Economic analyses of immune-checkpoint inhibitors to treat lung cancer.

Introduction: Total lung-cancer-management costs are increasing dramatically. The widespread use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) explains this rise in large part and financially impacts healthcare systems. Economic assessment has been adapted to this new challenge.Areas covered: This review provides an overview of the economic literature on the use of ICIs to treat lung cancer. Numerous papers have been published over the last few years. Cancers analyzed were non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), squamous NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, or small-cell lung cancer.Expert commentary: For the majority of patients, ICIs are cost-effective for lung cancer management. However, these results are influenced by the threshold chosen by each of the different countries. Patient selection, treatment duration, and factors predictive of efficacy are mandatory to decrease costs.

Review of economic analyses of treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

INTRODUCTION: During the past few years, medical-economic evaluation of lung cancers (LCs) has become unavoidable. Total management costs have been rising constantly, with values almost doubling every 10 years. The financial impact will be even greater with the new molecules now marketed. The methodology for these studies conforms with international recommendations but must be adapted to the new stakes of LC management. AREAS COVERED: This review provides an overview of the available literature concerning the economics of treating non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We first address the global costs of LCs. Detailed analyses were then computed for the different LC stages: localized, locally advanced and metastatic. For metastatic NSCLC, subsections are devoted to targeted therapies and immunotherapies. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Drug costs are one of the major challenges of LC management. The multiplication of medical-economic analyses will assure better access to the marketing of these new and expensive therapeutic agents, but also to the selection of the best management strategy for these cancers.

Impact of a comprehensive geriatric assessment to manage elderly patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancers: An open phase II study using concurrent cisplatin-oral vinorelbine and radiotherapy (GFPC 08-06).

INTRODUCTION: Few data have been published on the optimal management of elderly patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancers (La-NSCLC). This prospective, multicenter, phase II study was undertaken to evaluate the ability of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) to select the elderly La-NSCLC patients who potentially may benefit from concurrent radio-chemotherapy. METHODS: The main inclusion criteria were: La-NSCLC, >70 years old, at least one measurable target, ECOG performance status (PS) 0/1 and normal CGA. Weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2) and oral vinorelbine (30 mg/m2) were combined with standard thoracic radiotherapy (66 Gy, 33 fractions) for 6.5 weeks. The primary evaluation criterion was <15% clinically relevant grade >2 toxicity. Secondary criteria were response rates, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among the 49 patients screened, 40 were included: 87.5% men, median age: 75.1 (70-84) years, 67.5% with PS 0, 52.5% squamous cell carcinomas. The full concurrent regimen was administrated in 77.5% of the cases (chemotherapy: 85%, radiotherapy: 90%); 22.5% of the patients experienced toxicity grade >2 (with three treatment-imputed deaths), 15% when restricted to clinically relevant >2 grade toxicities. One (2.6%) patient achieved a complete response, 53.8% had partial responses and 35.9% stable disease. Median PFS was 15 (95%CI: 8,7-35,2) months, OS 21.8 (95%CI: 16-NR) months and 1-, 2- and 4-year survival rates were 77.5%, 45% and 34.8%. CONCLUSION: CGA was able to select fit elderly patients with La-NSCLCs eligible for concurrent chemoradiotherapy with a satisfactory risk/benefit ratio.

Prognostic role of a comprehensive geriatric assessment on the management of elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a pooled analysis of two prospective phase II trials by the GFPC Group.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic role of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) on the management of elderly patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains to be established. The objective of this analysis was to determine the prognostic role of each CGA domain on overall survival (OS) among elderly patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. METHODS: We pooled individual data from two prospective, randomized phases II trials in patients over 65 years old with advanced-stage NSCLC, who were considered fit (0405 trial) or no-fit (0505 trial) based on a CGA. Both trials compared first-line chemotherapy followed by second-line erlotinib with the reverse strategy in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Factors prognostic of OS were sought by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log rank test for univariate analysis, and a Cox model for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Analysis performed on 194 patients (mean age: 77 years, male gender: 70%, never- or ex-smokers: 56%) showed, in univariate analysis that performance status (PS), smoking status, Charlson, simplified Charlson, nutritional scores, and a mobility score were prognostics of OS. In multivariate analysis, PS [HR: 1.4 (1.02-1.9), P=0.04] and the Charlson score [HR: 1.46 (1.07-1.99), P=0.02] were independently prognostic of OS, while the nutritional score [HR: 0.69 (0.46-1.04), P=0.07] and the mobility score [HR: 0.25 (0.06-1.01), P=0.06] were close to significance. CONCLUSIONS: PS and comorbidities appear to be the main predictors of OS in elderly advanced NSCLC patients selected on the basis of CGA.

