Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BMs) and the subgroup of active BMs from the United States (US) payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 3-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 regimens in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs: (1) tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (TTC); (2) placebo, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (PTC). And subgroup analysis of active BMs was also performed. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) were estimated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $200,000/QALY. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses. Additional scenario analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Compared with PTC, the ICER yielded by TTC was $418,007.01/QALY and the INHB was -1.08 QALYs in patients with BMs. In the subgroup of active BMs, the ICER and the INHB were $324,465.03/QALY and -0.71 QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of tucatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost-effective probability of TTC was low at the current WTP threshold in the patients with BMs and the subgroup of active BMs.

CONCLUSION

Tucatinib is unlikely to be cost-effective in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs from the US payer perspective but shows better economics in patients with active BMs. Selecting a favorable population, reducing the price of tucatinib or offering appropriate drug assistance policies might be considerable options to optimize the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients from a US payer perspective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of letermovir versus no prophylaxis for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) recipients. A decision model for 100 patients was developed to estimate the probabilities of cytomegalovirus infection, cytomegalovirus disease, various other complications, and death in patients receiving letermovir versus no prophylaxis. The probabilities of clinical outcomes were based on the pivotal phase 3 trial of letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis versus placebo in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT. Costs of prophylaxis with letermovir and of each clinical outcome were derived from published sources or the trial clinical study reports. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used in the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainty around the base-case analysis. In this model, the use of letermovir prophylaxis would lead to an increase of QALYs (619) and direct medical cost ($1  733  794) compared with no prophylaxis (578 QALYs; $710  300) in cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT. Letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost-effective option versus no prophylaxis with base-case analysis ICER $25 046/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the most influential parameter was mortality rate. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 92% probability of letermovir producing an ICER below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY gained. Based on this model, letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost-effective option in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective. Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events. Background mortality rate and drug costs were derived from government published data. Costs for medical services were obtained from real-world data and published literatures. Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224). Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to regorafenib, fruquintinib, which leads to forego about 0.05 QALYs and save about CNY 75,599 (USD 11,454), is a cost-effective choice as the third-line treatment for patients with mCRC in China.

Potential life years not saved due to lack of access to anti-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for lung cancer treatment in the Brazilian public healthcare system: Budget impact and strategies to improve access. A pharmacoeconomic study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Brazil. In the 2000s, better understanding of molecular pathways led to development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted treatments that have improved outcomes. However, these treatments are unavailable in most Brazilian public healthcare services (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential number of years of life not saved, the budget impact of the treatment and strategies to improve access.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Pharmacoeconomic study assessing the potential societal and economic impact of adopting EGFR-targeted therapy within SUS.

METHODS

We estimated the number of cases eligible for treatment, using epidemiological data from the National Cancer Institute. We used data from a single meta-analysis and from the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) study as the basis for assessing differences in patients' survival between use of targeted therapy and use of chemotherapy. The costs of targeted treatment were based on the national reference and were compared with the amount reimbursed for chemotherapy through SUS.

RESULTS

There was no life-year gain with EGFR-targeted therapy in the single meta-analysis (hazard ratio, HR, 1.01). The LCMC showed that 1,556 potential life-years were not saved annually. We estimated that the annual budget impact was 125 million Brazilian reais (BRL) with erlotinib, 48 million BRL with gefitinib and 52 million BRL with afatinib. Their incremental costs over chemotherapy per life-year saved were 80,329 BRL, 31,011 BRL and 33,225 BRL, respectively. A drug acquisition discount may decrease the budget impact by 30% (with a 20% discount). A fixed cost of 1,000 BRL may decrease the budget impact by 95%.

CONCLUSION

Reducing drug acquisition costs may improve access to EGFR-targeted therapy for lung cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Afatinib versus Gefitinib for First-Line Treatment of Advanced EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers

INTRODUCTION

The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib were compared in the multicenter, international, randomized, head-to-head phase 2b LUX-Lung 7 trial for first-line treatment of advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLCs. Afatinib and gefitinib costs and patients' outcomes in France were assessed.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of afatinib versus gefitinib for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLCs. Outcomes and safety were taken primarily from the LUX-Lung 7 trial. Resource use and utilities were derived from that trial, an expert-panel questionnaire, and published literature, limiting expenditures to direct costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a 10-year time horizon for the entire population, and EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation (L858R) subgroups. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

For all EGFR mutation-positive NSCLCs, the afatinib-versus-gefitinib ICER of was €45,211 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (0.170 QALY gain for an incremental cost of €7697). ICERs for EGFR exon 19 deletion and L858R populations were €38,970 and €52,518, respectively. Afatinib had 100% probability to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €70,000/QALY for patients with common EGFR mutations.

CONCLUSION

First-line afatinib appears cost-effective compared with gefitinib for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLCs.

Patient response to use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer: a retrospective audit during funding changes

BACKGROUND

The New Zealand Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC) approved funding of erlotinib in October 2010 as second line therapy in all non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy with no requirement for epidermal growth factor (EGFR) mutation testing. Funding widened in August 2012 to include gefitinib as first line treatment for patients with a proven EGFR mutation. Then in January 2014, both tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were approved for first line treatment, but only for disease with EGFR mutation.

AIM

To report the clinical experience with TKIs in a New Zealand tertiary referral centre over a period of funding change.

METHOD

Retrospective audit of all patients commenced on erlotinib from 1st October 2010 until 1st November 2011, and gefitinib from 1st August 2012 until 31st August 2013. Follow-up was two years for both groups.

RESULTS

Each group had 42 patients. Median Progression Free Survival was 76 days in the erlotinib group and 255 days in the gefitinib group. Twenty-eight percent of erlotinib patients had grade 3 adverse events with one treatment related death; fourteen percent of gefitinib patients had grade 3 adverse events. Dose reduction or treatment breaks were required in 12% in each group.

CONCLUSION

Response rate in these audits appear to reflect the change in funding criteria, with improved response rates likely to be associated with more targeted treatment.

Estimated generic prices of cancer medicines deemed cost-ineffective in England: a cost estimation analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to estimate lowest possible treatment costs for four novel cancer drugs, hypothesising that generic manufacturing could significantly reduce treatment costs.

SETTING

This research was carried out in a non-clinical research setting using secondary data.

