Cost-effectiveness of hypothetical new cancer drugs in patients with advanced small-cell lung cancer: results of a markov chain model

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Economic evaluation of first-line and maintenance treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

During these last years, there have been an increased number of new drugs for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with a growing financial effect on patients and society. The purpose of this article was to review the economics of first-line and maintenance NSCLC treatments. We reviewed economic analyses of NSCLC therapies published between 2004 and 2014. In first-line settings, in unselected patients with advanced NSCLC, the cisplatin gemcitabine doublet appears to be cost-saving compared with other platinum doublets. In patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year gained (LYG) were $83,537, $178,613, and more than $300,000 for cisplatin-pemetrexed compared with, respectively, cisplatin-gemcitabine, cisplatin-carboplatin-paclitaxel, and carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab. For all primary chemotherapy agents, use of carboplatin is associated with slightly higher costs than cisplatin. In all the analysis, bevacizumab had an ICER greater than $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In epidermal growth factor receptor mutated advanced NSCLC, compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel doublet, targeted therapy based on testing available tissue yielded an ICER of $110,644 per QALY, and the rebiopsy strategy yielded an ICER of $122,219 per QALY. Compared with the triplet carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab, testing and rebiopsy strategies had ICERs of $25,547 and $44,036 per QALY, respectively. In an indirect comparison, ICERs per LYG and QALY of erlotinib versus gefitinib were $39,431 and $62,419, respectively. In anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive nonsquamous advanced NSCLC, the ICER of first-line crizotinib compared with that of chemotherapy was $255,970 per QALY. For maintenance therapy, gefitinib had an ICER of $19,214 per QALY, erlotinib had an ICER of $127,343 per LYG, and pemetrexed had an ICER varying between $183,589 and $205,597 per LYG. Most recent NSCLC strategies are based on apparently no cost-effective strategies if we consider an ICER below $50,000 per QALY an acceptable threshold. We need, probably on a countrywide level, to have a debate involving public health organizations and pharmaceutical companies, as well as clinicians and patients, to challenge the rising costs of managing lung cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for limited stage small cell lung cancer: A population-based propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The addition of thoracic radiotherapy improves the outcome of limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC), however, the cost-effectiveness of this process has never been reported. We aimed to estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy (C-TRT) versus chemotherapy alone (C/T) for LS-SCLC patients from the payer's perspective (Taiwan National Health Insurance).

METHODS

We identified LS-SCLC patients diagnosed within 2007-2009 through a comprehensive population-based database containing cancer and death registries, and reimbursement data. The duration of interest was one year within diagnosis. We included potential confounding covariables through literature searching and our own experience, and used a propensity score to construct a 1:1 population for adjustment. We used a net benefit (NB) approach to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at various willingness-to-pay (WTP) levels. Sensitivity analysis regarding potential unmeasured confounder(s) was performed.

RESULTS

Our study population constituted 74 patients. The mean cost (2013 USD) and survival (year) was higher for C-TRT (42 439 vs. 28 357; 0.94 vs. 0.88). At the common WTP level (50 000 USD/life-year), C-TRT was not cost effective (incremental NB - 11 082) and the probability for C-TRT to be cost effective (i.e. positive net benefit) was 0.005. The result was moderately sensitive to potential unmeasured confounder(s) in sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide evidence that when compared to C/T, C-TRT is effective in improving survival, but is not cost-effective in the short-term at a common WTP level from a payer's perspective. This information should be considered by clinicians when discussing thoracic radiotherapy with their LS-SCLC patients.