The cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients in China.

Background: Iruplinalkib is a second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which is independently developed by a Chinese pharmaceutical company. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in the Chinese healthcare setting. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes. Efficacy was derived using unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature and experts' opinions. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to evaluate the model's robustness. Results: Treatment with iruplinalkib versus alectinib resulted in a gain of 0.843 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $20,493.27, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24,313.95/QALY. Parameters related to relative efficacy and drug costs were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the PSA, iruplinalkib had a 90% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,863.56/QALY. Conclusion: Compared to alectinib, iruplinalkib is a cost-effective therapy for patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced NSCLC.

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer, with or without brain metastases, receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors.

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK + NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1 year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1 year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p = 0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK + NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK + NSCLC with BM versus no BM.

Cost Effectiveness of Ceritinib and Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib improved survival in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the long-term economic outcomes of using ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the Chinese healthcare setting. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with ceritinib, alectinib or crizotinib. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the hazard ratios of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib by pooling published trials. Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. The primary outputs included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Treatment with alectinib and ceritinib yielded an additional 1.00 and 1.09 QALYs and incremental costs of $62,232 and $15,165, resulting in an ICER of $62,231 and $13,905 per QALY compared with crizotinib, respectively. Parameters related to drug costs and progression-free survival were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ceritinib and alectinib had a 99.9% and 0% probability of being cost effective, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28,410/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that compared with crizotinib and alectinib, ceritinib is a cost-effective option for treatment-naïve patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alectinib for Patients with Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the cost-effectiveness of alectinib versus crizotinib as first-line treatments for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from the perspective of China's healthcare system. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs of alectinib and crizotinib, which included five health states: progression-free (PF) without central nervous system (CNS) progression, PF with CNS progression, post-progression (PP) without CNS progression, PP with CNS progression, and death. Clinical data for transition probabilities were obtained from the ALEX trial at the updated data cutoff. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were derived from clinical expert opinions and published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. Scenario analyses were conducted including using clinical data from the ALESIA trial in Asian patients, using utilities from the ALEX trial, and choosing different parametric survival models. RESULTS: In base case analysis, alectinib yielded an additional 1.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $54,827, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,869/QALY. In scenario analysis, the ICER was $56,787/QALY using clinical data from the ALESIA trial. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities of alectinib being cost-effective were 0.4% and 43.7% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were $28,109/QALY and $50,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: Alectinib could prolong the mean time of PF and delay the time to CNS progression. However, because of its high drug cost, alectinib was unlikely to be cost-effective for untreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients in China.

Cost Effectiveness of Alectinib vs. Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The recently completed ALEX trial demonstrated that alectinib improved progression-free survival, and delayed time to central nervous system progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. However, the long-term clinical and economic impact of using alectinib vs. crizotinib has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine the potential cost utility of alectinib vs. crizotinib from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A cost-utility model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. ALEX trial data informed the progression-free and overall survival estimates. Costs included drug treatments and supportive care (central nervous system and non-central nervous system). Utility values were obtained from trial data and literature. Sensitivity analyses included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Treatment with alectinib vs. crizotinib resulted in a gain of 0.91 life-years, 0.87 quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental costs of US$34,151, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$39,312/quality-adjusted life-year. Drug costs and utilities in the progression-free health state were the main drivers of the model in the one-way sensitivity analysis. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, alectinib had a 64% probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/quality adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: Alectinib increased time in the progression-free state and quality-adjusted life-years vs. crizotinib. The marginal cost increase was reflective of longer treatment durations in the progression-free state. Central nervous system-related costs were considerably lower with alectinib. Our results suggest that compared with crizotinib, alectinib may be a cost-effective therapy for treatment-naïve patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

The cost-effectiveness of alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) advanced NSCLC previously treated with crizotinib.

Introduction Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) targeting drugs provide an important option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with this distinct tumor type; however, there is considerable uncertainty as to which drug provides the optimal value after crizotinib treatment. This study estimated the cost-utility of alectinib vs ceritinib from a US payer perspective. Methods A cost-utility model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free (PF), post-progression (PP), and death. Survival data were derived from the key clinical trials (alectinib: NP28761 & NP28673, ceritinib: ASCEND I and II). Costs included drugs, adverse events, and supportive care. Utilities were based on trial data and the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess parameter uncertainty. Results Treatment with alectinib vs ceritinib resulted in increases of 2.55 months in the PF state, 0.44 quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), and $13,868, yielding a mean cost/QALY of $31,180. In the PSA, alectinib had a 96% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. Drivers of model results were drug costs and utilities in the PF health state. The ICER ranged from $10,600-$65,000 per QALY in scenario analyses, including a sub-group analysis limited to patients with prior chemotherapy and crizotinib treatment. Conclusions Treatment with alectinib in ALK + crizotinib-treated patients increased time progression-free and QALYs vs ceritinib. The marginal cost increase was driven by longer treatment durations with alectinib. This model demonstrates that alectinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment after progression on crizotinib.

Carvedilol reduces the costs of medical care in severe heart failure: an economic analysis of the COPERNICUS study applied to the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of carvedilol on the costs related to the treatment of severe chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS: Costs for the treatment for heart failure within the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) were applied to resource utilisation data prospectively collected in all patients randomized into the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study. Unit-specific, per diem (hospital bed day) costs were used to calculate expenditures due to hospitalizations. We also included costs of carvedilol treatment, general practitioner surgery/office visits, hospital out-patient clinic visits and nursing home care based on estimates derived from validated patterns of clinical practice in the UK. RESULTS: The estimated cost of carvedilol therapy and related ambulatory care for the 1156 patients assigned to active treatment was pound530,771 ( pound44.89 per patient/month of follow-up). However, patients assigned to carvedilol were hospitalised less often and accumulated fewer and less expensive days of admission. Consequently, the total estimated cost of hospital care was pound3.49 million in the carvedilol group compared with pound4.24 million for the 1133 patients in the placebo arm. The cost of post-discharge care was also less in the carvedilol than in the placebo group ( pound479,200 vs. pound548,300). Overall, the cost per patient treated in the carvedilol group was pound3948 compared to pound4279 in the placebo group. This equated to a cost of pound385.98 vs. pound434.18, respectively, per patient/month of follow-up: an 11.1% reduction in health care costs in favour of carvedilol. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that not only can carvedilol treatment increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in patients with severe CHF but that it can also cut costs in the process.