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

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.

Determining the Comparative Value of Pharmaceutical Risk-Sharing Policies in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Risk-sharing arrangements (RSAs) can be used to mitigate uncertainty about the value of a drug by sharing the financial risk between payer and pharmaceutical company. We evaluated the projected impact of alternative RSAs for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapies based on real-world data. METHODS: Data on treatment patterns of Dutch NSCLC patients from four different hospitals were used to perform "what-if" analyses, evaluating the costs and benefits likely associated with various RSAs. In the scenarios, drug costs or refunds were based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) response, survival compared to the pivotal trial, treatment duration, or a fixed cost per patient. Analyses were done for erlotinib, gemcitabine/cisplatin, and pemetrexed/platinum for metastatic NSCLC, and gemcitabine/cisplatin, pemetrexed/cisplatin, and vinorelbine/cisplatin for nonmetastatic NSCLC. RESULTS: Money-back guarantees led to moderate cost reductions to the payer. For conditional treatment continuation schemes, costs and outcomes associated with the different treatments were dispersed. When price was linked to the outcome, the payer's drug costs reduced by 2.5% to 26.7%. Discounted treatment initiation schemes yielded large cost reductions. Utilization caps mainly reduced the costs of erlotinib treatment (by 16%). Given a fixed cost per patient based on projected average use of the drug, risk sharing was unfavorable to the payer because of the lower than projected use. The impact of RSAs on a national scale was dispersed. CONCLUSIONS: For erlotinib and pemetrexed/platinum, large cost reductions were observed with risk sharing. RSAs can mitigate uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness or budget impact of drugs, but only when the type of arrangement matches the setting and type of uncertainty.