatinib remains a cost-saving measure in 64.87% of the simulations. However, if the cost of sorafenib was reduced by 57%, lenvatinib would no longer be the dominant strategy.

CONCLUSION

Lenvatinib offered a similar clinical effectiveness at a lower cost than sorafenib, suggesting that lenvatinib would be a cost-saving alternative in treating unresectable HCC. However, lenvatinib may fail to remain cost-saving if a significantly cheaper generic sorafenib becomes available.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This analysis suggests an actionable clinical policy that will achieve cost saving. This cost-utility analysis showed that lenvatinib had a similar clinical effectiveness at a lower cost than sorafenib, indicating that lenvatinib may be a cost-saving measure in patients with unresectable HCC, in which $23,719 could be saved per patient. The introduction of a new therapeutic option for the first time in 10 years in Canada provides an important opportunity for clinicians, researchers, and health care decision-makers to explore potential modifications in recommendations and practice guidelines.

Cancer drug development: The missing links

IMPACT STATEMENT

The success rate for cancer drugs which enter into phase 1 clinical trials is utterly less. Why the vast majority of drugs fail is not understood but suggests that pre-clinical studies are not adequate for human diseases. In 1975, as per the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, pharmaceutical industries expended 100 million dollars for research and development of the average FDA approved drug. By 2005, this figure had more than quadrupled, to $1.3 billion. In order to recover their high and risky investment cost, pharmaceutical companies charge more for their products. However, there exists no correlation between drug development cost and actual sale of the drug. This high drug development cost could be due to the reason that all patients might not respond to the drug. Hence, a given drug has to be tested in large number of patients to show drug benefits and obtain significant results.

Cost-effectiveness of afatinib and erlotinib as second-line treatments for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung

AIM

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of afatinib and erlotinib as second-line therapy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed for projecting the economic outcomes. Clinical parameters and utilities were from the LUX-Lung 8 trial. Costs were mainly estimated from the Chinese health system. The outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

The afatinib strategy generated additional 0.154 quality-adjusted life-years compared with erlotinib, with incremental costs of ¥16,852. Relative to erlotinib, afatinib resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥109,429 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The overall survival time of afatinib had a considerable impact on the model outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Afatinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared with erlotinib in patients with squamous cell carcinoma.