The Impact of Molecularly Targeted Treatment on Direct Medical Costs in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Health care resource use among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the PIvOTAL retrospective observational study

Background

Data are scarce regarding real-world health care resource use (HCRU) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An understanding of current clinical practices and HCRU is needed to provide a benchmark for rapidly evolving NSCLC management recommendations and therapeutic options. The objective of this study was to describe real-world HCRU for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Methods

This multinational, retrospective chart review study was conducted at academic and community oncology sites in Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil. Deidentified data were drawn from medical records of 1440 adults (≥18 years old) who initiated systemic therapy (2011 to mid-2013) for a new, confirmed diagnosis of advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) NSCLC. We summarized HCRU associated with first and subsequent lines of systemic therapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC.

Results

The proportion of patients who were hospitalized at least once varied by country from 24% in Italy to 81% in Japan during first-line therapy and from 22% in Italy to 84% in Japan during second-line therapy; overall hospitalization frequency was 2.5–11.1 per 100 patient-weeks, depending on country. Emergency visit frequency also varied among countries (overall from 0.3–5.9 per 100 patient-weeks), increasing consistently from first- through third-line therapy in each country. The outpatient setting was the most common setting of resource use. Most patients in the study had multiple outpatient visits in association with each line of therapy (overall from 21.1 to 59.0 outpatient visits per 100 patient-weeks, depending on country). The use of health care resources showed no regular pattern associated with results of tests for activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements.

Conclusions

HCRU varied across countries. These findings suggest differing approaches to the clinical management of advanced NSCLC among the eight countries. Comparative findings and an understanding of country-specific clinical practices can help to identify areas of need and guide future resource allocation for patients with advanced NSCLC. Further studies evaluating the costs associated with resource use are warranted.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2946-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment decisions, clinical outcomes, and pharmacoeconomics in the treatment of patients with EGFR mutated stage III/IV NSCLC in Germany: an observational study

Background

We evaluated treatment decisions and outcomes in a cohort of predominately Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFR Mut+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

REASON (NCT00997230) was a non-interventional study in German patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Secondary endpoints for EGFR Mut + NSCLC included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse event (AE) management, and pharmacoeconomic outcomes.

Results

Among 334 patients with EGFR Mut + NSCLC, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were the most common first-line therapy (56.6%, 53.0% gefitinib). Among patients who received TKIs/gefitinib before first disease progression, PFS was longer compared with those who did not receive a TKI (median 10.1/10.0 vs. 7.0 months; HR 0.67/0.69; log-rank p = 0.012/p = 0.022). OS was longer for those patients who ever received a TKI/gefitinib during their complete therapy course compared with those who never received a TKI (median 18.4/18.1 vs. 13.6 months; HR 0.53/0.55; p = 0.003/p = 0.005). Total mean first-line treatment healthcare costs per person were higher for those receiving TKIs (€46,443) compared with those who received chemotherapy (€27,182). Mean outpatient and inpatient costs were highest with chemotherapy. Rash, diarrhea, and dry skin were the most commonly reported AEs for patients receiving gefitinib.

Conclusions

In REASON, TKI therapy was the most common first- and second-line treatment for EGFR Mut + NSCLC, associated with increased drug costs compared with chemotherapy. Patients who received gefitinib or a TKI ever during their complete therapy course had prolonged PFS and OS compared with patients who did not receive a TKI.

Trial registration

The trial was registered on October, 2009 with ClinicalTrials.gov: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00997230?term=NCT00997230&rank=1

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4032-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Defining and Measuring the Affordability of New Medicines: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In many healthcare systems, affordability concerns can lead to restrictions on the use of expensive efficacious therapies. However, there does not appear to be any consensus as to the terminology used to describe affordability, or the thresholds used to determine whether new drugs are affordable.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate how affordability is defined and measured in healthcare.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and EconLit databases (2005-July 2016) were searched using terms covering affordability and budget impact, combined with definitions, thresholds and restrictions, to identify articles describing a definition of affordability with respect to new medicines. Additional definitions were identified through citation searching, and through manual searches of European health technology assessment body websites.

RESULTS

In total, 27 definitions were included in the review. Of these, five definitions described affordability in terms of the value of a product; seven considered affordability within the context of healthcare system budgets; and 15 addressed whether products are affordable in a given country based on economic factors. However, there was little in the literature to indicate that the price of medicines is considered alongside both their value to individual patients and their budget impact at a population level.

CONCLUSIONS

Current methods of assessing affordability in healthcare may be limited by their focus on budget impact. A more effective approach may involve a broader perspective than is currently described in the literature, to consider the long-term benefits of a therapy and cost savings elsewhere in the healthcare system, as well as cooperation between healthcare payers and the pharmaceutical industry to develop financing models that support sustainability as well as innovation.