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.

Cost savings of home bortezomib injection in patients with multiple myeloma treated by a combination care in Outpatient Hospital and Hospital care at Home.

At home injectable chemotherapy for patients receiving treatment for hematological diseases is still in debate. Given the expense of new innovative medicines, at home treatment has been proposed as a suitable option for improving patient quality of life and decreasing treatment costs. We decided to assess the cost of bortezomib administration in France among multiple myeloma patients from an economic standpoint. Patients in this study were treated within a regional hematological network combining outpatient hospital care and Hospital care at Home administration. To make the cost comparison, our team simulated outpatient hospital care expenses. Fifty-four consecutive multiple myeloma patients who received at least one injection of bortezomib in Hospital care at Home from January 2009 to December 2011 were included in the study. The median number of injections was 12 (range 1-44) at home and 6 (range 0-30) in the outpatient care unit. When compared with the cost simulation of outpatient hospital care alone, bortezomib administration with combined care was significantly less expensive for the National Health Insurance (NHI) budget. The mean total cost per patient and per injection was 954.20 € for combined outpatient and Hospital care at Home vs 1143.42 € for outpatient hospital care alone. This resulted in an estimated 16.5 % cost saving (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.0001). The greatest savings were observed in administration costs (37.5 % less) and transportation costs (68.1 % less). This study reflects results for a regionally implemented program for multiple myeloma patients treated with bortezomib in routine practice in a large rural area.

Use of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for the Management of Elderly Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III Randomized ESOGIA-GFPC-GECP 08-02 Study.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is recommended to assess the vulnerability of elderly patients, but its integration in cancer treatment decision making has never been prospectively evaluated. Here, in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we compared a standard strategy of chemotherapy allocation on the basis of performance status (PS) and age with an experimental strategy on the basis of CGA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, elderly patients ≥ 70 years old with a PS of 0 to 2 and stage IV NSCLC were randomly assigned between chemotherapy allocation on the basis of PS and age (standard arm: carboplatin-based doublet if PS ≤ 1 and age ≤ 75 years; docetaxel if PS = 2 or age > 75 years) and treatment allocation on the basis of CGA (CGA arm: carboplatin-based doublet for fit patients, docetaxel for vulnerable patients, and best supportive care for frail patients). The primary end point was treatment failure free survival (TFFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, tolerability, and quality of life. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-four patients were randomly assigned (standard arm, n = 251; CGA arm, n = 243). Median age was 77 years. In the standard and CGA arms, 35.1% and 45.7% of patients received a carboplatin-based doublet, 64.9% and 31.3% received docetaxel, and 0% and 23.0% received best supportive care, respectively. In the standard and CGA arms, median TFFS times were 3.2 and 3.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.1), and median OS times were 6.4 and 6.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.1). Patients in the CGA arm, compared with standard arm patients, experienced significantly less all grade toxicity (85.6% v 93.4%, respectively P = .015) and fewer treatment failures as a result of toxicity (4.8% v 11.8%, respectively; P = .007). CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, treatment allocation on the basis of CGA failed to improve the TFFS or OS but slightly reduced treatment toxicity.

Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Erlotinib in an EGFR-Mutated Population with Advanced NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: The cost-effectiveness of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR)-mutated advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poorly documented. We therefore conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment with erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in European patients with advanced-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC who were enrolled in the European Erlotinib versus Chemotherapy trial. METHODS: The European Erlotinib versus Chemotherapy study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial performed mainly in Spain, France, and Italy. We based our economic analysis on clinical data and data on resource consumption (drugs, drug administration, adverse events, and second-line treatments) collected during this trial. Utility values were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for the first-line treatment phase and for the overall strategy from the perspective of the three participating countries. Sensitivity analyses were performed by selecting the main cost drivers. RESULTS: Compared with standard first-line chemotherapy, the first-line treatment with erlotinib was cost saving (€7807, €17,311, and €19,364 for Spain, Italy and France, respectively) and yielded a gain of 0.117 quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, given a willingness to pay at least €90,000 for 1 quality-adjusted life-year, the probability that a strategy of first-line erlotinib would be cost-effective was 100% in France, 100% in Italy, and 99.8% in Spain. CONCLUSION: This economic analysis shows that first-line treatment with erlotinib, versus standard chemotherapy, is a dominant strategy for EGFR-mutated advanced-stage NSCLC in three European countries.