PARTICIPANTS

There were no human participants in the study. Four drugs were selected for the study: bortezomib, dasatinib, everolimus and gefitinib. These medications were selected according to their clinical importance, novel pharmaceutical actions and the availability of generic price data.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Target costs for treatment were to be generated for each indication for each treatment. The primary outcome measure was the target cost according to a production cost calculation algorithm. The secondary outcome measure was the target cost as the lowest available generic price; this was necessary where export data were not available to generate an estimate from our cost calculation algorithm. Other outcomes included patent expiry dates and total eligible treatment populations.

RESULTS

Target prices were £411 per cycle for bortezomib, £9 per month for dasatinib, £852 per month for everolimus and £10 per month for gefitinib. Compared with current list prices in England, these target prices would represent reductions of 74-99.6%. Patent expiry dates were bortezomib 2014-22, dasatinib 2020-26, everolimus 2019-25 and gefitinib 2017. The total global eligible treatment population in 1 year is 769 736.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that affordable drug treatment costs are possible for novel cancer drugs, suggesting that new therapeutic options can be made available to patients and doctors worldwide. Assessing treatment cost estimations alongside cost-effectiveness evaluations is an important area of future research.

Financial consequences of a payment-by-results scheme in Catalonia: gefitinib in advanced EGFR-mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

In 2011 the first payment-by-results (PbR) scheme in Catalonia was signed between the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), the Catalan Health Service, and AstraZeneca (AZ) for the introduction of gefitinib in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer. The PbR scheme includes two evaluation points: at week 8, responses, stabilization and progression were evaluated, and at week 16 stabilization was confirmed. AZ was to reimburse the total treatment cost of patients that failed treatment, defined as progression at weeks 8 or 16.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the financial consequences of this PbR reimbursement model and determine the perception of the stakeholders involved in the agreement.

METHODS

Differential drug costs between two scenarios, with and without the PbR, were calculated. A qualitative investigation of the organizational elements was performed by interviewing the parties involved in the agreement.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were included from June 2011 to October 2013 and assessed at two evaluation points. Clinical results were comparable to those observed in the pivotal studies of gefitinib. The difference in the cost of gefitinib using the PbR compared to the traditional purchasing scenario was 6.17% less at 8 weeks, 11.18% at 16 weeks and 4.15% less for the overall treatment. The PbR resulted in total savings of around €36,000 (€880 per patient). From an operational and organizational perspective, the availability of adequate data systems to measure outcomes and monitor accountability and the involvement of healthcare professionals were acknowledged as crucial.

CONCLUSIONS

Tangible and intangible benefits were identified with respect to the interests of the parties involved. This has led to the incorporation of innovation for patients under acceptable conditions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of EGFR mutation testing in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel

OBJECTIVE

Assess the cost-effectiveness of an EGFR-mutation testing strategy for advanced NSCLC in first-line therapy with either gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in Mexican institutions.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a discrete event simulation (DES) model to simulate two therapeutic strategies in patients with advanced NSCLC. Strategy one included patients tested for EGFR-mutation and therapy given accordingly. Strategy two included chemotherapy for all patients without testing. All results are presented in 2014 US dollars. The analysis was made with data from the Mexican frequency of EGFR-mutation. A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted on EGFR prevalence. Progression-free survival (PFS) transition probabilities were estimated on data from the IPASS and simulated with a Weibull distribution, run with parallel trials to calculate a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

PFS of patients in the testing strategy was 6.76 months (95 % CI 6.10-7.44) vs 5.85 months (95 % CI 5.43-6.29) in the non-testing group. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that PFS has a direct relationship with EGFR-mutation prevalence, while the ICER and testing cost have an inverse relationship with EGFR-mutation prevalence. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that all iterations had incremental costs and incremental PFS for strategy 1 in comparison with strategy 2.

CONCLUSION

There is a direct relationship between the ICER and the cost of EGFR testing, with an inverse relationship with the prevalence of EGFR-mutation. When prevalence is >10 % ICER remains constant. This study could impact Mexican and Latin American health policies regarding mutation detection testing and treatment for advanced NSCLC.

Gefitinib Therapy for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVE:

To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and toxicity of gefitinib in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

DATA SOURCES:

Primary literature search through MEDLINE and CANCERLIT, and abstract presentations (1966–May 2003).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

All published trials and abstracts citing gefitinib were evaluated, and all information deemed relevant was included in this article.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

NSCLC is known to overexpress epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Gefitinib is a selective EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Based on the Phase I/II trial results, the optimal dose is 250 mg/d orally. It is well tolerated, with minimal and reversible toxicity. Skin rash and diarrhea are the most common adverse effects. Recent trials have shown that gefitinib provided a 10% tumor response rate and improved disease-related symptoms in patients with refractory, advanced NSCLC.

CONCLUSIONS:

Gefitinib, with a unique mechanism of action and favorable toxicity profile, has demonstrated clinical activity in NSCLC patients with chemotherapy-refractory disease. It provides a valuable addition to the treatment options as monotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC after failure of both platinum-based and docetaxel chemotherapies. Further research is required to evaluate the use of gefitinib in different clinical settings.

A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

Objective Considering the increasing number of treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is important to develop high-quality methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs. This study aims to develop a global economic model that could be used as a benchmark for the economic evaluation of new therapies for MBC. Methods The Global Pharmacoeconomics of Metastatic Breast Cancer (GPMBC) model is a Markov model that was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of new treatments for MBC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Specific parameters included in the model are cost of drug treatment, survival outcomes, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Global parameters are patient characteristics, health states utilities, disutilities, and costs associated with treatment-related AEs, as well as costs associated with drug administration, medical follow-up, and end-of-life care. The GPMBC model was tested and validated in a specific context, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole compared with other widely used first-line therapies for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) MBC. Results When tested, the GPMBC model led to incremental cost-utility ratios of CA$131 811 per QALY, CA$56 211 per QALY, and CA$102 477 per QALY for the comparison of lapatinib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone, trastuzumab plus anastrozole, and anastrozole alone, respectively. Results of the model testing were quite similar to those obtained by Delea et al., who also assessed the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in HR+/HER2 + MBC in Canada, thus suggesting that the GPMBC model can replicate results of well-conducted economic evaluations. Conclusions The GPMBC model can be very valuable as it allows a quick and valid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any new treatments for MBC in a Canadian context.

