Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib as a First-Line Therapy for Untreated Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 6 Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors as First-Line Treatment for ALK-Positive NSCLC in China

Background

Lung cancer ranks first in both cancer incidence and mortality in China. The emergence of novel treatments for ALK-positive NSCLC led to an improvement in survival and quality of life for patients with advanced ALK mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of 6 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)-crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib-as first-line treatments for ALK-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these 6 TKIs. In this model, ALK-positive NSCLC patients were initially simulated to receive 1 of the 6 TKIs as first-line therapy, followed by different TKIs as subsequent treatment and salvage chemotherapy as last-line treatment. Survival data were sourced from the latest published clinical trials. Costs were derived from recent national health insurance negotiations and hospital information systems of selected health care facilities. Utilities for healthy states and adverse events were obtained from the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis as well as scenario analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

Results

Compared to ensartinib, crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib demonstrated incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of -1.13, 0.39, -0.58, -0.09, and 0.35, respectively. The corresponding incremental costs were $10 677, $33 501, -$6426, $2672, and $24 358. This resulted in ICERs of -$9449/QALY, $85 900/QALY, $11 079/QALY, $29 689/QALY and $69 594/QALY, respectively.

Conclusion

Crizotinib was considered to be absolutely dominated by ensartinib. Under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38 223/QALY, ceritinib and brigatinib were cost-effective compared with ensartinib, while lorlatinib and alectinib were not cost-effective when compared with ensartinib. Overall, brigatinib emerged as the most cost-effective treatment among all the options considered.

Lorlatinib as a first-line treatment of adult patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Α cost-effectiveness analysis in Greece

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib compared to 1st generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) TKI crizotinib, and 2nd generation TKIs alectinib and brigatinib, for previously untreated patients with ALK+ advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (aNSCLC).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a Greek payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Clinical, safety and utility data were extracted from literature. Direct medical costs reflecting the year 2023 were included in the analysis (€). Model outcomes were patients' life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Total cost per patient with lorlatinib, alectinib, crizotinib, and brigatinib was estimated to be €188,205, €183,343, €75,028, and €145,454 respectively. Lorlatinib appeared to yield more LYs and QALYs gained versus alectinib, crizotinib, and brigatinib. Hence, lorlatinib resulted in ICERs of €4,315 per LY gained and €4,422 per QALY gained compared to alectinib, €34,032 per LY gained and €48,256 per QALY gained versus crizotinib and €16,587 per LY gained and €26,271 per QALY gained compared to brigatinib.

CONCLUSION

Lorlatinib provides substantial clinical benefit and appears to be a cost - effective treatment option compared to 1st and 2nd generation TKIs for previously untreated patients with ALK+ aNCSLC in Greece.

Economic Evaluation of Targeted Therapies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase- and ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in India

PURPOSE

Targeted therapies, such as crizotinib and ceritinib, have shown promising results in treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with specific oncogenic drivers like anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros (ROS1) oncogene, etc. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of these therapies for patients with NSCLC in India.

METHODS

The Markov model consisted of three health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Lifetime costs and consequences were estimated for three treatment arms: crizotinib, ceritinib, and chemotherapy for patients with ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with crizotinib and ceritinib was compared to chemotherapy and assessed using a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time per capita gross domestic product in India.

RESULTS

The total lifetime cost per patient for ALK-positive NSCLC was ₹332,456 ($4,054 US dollars [USD]), ₹1,284,100 ($15,659 USD), and ₹2,337,779 ($28,509 USD) in the chemotherapy, crizotinib, and ceritinib arms, respectively. The mean QALYs lived per patient were 1.20, 2.21, and 3.34, respectively. For patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC, the total cost was ₹323,011 ($3,939 USD) and ₹1,763,541 ($21,507 USD) for chemotherapy and crizotinib, with mean QALYs lived per patient of 1.16 and 2.73, respectively. Nearly 92% and 81% reduction in the price of ceritinib and crizotinib is required to make it a cost-effective treatment option for ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings suggest that the prices of ceritinib and crizotinib need to be reduced significantly to justify their value for inclusion in India's publicly financed health insurance scheme for treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC, respectively.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Spain

Purpose

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of lorlatinib compared to alectinib and brigatinib for the treatment of adult patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously not treated, in Spain.