Economic evaluation of first-line and maintenance treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

During these last years, there have been an increased number of new drugs for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with a growing financial effect on patients and society. The purpose of this article was to review the economics of first-line and maintenance NSCLC treatments. We reviewed economic analyses of NSCLC therapies published between 2004 and 2014. In first-line settings, in unselected patients with advanced NSCLC, the cisplatin gemcitabine doublet appears to be cost-saving compared with other platinum doublets. In patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year gained (LYG) were $83,537, $178,613, and more than $300,000 for cisplatin-pemetrexed compared with, respectively, cisplatin-gemcitabine, cisplatin-carboplatin-paclitaxel, and carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab. For all primary chemotherapy agents, use of carboplatin is associated with slightly higher costs than cisplatin. In all the analysis, bevacizumab had an ICER greater than $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In epidermal growth factor receptor mutated advanced NSCLC, compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel doublet, targeted therapy based on testing available tissue yielded an ICER of $110,644 per QALY, and the rebiopsy strategy yielded an ICER of $122,219 per QALY. Compared with the triplet carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab, testing and rebiopsy strategies had ICERs of $25,547 and $44,036 per QALY, respectively. In an indirect comparison, ICERs per LYG and QALY of erlotinib versus gefitinib were $39,431 and $62,419, respectively. In anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive nonsquamous advanced NSCLC, the ICER of first-line crizotinib compared with that of chemotherapy was $255,970 per QALY. For maintenance therapy, gefitinib had an ICER of $19,214 per QALY, erlotinib had an ICER of $127,343 per LYG, and pemetrexed had an ICER varying between $183,589 and $205,597 per LYG. Most recent NSCLC strategies are based on apparently no cost-effective strategies if we consider an ICER below $50,000 per QALY an acceptable threshold. We need, probably on a countrywide level, to have a debate involving public health organizations and pharmaceutical companies, as well as clinicians and patients, to challenge the rising costs of managing lung cancer.

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study.

BACKGROUND: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine- or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

Assessment of palliative care for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in France: a prospective observational multicenter study (GFPC 0804 study).

INTRODUCTION: Few studies assessed, in real life, symptoms, specific interventions and factors influencing palliative care (PC) initiation for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to examine, in a prospective cohort of advanced NSCLC patients, PC use and factors associated with early (≤3 months after diagnosis) PC initiation. METHODS: It was an observational multicenter study. Each center included 10 consecutive patients with PC initiation. RESULTS: 514 patients were enrolled by 39 centers (age: 62.3 ± 10.7 years, performance status: 0/1; 68.6% cases). At baseline, the most frequent symptoms concerned pain (43.6%), malnutrition (37%) and psychological disorders (25.3%). Specific interventions were infrequent for pain control and malnutrition, but were more numerous for psychological and social problems and terminal care. Median time between diagnosis and PC initiation was 35 [13-84] days, median PC duration was 4.2 [0.6-9.3] months. Median overall survival was 8.6 [6.6-10.7] months; median survival after PC initiation was 3.6 [3.2-4.5] months. In multivariate analysis, only PS ≥2 was linked to early PC. CONCLUSION: This study showed that early PC initiation is not a standard for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Cost analysis of erlotinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer in frail elderly patients participating in a prospective phase 2 study (GFPC 0505).

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of elderly patients (>70 years) with newly diagnosed NSCLC are shown to be frail by a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This population is more vulnerable to adverse effects of chemotherapy and might thus benefit more from targeted therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib followed by chemotherapy after progression, compared with the reverse strategy, in frail elderly patients with advanced NSCLC participating in a prospective randomized phase II trial (GFPC 0505). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival) and costs (limited to direct medical costs, from the third-party payer perspective) were collected prospectively until second progression. Costs after progression and health utilities (based on disease states and grade 3-4 toxicities) were derived from the literature. RESULTS: Median overall survival, QALYs, and total costs for the erlotinib-first strategy were 3.9 months, 0.33, and €15,233, respectively, compared with 4.4 months, 0.35, and €15,363 for the chemotherapy-first strategy. There was no significant difference between the 2 strategies in term of cost-effectiveness (respectively €47,381 and €44,350 per QALY). CONCLUSION: No difference in cost-effectiveness was found between an erlotinib-first strategy and a chemotherapy-first strategy in frail elderly patients with NSCLC.

Maintenance erlotinib in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: cost-effectiveness in EGFR wild-type across Europe.