Target prices for mass production of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for global cancer treatment

OBJECTIVE

To calculate sustainable generic prices for 4 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

BACKGROUND

TKIs have proven survival benefits in the treatment of several cancers, including chronic myeloid leukaemia, breast, liver, renal and lung cancer. However, current high prices are a barrier to treatment. Mass production of low-cost generic antiretrovirals has led to over 13 million people being on HIV/AIDS treatment worldwide. This analysis estimates target prices for generic TKIs, assuming similar methods of mass production.

METHODS

Four TKIs with patent expiry dates in the next 5 years were selected for analysis: imatinib, erlotinib, lapatinib and sorafenib. Chemistry, dosing, published data on per-kilogram pricing for commercial transactions of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), and quotes from manufacturers were used to estimate costs of production. Analysis included costs of excipients, formulation, packaging, shipping and a 50% profit margin. Target prices were compared with current prices. Global numbers of patients eligible for treatment with each TKI were estimated.

RESULTS

API costs per kg were $347-$746 for imatinib, $2470 for erlotinib, $4671 for lapatinib, and $3000 for sorafenib. Basing on annual dose requirements, costs of formulation/packaging and a 50% profit margin, target generic prices per person-year were $128-$216 for imatinib, $240 for erlotinib, $1450 for sorafenib, and $4020 for lapatinib. Over 1 million people would be newly eligible to start treatment with these TKIs annually.

CONCLUSIONS

Mass generic production of several TKIs could achieve treatment prices in the range of $128-$4020 per person-year, versus current US prices of $75161-$139,138. Generic TKIs could allow significant savings and scaling-up of treatment globally, for over 1 million eligible patients.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information of Erlotinib, Afatinib, and Cisplatin-Pemetrexed for First-Line Treatment of Advanced EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitors erlotinib or afatinib, or chemotherapy cisplatin-pemetrexed, for first-line treatment of advanced epithelial growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States. We also assessed the expected benefit of further research to reduce uncertainty regarding which treatment is optimal.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib, afatinib, and cisplatin-pemetrexed. Model transition and adverse-effect probabilities were from two published phase III trials: EURTAC (Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer) and LUX-Lung (Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma) 3. EURTAC survival estimates were corrected for patients entering the trial with more severe disease, compared with LUX-Lung 3. Health utilities and costs were from national estimates or the published literature. Inputs were modeled as distributions for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analysis to estimate the expected benefit of reducing uncertainty regarding the decision of optimal treatment.

RESULTS

In the base case, both tyrosine kinase inhibitors were more cost-effective than cisplatin-pemetrexed. Erlotinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $61,809/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with afatinib. The acceptability curve showed that erlotinib was the optimal treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY (10-year population EVPI = $85.9 million). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY to $70,000/QALY (EVPI = $211.5 million-$261.8 million), however, there was considerable uncertainty whether erlotinib or afatinib was the optimal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that erlotinib is the preferred first-line treatment for advanced epithelial growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Further research comparing erlotinib and afatinib is potentially justified, although accurate data are needed on the required cost and sample size of the trial.

Infectious disease. Combating emerging viral threats

Most approved antiviral therapeutics selectively inhibit proteins encoded by a single virus, thereby providing a “one drug-one bug” solution. As a result of this narrow spectrum of coverage and the high cost of drug development, therapies are currently approved for fewer than ten viruses out of the hundreds known to cause human disease. This perspective summarizes progress and challenges in the development of broad-spectrum antiviral therapies. These strategies include targeting enzymatic functions shared by multiple viruses and host cell machinery by newly discovered compounds or by repurposing approved drugs. These approaches offer new practical means for developing therapeutics against existing and emerging viral threats.

[Gefitinib therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer in patients with EGFR mutations: cost-effectiveness analysis]

Therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is very complex clinical problem. The optimal choice of therapy demands not only the analysis of data on clinical effectiveness, but also an assessment of cost-effectiveness of the applied drugs. The current options for first- or second/third-line of lung cancer treatment are tirosine kinase inhibitors (TKI)--gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib. According to the received results TKI first-line therapy for NSCLC in patients with EGFR mutations is not only clinically effective but also is economically acceptable from a position of the Russian budgetary health care. TKI second-line therapy for NSCLC patients who fail first-line therapy also provides improvement of the quality of life and prolonged time to progression. Comparable clinical effectiveness and safety of erlotinib and gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutations allows making drug choice on the basis of regional price characteristics. Afatinib is highly effective both in the first- and in the second/third-line of therapy in patients with the most frequent mutations (a deletion in exon 19 or a point mutation L858R in exon 21) but first-line therapy demands an increase of financial expenses caused by substantial increase of time to progression and duration of therapy. Thus TKI therapy of both the first-, and second/third-line of patients with NSCLC with EGFR mutations is characterized by acceptable cost-effectiveness.

Targeted erlotinib for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a budget impact analysis

OBJECTIVES

A recent phase III trial showed that patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors harbor specific EGFR mutations significantly benefit from first-line treatment with erlotinib compared to chemotherapy. This study sought to estimate the budget impact if coverage for EGFR testing and erlotinib as first-line therapy were provided in a hypothetical 500,000-member managed care plan.

METHODS

The budget impact model was developed from a US health plan perspective to evaluate administration of the EGFR test and treatment with erlotinib for EGFR-positive patients, compared to non-targeted treatment with chemotherapy. The eligible patient population was estimated from age-stratified SEER incidence data. Clinical data were derived from key randomized controlled trials. Costs related to drug, administration, and adverse events were included. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

In a plan of 500,000 members, it was estimated there would be 91 newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC patients annually; 11 are expected to be EGFR-positive. Based on the testing and treatment assumptions, it was estimated that 3 patients in Scenario 1 and 6 patients in Scenario 2 receive erlotinib. Overall health plan expenditures would increase by $0.013 per member per month (PMPM). This increase is largely attributable to erlotinib drug costs, in part due to lengthened progression-free survival and treatment periods experienced in erlotinib-treated patients. EGFR testing contributes slightly, whereas adverse event costs mitigate the budget impact. The budget impact did not exceed $0.019 PMPM in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Coverage for targeted first-line erlotinib therapy in NSCLC likely results in a small budget impact for US health plans. The estimated impact may vary by plan, or if second-line or maintenance therapy, dose changes/interruptions, or impact on patients' quality-of-life were included.