Methods

A partitioned survival model comprised progression free, non-intracranial progression, intracranial progression, and death health states was constructed to estimate the total costs, life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accumulated in a lifetime horizon. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for lorlatinib were obtained from the CROWN study. For alectinib and brigatinib, a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted to estimate OS and PFS hazard ratios versus crizotinib. Utilities were estimated based on EQ-5D-5L data derived from the CROWN (lorlatinib), ALEX (alectinib) and ALTA-1L (brigatinib) studies. According to the Spanish National Health Service perspective the total costs (expressed in euros using a 2021 cost year) included drug acquisition and the administration's subsequent treatment, ALK+ advanced NSCLC management and adverse-event management, and palliative care. Unitary costs were obtained from local cost databases and literature. Costs, LYGs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the model's robustness.

Results

Lorlatinib provided higher health outcomes (+0.70 LYG/patient, +1.42 QALYs/patient) and lower costs (-€9239/patient) than alectinib. Lorlatinib yielded higher LYG (+1.74) and QALYs (+2.30) versus brigatinib but higher costs/patient (+€36,627), resulting in an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of €15,912/QALY gained.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that lorlatinib may be a dominant treatment option versus alectinib. Considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000/QALY, lorlatinib may be an efficient option compared to brigatinib.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Inhibitors in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

The anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor treatment landscape is rapidly evolving, providing patients with ALK-positive (+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with multiple therapy options, multiple lines of treatments, and prolonged survival. However, these recent treatment advances have resulted in additional increases in treatment costs. The objective of this article is to review the economic evidence of ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK+ NSCLC.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic reviews of economic evaluation. The population included adult patients with locally advanced (stage IIIb/c) or metastatic (stage IV) NSCLC cancer with confirmed ALK fusions. The interventions included the ALK inhibitors alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, or lorlatinib. The comparators included the listed ALK inhibitors, chemotherapy, or best supportive care. The review considered cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) that reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in quality-adjusted life years and/or in life years gained. Published literature was searched in Medline (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in Embase (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, and in Cochrane library (via Wiley) by 11 January 2023. Preliminary screening of titles and abstracts was conducted against the inclusion criteria by two independent researchers followed by a full text of selected citations. Search results are presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Critical appraisal was conducted using the validated Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS) tool as well as the Phillips et al. 2004 appraisal tool to assess the reporting and quality of the economic evaluations. Data were extracted from the final set of articles and presented in a table of characteristics of included studies, an overview of study methods of included studies, and a summarization of outcomes of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies met all inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were in the first-line treatment setting (n = 15). Included CEAs varied in the interventions and comparators being evaluated and were conducted from different country perspectives, limiting their comparability. Outcomes from the included CEAs showed that ALK inhibitors may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with ALK+ NSCLC in the first-line and subsequent lines of treatment setting. However, the probability of cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors ranged from 46 to 100% and were mostly achieved at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 USD or higher (> $30,000 or higher in China) in the first-line treatment setting and at thresholds of $50,000 USD or higher in subsequent lines of treatment setting. The number of published full-text CEAs is low and the studies represent a handful of country perspectives. The source of survival data was dependent on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Where RCT data were not available, indirect treatment comparisons or matched adjusted indirect comparisons were performed using efficacy data from different clinical studies. Real world evidence was rarely used for efficacy and costing data inputs.

CONCLUSION

The findings summarized available evidence on cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC across lines of treatment settings and generated a valuable overview of analytical approaches utilized to support future economic analyses. To help further inform treatment and policy decisions, this review emphasizes the need for comparative cost effectiveness of multiple ALK inhibitors simultaneously using real-world data sources with broad representation of settings.

