Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations.

The European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2020-02-01 Epub Date: 2019-09-20 DOI:10.1007/s10198-019-01117-3
Marscha S Holleman, Maiwenn J Al, Remziye Zaim, Harry J M Groen, Carin A Uyl-de Groot
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations.","authors":"Marscha S Holleman, Maiwenn J Al, Remziye Zaim, Harry J M Groen, Carin A Uyl-de Groot","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01117-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in EGFR-mutated NSCLC. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatments, a Markov model was developed from Dutch societal perspective. The model was based on the clinical studies included in the NMA. Incremental costs per life-year (LY) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total discounted per patient costs for gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib were €65,889, €64,035, €69,418, and €131,997, and mean QALYs were 1.36, 1.39, 1.52, and 2.01 per patient, respectively. Erlotinib dominated gefitinib. Afatinib versus erlotinib yielded incremental costs of €27,058/LY and €41,504/QALY gained. Osimertinib resulted in €91,726/LY and €128,343/QALY gained compared to afatinib. PSA showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib had 13%, 19%, 43%, and 26% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. A price reduction of osimertinib of 30% is required for osimertinib to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Osimertinib has a better effectiveness compared to all other TKIs. However, at a Dutch threshold of €80,000/QALY, osimertinib appears not to be cost-effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7058671/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01117-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in EGFR-mutated NSCLC. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatments, a Markov model was developed from Dutch societal perspective. The model was based on the clinical studies included in the NMA. Incremental costs per life-year (LY) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted.

Results: Total discounted per patient costs for gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib were €65,889, €64,035, €69,418, and €131,997, and mean QALYs were 1.36, 1.39, 1.52, and 2.01 per patient, respectively. Erlotinib dominated gefitinib. Afatinib versus erlotinib yielded incremental costs of €27,058/LY and €41,504/QALY gained. Osimertinib resulted in €91,726/LY and €128,343/QALY gained compared to afatinib. PSA showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib had 13%, 19%, 43%, and 26% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. A price reduction of osimertinib of 30% is required for osimertinib to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY.

Conclusions: Osimertinib has a better effectiveness compared to all other TKIs. However, at a Dutch threshold of €80,000/QALY, osimertinib appears not to be cost-effective.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对携带表皮生长因子受体突变的非小细胞肺癌患者的一线表皮生长因子受体-TKIs进行成本效益分析。
研究目的比较一线吉非替尼、厄洛替尼、阿法替尼和奥西莫替尼治疗表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)突变的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者的成本效益:通过系统综述和网络荟萃分析(NMA),比较吉非替尼、厄洛替尼、阿法替尼和奥西莫替尼对表皮生长因子受体突变的NSCLC的相对疗效。为了评估这些治疗方法的成本效益,我们从荷兰社会的角度建立了一个马尔可夫模型。该模型基于纳入 NMA 的临床研究。估算了每个生命年(LY)和每个质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本。进行了确定性和概率敏感性分析(PSA):吉非替尼、厄洛替尼、阿法替尼和奥西莫替尼的每位患者总贴现成本分别为65,889欧元、64,035欧元、69,418欧元和131,997欧元,每位患者的平均QALY分别为1.36、1.39、1.52和2.01。厄洛替尼优于吉非替尼。阿法替尼与厄洛替尼的增量成本分别为27,058欧元/LY和41,504欧元/QALY。与阿法替尼相比,奥希替尼的收益为91,726欧元/LY和128,343欧元/QALY。PSA 显示,在 80,000 欧元/QALY 临界值下,吉非替尼、厄洛替尼、阿法替尼和奥西莫替尼具有成本效益的概率分别为 13%、19%、43% 和 26%。奥希替尼的降价幅度需要达到30%,才能使奥希替尼在80,000欧元/QALY的阈值下具有成本效益:结论:与所有其他TKI相比,奥希替尼具有更好的疗效。结论:与所有其他 TKIs 相比,奥希替尼具有更好的疗效,但在荷兰的阈值为 80,000 欧元/QALY 时,奥希替尼似乎不具成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mapping functions for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 to generate EQ-5D-3L for economic evaluation Economic assessment of abemaciclib for the adjuvant treatment of luminal HER2- breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish health system Healthcare resource utilisation and direct medical cost for individuals with 5q spinal muscular atrophy in Sweden Economic evaluation of intensive home treatment in comparison to care as usual alongside a randomised controlled trial The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1