Economic outcomes of maintenance gefitinib for locally advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with unknown EGFR mutations: a semi-Markov model analysis

BACKGROUND

Maintenance gefitinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients from eastern Asian with locally advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after four chemotherapeutic cycles (21 days per cycle) of first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy without disease progression. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance gefitinib therapy after four chemotherapeutic cycle's stand first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with unknown EGFR mutations, from a Chinese health care system perspective.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A semi-Markov model was designed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of the maintenance gefitinib treatment. Two-parametric Weibull and Log-logistic distribution were fitted to PFS and overall survival curves independently. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the stability of the model designed. The model base-case analysis suggested that maintenance gefitinib would increase benefits in a 1, 3, 6 or 10-year time horizon, with incremental $184,829, $19,214, $19,328, and $21,308 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. The most sensitive influential variable in the cost-effectiveness analysis was utility of PFS plus rash, followed by utility of PFS plus diarrhoea, utility of progressed disease, price of gefitinib, cost of follow-up treatment in progressed survival state, and utility of PFS on oral therapy. The price of gefitinib is the most significant parameter that could reduce the incremental cost per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost-effective probability of maintenance gefitinib was zero under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $16,349 (3 × per-capita gross domestic product of China). The sensitivity analyses all suggested that the model was robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance gefitinib following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC with unknown EGFR mutations is not cost-effective. Decreasing the price of gefitinib may be a preferential choice for meeting widely treatment demands in China.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant lapatinib for early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

It has been shown in the NeoALTTO trial that a neoadjuvant regimen containing paclitaxel, lapatinib and trastuzumab is superior to regimens which include only one of the HER2 antagonists with paclitaxel. In light of these results, we modelled the potential cost-effectiveness of adjuvant lapatinib for patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We constructed a Markov state-transition model with three different health states: disease free, relapse, and death. We assumed an 18-week course of lapatinib was added to the TCH arm of the BCIRG 006 trial. Since no efficacy data are available for combining adjuvant lapatinib with trastuzumab, we ran the model assuming five different hypothetical hazard ratios for disease free survival when lapatinib is added to TCH (TCH was used as the control group). The hazard ratios were 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5. Outcomes are given in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at the 4% rate. We calculated the cost per QALY from the perspective of the Irish health care system. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity were performed and confidence intervals were bootstrapped.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the five hazard ratios are €53 089/QALY, €27 893/QALY, €18 463/QALY, €13 527/QALY and €10 490/QALY, respectively. Using the €45 000/QALY threshold, an adjuvant lapatinib regimen is cost-effective at the 0.8 hazard ratio. Adjuvant lapatinib becomes cost-effective at the 0.879 hazard ratio where the ICER is €44 825/QALY.

CONCLUSION

In the Irish setting, an adjuvant lapatinib regimen would be considered cost-effective for patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer for four of the five hypothesised hazard ratios. Data from both adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials suggest that the hazard ratio required to achieve cost-effectiveness for adjuvant lapatinib is both possible and plausible.

A C++ program to calculate sample sizes for cost-effectiveness trials in a Bayesian framework

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) has become an increasingly important component of clinical trials. However, formal sample size calculations for such studies are not common. One of the reasons for this might be due to the absence of readily available computer software to perform complex calculations, particularly in a Bayesian setting. In this paper, a C++ program (using NAG library functions/subroutines) is presented to estimate the sample sizes for cost-effectiveness clinical trials in a Bayesian framework. The program can equally be used to calculate sample sizes for efficacy trials. The Bayesian approach to sample size calculation is based on that of O'Hagan and Stevens (A. O'Hagan, J.W. Stevens, Bayesian assessment of sample size for clinical trials of cost-effectiveness, Medical Decision Making 21 (2001) 219-230). With this program, the user can calculate sample sizes for various thresholds of willingness to pay and under various assumptions of the correlations between cost and effects. Under some prior, the program produces frequentist sample size as well. The program runs under windows environment and running time is very short.

A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib alone versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line therapy for Eastern Asian nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer, the most prevalent malignant cancer in the world, remains a serious threat to public health. Recently, a large number of studies have shown that an epidermoid growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI), Erlotinib, has significantly better efficacy and is better tolerated in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with a positive EGFR gene mutation. However, access to this drug is severely limited in China due to its high acquisition cost. Therefore, we decided to conduct a study to compare cost-effectiveness between erlotinib monotherapy and carboplatin-gemcitabine (CG) combination therapy in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed from the perspective of the Chinese health care system to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the two treatment strategies; this model was based on data from the OPTIMAL trial, which was undertaken at 22 centres in China. The 10-year quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated. To allow for uncertainties within the parameters and to estimate the model robustness, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The median progression-free survival (PFS) obtained from Markov model was 13.2 months (13.1 months was reported in the trial) in the erlotinib group while and 4.64 months (4.6 months was reported in the trial) in the CG group. The QALYs were 1.4 years in the erlotinib group and 1.96 years in the CG group, indicating difference of 0.56 years. The ICER was most sensitive to the health utility of DP ranged from $58,584.57 to $336,404.2. At a threshold of $96,884, erlotinib had a 50% probability of being cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Erlotinib monotherapy is more cost-effective compared with platinum-based doublets chemotherapy as a first-line therapy for advanced EGFR mutation- positive NSCLC patients from within the Chinese health care system.