Cost‑Effectiveness of Lorlatinib in First-Line Treatment of Adult Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)‑Positive Non‑Small‑Cell Lung Cancer in Sweden

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of lorlatinib, a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), used first-line in Sweden to treat patients with ALK-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In January 2022, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) extended its approval of lorlatinib to include adult patients with ALK+ NSCLC not previously treated with an ALK inhibitor. Extended first-line approval was based on results from CROWN, a phase III randomized trial that enlisted 296 patients randomized 1:1 to receive lorlatinib or crizotinib. Our analysis compared lorlatinib against the first-generation ALK-TKI crizotinib, and second-generation ALK TKIs alectinib and brigatinib.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with four health states [pre-progression, non-intracranial (non-central nervous system [CNS]) progression, CNS progression, and death] was constructed. The progressed disease state (which is typically modelled in cost-effectiveness analyses of oncology treatments) was explicitly separated into non-CNS and CNS progression as brain metastases, which are common in NSCLC, and can have a large impact on patient prognosis and health-related quality of life. Treatment effectiveness estimates in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms of the model were derived from CROWN data, while indirect relative effectiveness estimates for alectinib and brigatinib were informed using network meta-analysis (NMA). Utility data were derived from the CROWN study in the base case, and cost-effectiveness results were compared when applying UK and Swedish value sets. Costs were obtained from Swedish national data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model robustness.

RESULTS

Fully incremental analysis identified crizotinib as the least costly and least effective treatment. Brigatinib was extendedly dominated by alectinib and, subsequently, alectinib was extendedly dominated by lorlatinib. Lorlatinib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Swedish Krona (SEK) 613,032 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with crizotinib. Probabilistic results were generally consistent with deterministic results, and one-way sensitivity identified NMA HRs, alectinib and brigatinib treatment duration, and the CNS-progressed utility multiplier as key model drivers.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICER of SEK613,032 for lorlatinib versus crizotinib falls below the typical willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained for high-severity diseases in Sweden (approximately SEK1,000,000). Furthermore, as brigatinib and alectinib were extendedly dominated in the incremental analysis, the results of our study indicate that lorlatinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for first-line patients with ALK+ NSCLC in Sweden when compared with crizotinib, alectinib, and brigatinib. Longer-term follow-up data for endpoints informing treatment effectiveness for all first-line treatments would help to reduce uncertainty in the findings.

Lorlatinib as a treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer

Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been approved as a treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer. This review provides information regarding the pharmacology and clinical features of lorlatinib, including its efficacy and associated adverse events. Pivotal clinical trials are discussed along with the current status of lorlatinib as a treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer and future therapeutic challenges.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib as a First-Line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States

Background: In a recent randomized, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 9ER), nivolumab combined with cabozantinib significantly improved patient outcomes compared with sunitinib. However, the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unknown.

Materials and Methods: We constructed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to measure the healthcare costs and outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with those of sunitinib for patients with aRCC. The transition probability of patients was calculated from CheckMate 9ER using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib treatment compared with sunitinib from a US payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a series of scenario analyses to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with an improvement of 0.59 LYs and 0.56 QALYs compared with sunitinib. However, incorporating nivolumab plus cabozantinib into first-line treatment was associated with significantly higher lifetime costs ($483,352.70 vs. $198,320.10), causing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab plus cabozantinib to be $508,987/QALY. The patients’ age of treatment, first-line utility, and cost of nivolumab had the greatest influence on the model. The outcomes were robust when tested in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Conclusion: For aRCC, substituting nivolumab plus cabozantinib in the first-line setting is unlikely to be cost-effective under the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY). Significant price decreases for nivolumab used in first-line therapy would be needed to drop ICERs to a more diffusely acceptable value.

Cost-Effectiveness of Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve patient outcomes, but whether these novel agents are cost-effective for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unclear.

Materials and Methods: A microsimulation model was created to project the healthcare costs and outcomes of six strategies (lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, avelumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib monotherapy) for patients with aRCC. Transition probability of patients was estimated from CLEAR, CheckMate 9ER, CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE-426, JAVELIN Renal 101, and other data sets by using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated from a United States payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, along with multiple scenario analyses, to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Of the six competing strategies, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib yielded the most significant health outcomes, and the sunitinib strategy was the least expensive option. The cost-effective frontier consisted of the nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib strategies, which displayed the ordered ICERs of $81282/QALY for pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib vs sunitinib and $453391/QALY for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib vs pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib. The rest of the strategies, such as lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, and avelumab-plus-axitinib, were dominated. The cost of sunitinib drove the model most influentially.

Conclusions: For aRCC, the pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib strategy is likely to be the most cost-effective alternative at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.