A systematic review of economic evaluations in second and later lines of therapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Surgery is generally accepted as the first-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy as second-line treatments. Docetaxel or erlotinib are generally recommended as the first-line chemotherapy option. The objective of this review was to identify previously published economic evaluations in NSCLC for second- and later-line treatments in order to (i) determine common modelling approaches and (ii) establish the relative cost effectiveness of these treatments. An overview of model critique was also produced to identify common criticisms from health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on the models submitted.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, MEDLINE in Process(®) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) were searched (database start-October 2011), along with proceedings from eight major conferences (2007-2011). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) websites and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) database were also searched for appraisals in second- or later-line NSCLC. All published studies and HTA appraisals that reported economic evaluations of interventions used in current clinical practice as second- or later-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were included. Only studies in English were considered for inclusion. Studies which met the eligibility criteria after the screening of full-text articles were extracted by a reviewer and checked by a second party. Where multiple publications were identified describing a single study, the extracted data were compiled into one entry.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies were included which clearly evaluated second-line or later-line regimens. Most studies were either cost-effectiveness or cost-utility evaluations. Three-state transition Markov models were frequently used in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility evaluations. The model inputs were well reported and commonly consisted of data from pivotal trials. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in the majority of studies and covered variables such as cost, effectiveness, hospitalization and treatment duration. Therapies (docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib) are for the most part cost-effective/cost-saving second-line therapies compared with best supportive care (BSC). Six erlotinib HTAs, across NICE, SMC, and PBAC, and four pemetrexed HTAs, one by NICE and three by SMC, were identified. The CADTH website did not provide sufficient detail on the appraisals and was excluded. Certain aspects of the models and model assumptions, e.g. efficacy inputs, were criticized or determined unjustifiable by the NICE, SMC and PBAC appraisal committees. Erlotinib and pemetrexed were considered to be cost effective versus docetaxel by NICE and SMC in the final submissions. PBAC considered erlotinib to be cost effective versus BSC following a price reduction in 2008.

CONCLUSION

Three-state Markov models are often used to conduct economic analysis in NSCLC and are regarded as appropriate to HTA agencies. Docetaxel, erlotinib and BSC are suitable comparators that should be considered for use in the model in the UK and Australia. Further, manufacturers should carefully select underlying assumptions used in the model, for both costs and clinical inputs, where the latter is derived from direct head-to-head trial data.

Budget impact analysis of the use of oral and intravenous anti-cancer drugs for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

Two anti-cancer drugs are currently approved for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC): trastuzumab-based therapy (TBT) administered intravenously as first line therapy until disease progression and lapatinib, an oral self-administered dual therapy with capecitabine (L+C) as second intention for patients who continue to progress despite TBT. In current practice, TBT is still prescribed beyond disease progression. In addition to medical reasons, the difficulty to switch eligible patients to oral drugs may also be explained by economic reasons. Thus, we aimed at comparing the budgetary impact of TBT and L+C for progressing HER2+MBC after TBT from the French Health Insurance perspective.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis was performed on a 3-year time horizon (2012-2014) to simulate a dynamic cohort of 4182 HER2-positive patients with a progressing MBC treated with TBT (73%) and L + C (27%). The model was adjusted on progression-free survival (PFS). Office visits, clinical evaluations, drug acquisition, administration costs, and transportation costs obtained from the literature and published databases were considered.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis (2012), the annual treatment cost per patient for TBT (€36,077) was 2-times higher than that of L + C (€17,165). Using L + C for all patients (n = 4182) would avoid €34.8 million of drug administration and transportation costs. Hospital costs represented 1% vs 88%, while community costs represented 99% vs 12% of L + C and TBT treatment costs, respectively. The lack of direct comparison PFS and treatment dosage modification data were the main limitations. However, no major changes from baseline results were observed from sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a slightly higher acquisition cost, the treatment cost of L + C remains lower than that of TBT, and it is the only approved anti-HER2 treatment for HER2-positive patients with progressing MBC. Based on this, it seems important to consider the potential savings for Health Insurance with the use of oral drug due to the reduction of outpatient hospitalizations. Such reductions may result in a subsequent budget reduction for hospitals, but may also provide those facing acute medical activity with opportunities to better manage other diseases whose treatment cannot be externalized.

Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who have received prior therapy with trastuzumab

BACKGROUND

In a phase III trial of women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab, an anthracycline, and taxanes (EGF100151), lapatinib plus capecitabine (L+C) improved time to progression (TTP) versus capecitabine monotherapy (C-only). In a trial including HER2+ MBC patients who had received at least one prior course of trastuzumab and no more than one prior course of palliative chemotherapy (GBG 26/BIG 03-05), continued trastuzumab plus capecitabine (T+C) also improved TTP.

METHODS

An economic model using patient-level data from EGF100151 and published results of GBG 26/BIG 03-05 as well as other literature were used to evaluate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained with L+C versus C-only and versus T+C in women with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

RESULTS

Expected costs were £28,816 with L+C, £13,985 with C-only and £28,924 with T+C. Corresponding QALYs were 0.927, 0.737 and 0.896. In the base case, L+C was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with T+C; cost per QALY gained was £77,993 with L+C versus C-only. In pairwise probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probability that L+C is preferred to C-only was 0.03 given a threshold of £30,000. The probability that L+C is preferred to T+C was 0.54 regardless of the threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared against capecitabine alone, the addition of lapatinib has a cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding the threshold normally used by NICE. Compared with T+C, L+C is dominant in the base case and approximately equally likely to be cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses over a wide range of threshold values.

Proposal for a novel methodology to screen and score cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic disease: could cost weigh in evaluation?

PURPOSE

Rising costs of anticancer drugs prompt concerns about their approval, use, and affordability. A methodology was developed to evaluate cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic breast cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Costs of evaluated drugs were calculated by using average wholesale prices in US dollars. Ratios of cost to day of survival (cost/survival/d) were obtained by dividing costs of the entire treatment by reported median survival gain in days. A crude score of 100% was assigned to a cost/survival/d of less than $25, and 0% to a cost/survival/d of more than $750. A strategy was designed to correct for overall survival (OS) versus progression-free survival (PFS), adverse effects, and quality of life.

RESULTS

In breast cancer, PFS scores of bevacizumab varied between 0% and 60%. In NSCLC, OS scores of bevacizumab improved from 0% to 50%, as a result of histology, lower prices, and extended therapy. Gefitinib and erlotinib PFS scores were 80% and 70%, respectively. Correction for longer survival with erlotinib resulted in similar scores. In maintenance therapy, the OS score for pemetrexed was 70% as compared with 25% for erlotinib. Generic drugs scored 70% to 90%.

CONCLUSION

Cost/survival varied with the number of cycles. In breast cancer, bevacizumab scores failed to justify its use. In NSCLC, 10 cycles of bevacizumab scored 0%. Scores improved with extended treatment and lower prices. Scores for gefitinib and erlotinib would support their approval. Erlotinib was preferred because of longer PFS. Results tended to endorse maintenance pemetrexed but not erlotinib. Generic drugs demonstrated high scores. Cost/survival could weigh in drug evaluation.

[Pharmacoeconomic analysis of gefitinib therapy in patients with non-cell cell lung cancer]

We performed a treatment efficacy analysis for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients' population with EGFR mutation aimed at optimization of pharmacoeconomic factors. The employment of gefitinib leads to an increase in patients' life expectancy for a median of 1.05 years. The average cost-effectiveness of this therapy is 934.8 thousand rubles per additional year (903.9-1100.5 thousand rubles for each year). If gefitinib therapy is given only to patients with proved EGFR mutation it can decrease the average expenses by 211.6-251.8 thousand rubles per patient in comparison to undiagnosed patients's population receiving gefitinib without a decrease in clinical effect. Comparison of selective gefitinib administration with isolated chemotherapy (CT) yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 960.7 to 1010.0 thousand rubles per additional year. Therefore, the strategy of EGFR gene mutations testing in patients with inoperable NSCLC with consequent gefitinib therapy administration in patients positive for mutation lead to an increase in life expectancy and is characterized by acceptable cost-effectiveness.

Erlotinib monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of non-small cell lung cancer after previous platinum-containing chemotherapy: a NICE single technology appraisal

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of erlotinib (Roche) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of erlotinib as monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stable disease following previous treatment with four cycles of platinum-containing therapy. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this appraisal. The ERG reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in two stages and in accordance with the decision problem defined by NICE. The analysis of the submitted models assessed the appropriateness of the approach taken by the manufacturer in modelling the decision problem. Analysis also included reliability of model implementation and the extent of conformity to published standards and prevailing norms of practice within the health economics modelling community. Particular attention was paid to issues likely to have substantial impact on the base-case cost-effectiveness results. Clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, phase III study designed to address the overall population of NSCLC patients. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The recruited population was mainly from outside of Western Europe and no patients in the pivotal trial had received pemetrexed as a first-line therapy, which is now accepted clinical practice in the UK. The evidence considered in this article includes only the population for whom marketing authorizations has been received--that is, patients with stable disease following first-line therapy. The trial reported a small but statistically significant increase in both PFS and OS in patients with stable disease receiving erlotinib compared with placebo. However, no significant difference was identified in OS when patients with non-squamous disease and stable disease were considered as a subgroup. The economic evidence was focussed on the ERG's assessment of three economic models that related to patients with stable disease and compared erlotinib with placebo in the squamous and non-squamous populations and erlotinib with pemetrexed in the non-squamous population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported by the manufacturer were £39,936 per QALY gained (stable disease, all); £35,491 per QALY gained (stable disease, squamous); and £40,020 per QALY gained (stable disease, non-squamous). In comparison with pemetrexed, in the cases where erlotinib was considered to be superior or equivalent, erlotinib dominated. In the cases where erlotinib was considered to be slightly inferior, then the ICERs ranged between £91,789 and £511,351 per QALY gained; these ICERs appear in the south-west corner of a cost-effectiveness plane, i.e. erlotinib is cheaper but less effective than pemetrexed. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results in the manufacturer's submission, considering nine key areas where corrections and/or adjustments were required, related to time horizon, discounting logic, costs of erlotinib and pemetrexed, cost of second-line chemotherapy, unit costs, utility values, PFS and OS. This resulted in ERG-revised ICERs for the stable disease squamous population of £44,812 per QALY gained, in the stable disease non-squamous population of £68,120 per QALY gained, and, when erlotinib was compared with pemetrexed, the result was £84,029 per QALY gained. All values were above NICE's perceived willingness-to-pay threshold. After the second Appraisal Committee meeting, the Committee did not recommend the use of erlotinib in this patient population.

Budget impact of erlotinib for maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

Assess the budgetary impact of adding erlotinib for maintenance therapy (MTx) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US health plan perspective.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the costs (drug, administration, adverse events) associated with adding erlotinib MTx to a hypothetical 500,000 member US health plan. Treatment durations and dosing were derived from randomized controlled trials, FDA labeling, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Treatment patterns and assumptions were based on market research data, the SEER registry, and published literature. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payment rates and a drug pricing database. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Overall health plan expenditures increased by $0.010 per member per month (PMPM). The main driver of additional cost was the erlotinib drug cost (∼$66,000) with the administration ($464) and side-effect ($47) costs being relatively modest. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the proportion of members receiving MTx; however, the PMPM did not exceed $0.013.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall budget impact to a health plan of expanding the use of erlotinib from the 2nd/3rd-line advanced NSCLC setting to include the maintenance setting was relatively small. This was primarily due to the proportion of patients who would receive erlotinib MTx, the low cost of side-effects and minimal cost of drug administration. Additional research may be warranted to estimate the relative clinical and economic impacts of erlotinib MTx versus alternative MTx treatments.

Erlotinib: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Erlotinib (Tarceva), an oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is associated with modest improvements in survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have previously received one or more prior chemotherapy regimens. In a well designed clinical trial in this patient population, median overall survival and progression-free survival were significantly longer in patients receiving erlotinib 150 mg/day than in those receiving placebo. Erlotinib is generally well tolerated, with most adverse events being of mild to moderate severity. A large body of modelled pharmacoeconomic data suggests that second- or third-line erlotinib 150 mg/day is a cost-saving option relative to treatment with the approved second-line intravenous chemotherapies of docetaxel and pemetrexed in patients with advanced NSCLC. In patients who had received at least one prior chemotherapy regimen, erlotinib was predicted to be dominant (i.e. more effective and less costly) or cost saving (i.e. equally effective and less costly) relative to docetaxel or pemetrexed with regard to the cost per QALY or life-year gained in cost-effectiveness analyses. Although the effect of erlotinib on overall survival was generally assumed to be equivalent to that of the chemotherapies, the estimated amount of QALYs gained was slightly greater with erlotinib than with docetaxel. In cost-minimization and national budgetary impact analyses, estimated total direct costs with erlotinib were lower than those with docetaxel and pemetrexed, because of the generally lower drug acquisition, administration and adverse event management costs associated with erlotinib. Cost advantages with erlotinib were predicted across analyses, regardless of the type of model developed, specific costs that were included, country that the study was conducted in and year of costing. Sensitivity analyses consistently showed that these results were robust to plausible changes in the key model assumptions. In conclusion, in patients with advanced NSCLC, second- or third-line treatment with erlotinib is clinically effective in improving survival. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of erlotinib as a cost-saving treatment relative to chemotherapy with docetaxel or pemetrexed in this patient population.

Economics of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to review the economics of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We systematically analysed the cost effectiveness of treatments for the different stages of NSCLC, with particular emphasis on more recently approved agents. Numerous economic analyses in NSCLC have been conducted, with a variety of methods and in a number of countries. In patients with localized disease, adjuvant chemotherapy appears to have greater cost effectiveness than observation; however, there are few published data. In locally advanced disease, combined modalities (chemotherapy, surgery and/or radiotherapy) are probably cost effective, but high-quality economic analyses are lacking. In advanced NSCLC, third-generation chemotherapies used in the first-line setting can be administered with acceptable incremental cost effectiveness. In the second-line setting, new agents (docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib) have acceptable cost effectiveness. The lack of cost-utility analyses for elderly patients and patients with a poor prognosis rules out firm conclusions. This review suggests that most therapies for NSCLC are cost effective when the patient has a good performance status, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio under USD 50,000 per life-year gained in the majority of cases.

The potential clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenomic approaches to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacogenomic applications in oncology offer significant promise, but the clinical and economic implications remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost-utility of implementing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing before initiating second-line therapy for advanced refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We developed a decision analytic model to evaluate the cost-utility of EGFR protein expression or gene copy number testing compared to standard care with erlotinib in refractory advanced NSCLC patients. Costs and utilities were obtained from publicly available sources. We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate uncertainty in the results.

RESULTS

The quality-adjusted life expectancies for erlotinib, EGFR protein expression testing, and gene copy number testing were: 0.44, 0.48, and 0.50 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); and the costs were: $57,238, $63,512, and $66,447, respectively. The most cost-effective testing option, EGFR gene copy number testing, produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $162,018/QALY compared to no testing (erlotinib). The results were most sensitive to the survival estimates, health state utilities, and cost of disease progression. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, erlotinib without testing was the optimal treatment strategy until the $150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, after which gene copy testing was optimal. The discounted expected value of perfect information at a $100,000/QALY threshold in the USA over 5 years was $31.4 million.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results suggest that EGFR pharmacogenomic testing has the potential to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy in the treatment of refractory NSCLC by a clinically meaningful margin at a value commensurate with the approved therapies in this setting. Additional research in this area is warranted.

Cost-minimisation analysis of erlotinib in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Brazilian perspective

OBJECTIVE

A cost-minimisation and budget impact analysis of erlotinib versus docetaxel or pemetrexed as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Costs and budgetary impacts were estimated from the perspective of a Brazilian private healthcare payer, based on results of the BR.21 study of erlotinib and pivotal trials of docetaxel and pemetrexed. A 126-day timeframe was evaluated, based on the progression-free survival determined for erlotinib in BR.21. A Delphi panel identified local practices and associated costs in Brazil. Other costs accounted for included medical payments, pre- and post-chemotherapy medication and drug administration costs. Multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed, but given the short time frame used, discounting was not applied.

RESULTS

Total costs were R$26,825 for erlotinib, R$42,284 for docetaxel and R$79,841 for pemetrexed. Cost savings with erlotinib were attributable to lower acquisition costs (R$26,795 vs. R$40,217 for docetaxel and R$78,911 for pemetrexed) and lower costs for the management of side effects. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The budget impact analysis showed savings with erlotinib in the first year, ranging from R$3 million to R$28 million.

CONCLUSION

Erlotinib is cost-saving over established chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC under the Brazilian private healthcare system.

[Financial aspects of targeted therapy of lung cancer as compared to conventional chemotherapy]

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, and it is responsible for 20-25% of all cancer deaths. In Hungary, more than 4,000 lung cancer patients receive chemotherapy every year, and of them 3,000 suffer from non-small cell lung cancer. Despite the rapid development in antitumor treatment options, the response rates of chemotherapies in non-small cell lung cancer still remain between 15-35%. Recently, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy has been introduced with a response rate of 15% when used in unselected patients. However, this ratio may increase up to 70% when only patients with tumors containing EGFR mutation are treated. Therefore, results of translational research that could help pulmonologists and oncologists to apply tailored therapy in lung cancer patients are of great importance. The purpose of our work was to establish a model in order to study the relevance of immunohistochemical and molecular biological analyses of tumor specimens in treatment and patient selection, and to investigate their cost-sparing effects. We concluded that the most cost-effective type of patient selection could be achieved with EGFR mutation status analysis of the tumor tissue. Our results may help to determine the most cost-effective way of patient selection in case of non-small cell lung cancer patients requiring second line therapy; moreover, they might serve as a basis for further economic analyses.

Economic impact of gefitinib for refractory non-small-cell lung cancer: a Markov model-based analysis

Few data are available on the economics of target therapy or refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the mean global management costs (MC) per patient treated with gefitinib for NSCLC, and the costs of the different management phases.

METHOD

A Markov approach was used to model treatment costs in a cohort of 106 patients treated with gefitinib as part of a compassionate-use program (third-line treatment) in six public-sector teaching hospitals. The economic analysis adopted the health care payer's perspective, and only direct costs were taken into account.

RESULTS

The mean duration of gefitinib treatment was 4.6 +/- 5.8 months (1-29 months); median survival was 4 months, 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 12.3% and 4.7%, respectively. The mean total management cost was 39,979 euros +/- 20,279. The model showed that first- and second-line treatments accounted for respectively 29.5% and 44.1% of this cost, while gefitinib periods represented 10.7%, periods of remission 1.25%, and terminal care 14.5%. A sensitivity analysis showed that the price of gefitinib had little influence on the total cost.

CONCLUSION

The cost of third-line gefitinib therapy for NSCLC appears acceptable from the healthcare payer's perspective, but this needs to be confirmed in dedicated cost-effectiveness studies.

Pharmacy benefit spending on oral chemotherapy drugs

BACKGROUND

Pharmacy benefits have historically excluded injectable drugs, resulting in coverage of injectable drugs under the medical benefit. High-cost biologics and other new drug therapies are often injectables and therefore have not presented cost threats to pharmacy benefits. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of capecitabine, an oral form of fluorouracil, in 1998, and imatinib mesylate in oral dose form for chronic myeloid leukemia, in 2001, signaled a new period in budget forecasting for pharmacy benefits, particularly for small, self-insured employers for whom a drug with a cost of 25,000 dollars per year of therapy for 1 patient could increase total pharmacy benefit costs by 10% or more.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the actual relative costs of the oral chemotherapy drugs in pharmacy benefits in 2006 and identify the history of spending on oral chemotherapy drugs relative to total pharmacy benefit spending for small, self-insured employers over the 4.5 years through May 2006.

METHODS

Administrative pharmacy claims from the database of a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) for approximately 500,000 members of small, self-insured employer plans were used to calculate the net plan cost of oral chemotherapy drugs relative to total drug benefit costs for the period January 1, 2002, through May 31, 2006. Current costs for oral chemotherapy drugs for small employers were compared with an insured health plan of approximately the same number of members for dates of service January 1, 2006, through May 31, 2006.

RESULTS

This descriptive analysis found that oral chemotherapy drugs represented 0.27% of total drug benefit costs, or approximately 0.08 dollars per member per month (PMPM) for small, self-insured employers in 2002, rising linearly to 0.73%, or approximately 0.24 dollars PMPM in the first 5 months of 2006. Members in pharmacy benefit plans sponsored by small employers paid an average 6.9% cost share for oral chemotherapy drugs in 2006, nearly identical to the average 8.5% paid by members of an insured health plan of similar size in total membership, versus 26.9% average cost share for all drugs. Imatinib mesylate accounted for 45% of total spending on oral chemotherapy agents in 2002 versus 40% in 2006.

CONCLUSION

Spending on oral chemotherapy drugs as a proportion of total pharmacy benefit costs has more than doubled, from about 0.3% in 2002 to 0.7% in 2006. For small, self-insured employers, this represents a nearly 3-fold increase in spending, from about 0.08 dollars PMPM in 2002 to about 0.24 dollars PMPM in 2006.

Evaluation of erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: impact on the budget of a U.S. health insurance plan

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the most common non-skin cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among men and women in North America. More than half of all patients diagnosed with lung cancer are diagnosed with advanced disease. Most cases of lung cancer are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib monotherapy is indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after failure of at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the budgetary impact, from the health plan perspective, of covering erlotinib for treating patients with NSCLC stage IIIb/IV who have failed at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen.

METHODS

An Excel-based model was developed to evaluate costs for U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-recommended treatment options for second- and third-line NSCLC from the perspective of a U.S. health insurer. In particular, the model compares a formulary with erlotinib and a formulary without erlotinib, including the costs of treatment, drug administration, and adverse effects. The incidence of advanced NSCLC is based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Cancer Registry and adverse effects related to treatment (all agents) in published results of clinical trials. Drug and treatment costs were obtained from publicly available sources in 2005.

RESULTS

The base case considers a health plan of 500,000 enrollees. Assuming that erlotinib comprises 30% of second-line treatments and 90% for third-line, total costs of treating stage IIIb/IV NSCLC patients over 1 year are Dollars 382,418 with erlotinib and Dollars 380,968 without erlotinib (difference: Dollars 1,450; 90% confidence interval, -Dollars 61,376 to Dollars 29,855), less than Dollars 0.01 per member per month (PMPM) in 2005. Erlotinib direct cost is offset by reductions in standard chemotherapy-related infusion costs and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analysis, the inclusion of erlotinib on a formulary appears to have a relatively small impact on the annual health care budget or PMPM expenditures if it is used consistent with the product label indications.

A willingness-to-pay study of oral epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) are new agents in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies demonstrate objective tumor responses and symptom improvement, combined with minimal toxicity and the convenience of an oral agent. We evaluated patient utility through willingness-to-pay (WTP) for these agents in the treatment of advanced NSCLC in Canada.

METHODS

Advanced NSCLC patients and healthy subjects participated in a structured interview and bidding exercise, reviewing current evidence supporting EGFR TKI therapy in advanced NSCLC and patient willingness-to-pay for treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients and 54 healthy subjects participated. The median amount both groups were willing to pay for a month of oral EGFR TKI therapy was $100 CAD (range $0-5000 per month). A minority of NSCLC patients received employment income, the majority relying on disability, pension income, and social assistance for financial support. Affordability of these agents was a key concern for both advanced NSCLC patients and healthy subjects. Univariate predictors of WTP included marital status, prior chemotherapy treatment, receiving pension income or financial social assistance. In multivariate analysis, only prior chemotherapy remained a significant predictor of WTP (p=0.049).

CONCLUSION

Both advanced NSCLC patients and healthy subjects feel oral EGFR TKIs are worth paying for in the treatment of advanced NSCLC, but are willing to pay only a fraction of the market price. As many advanced NSCLC patients are financially disadvantaged, the potential for restricted access to newer therapies is of concern.

The economic impact of using alfuzosin 10 mg once daily in the management of acute urinary retention in the UK: a 6-month analysis

OBJECTIVE

To calculate the economic consequences of using alfuzosin 10 mg once daily for managing acute urinary retention (AUR) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

We examined whether alfuzosin use during hospitalization for AUR and for 6 months after a successful trial without catheter (TWOC) is cost effective compared to placebo and immediate prostatectomy, from the perspective of patients managed in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. A decision-analysis model was developed to estimate the costs of various treatment options within the first 6 months after a first episode of AUR. Clinical data were obtained from a large randomized clinical trial comparing alfuzosin 10 mg with placebo, and from published reports. Cost data were obtained from both NHS and resource-use data gathered during the clinical trial. A Monte Carlo analysis, allowing variability in all uncertain variables of the model, was used to calculate the uncertainty surrounding the results.

RESULTS

Treating patients with alfuzosin during initial hospitalization for AUR and in the first 6 months after a successful TWOC generates a cost-saving of pounds 349 relative to placebo. Savings related to immediate prostatectomy were pounds 892; both savings were significant (P < 0.05). Alfuzosin treatment was associated with a lower rate of prostatectomy after discharge from hospital after a successful TWOC.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with alfuzosin 10 mg once daily before and after a successful TWOC has both clinical and economic benefits. It decreases the need for emergency surgery for BPH and reduces treatment costs in the first 6 months.