BACKGROUND: First-line maintenance erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has demonstrated significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits compared with best supportive care plus placebo, irrespective of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status (SATURN trial). The cost-effectiveness of first-line maintenance erlotinib in the overall SATURN population has been assessed and published recently, but analyses according to EGFR mutation status have not been performed yet, which was the rationale for assessing the cost-effectiveness of first-line maintenance erlotinib specifically in EGFR wild-type metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: The incremental cost per life-year gained of first-line maintenance erlotinib compared with best supportive care in patients with EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC was assessed for five European countries (the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy) with an area-under-the-curve model consisting of three health states (progression-free survival, progressive disease, death). Log-logistic survival functions were fitted to Phase III patient-level data (SATURN) to model progression-free survival and overall survival. The first-line maintenance erlotinib therapy cost (modeled for time to treatment cessation), medication cost in later lines, and cost for the treatment of adverse events were included. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation (1000 iterations) were performed. RESULTS: According to the model simulations, first-line maintenance erlotinib compared with best supportive care in EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC resulted in 4.57 months of life gained (17.82 months for erlotinib versus 13.24 months for best supportive care) and 1.14 months of life without progression gained (erlotinib 4.29 versus best supportive care 3.15), and incremental total costs of erlotinib from €7897 (UK) to €9580 (Germany). The corresponding mean incremental cost per life-year gained of erlotinib ranged between €20,711 (UK) and €25,124 (Germany). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSION: First-line erlotinib maintenance treatment is cost-effective compared with best supportive care in EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC, irrespective of the country setting.

Cost effectivenes of erlotinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in fit elderly patients participating in a prospective phase 2 study (GFPC 0504).

BACKGROUND: The median age of newly diagnosed patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is 67 years, and one-third of patients are older than 75 years. Elderly patients are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of chemotherapy, and targeted therapy might thus be a relevant alternative. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib followed by chemotherapy after progression, compared to the reverse strategy, in fit elderly patients with advanced NSCLC participating in a prospective randomized phase 2 trial (GFPC0504). METHODS: Outcomes (PFS and overall survival) and costs (limited to direct medical costs, from the third-party payer perspective) were prospectively collected until second progression. Costs after progression and health utilities (based on disease states and grade 3-4 toxicities) were derived from the literature. RESULTS: Median overall survival, QALY and total costs for the erlotinib-first strategy were respectively 7.1 months, 0.51 and 27 734 €, compared to 9.4 months, 0.52 and 31 688 € for the chemotherapy-first strategy. The Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that the two strategies do not differ statistically. CONCLUSION: In terms of cost effectiveness, in fit elderly patients with NSCLC, erlotinib followed by chemotherapy compares well with the reverse strategy.

Cross-market cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with stable non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-doublet, first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is limited to 4-6 cycles. An alternative strategy used to prolong the duration of first-line treatment and extend survival in metastatic NSCLC is first-line maintenance therapy. Erlotinib was approved for first-line maintenance in a stable disease population following results from a randomized, controlled Phase III trial comparing erlotinib with best supportive care. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of erlotinib 150 mg/day versus best supportive care when used as first-line maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and stable disease. METHODS: An economic decision model was developed using patient-level data for progression-free survival and overall survival from the SATURN (SequentiAl Tarceva in UnResectable NSCLC) study. An area under the curve model was developed; all patients entered the model in the progression-free survival health state and, after each month, moved to progression or death. A time horizon of 5 years was used. The model was conducted from the perspective of national health care payers in France, Germany, and Italy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Treatment with erlotinib in first-line maintenance resulted in a mean life expectancy of 1.39 years in all countries, compared with a mean 1.11 years with best supportive care, which represents 0.28 life-years (3.4 life-months) gained with erlotinib versus best supportive care. In the base-case analysis, the cost per life-year gained was €39,783, €46,931, and €27,885 in France, Germany, and Italy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Erlotinib is a cost-effective treatment option when used as first-line maintenance therapy for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

A cross-market cost comparison of erlotinib versus pemetrexed for first-line maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Erlotinib and pemetrexed were approved by the European Medicines Agency for first-line maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to prolong overall survival after first-line therapy. An adjusted, matched, indirect comparison of erlotinib and pemetrexed suggested that survival benefits were not statistically significantly different between treatments. We conducted a cost-comparison analysis of erlotinib versus pemetrexed in first-line maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic, non-squamous NSCLC in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, performed from the perspective of national health-care decision-makers or purchasers. The analysis was limited to direct costs and comprised drug-acquisition costs, administration costs and costs of treating adverse events (AEs). A one-way sensitivity analysis on administration, acquisition and AE costs was also performed. Total monthly per-patient treatment costs for erlotinib in France, Germany, Italy and Spain were €2140, €2732, €1518 and €2048, respectively, and for pemetrexed €3453, €5534, €2921 and €3164, respectively. AE cost was greater for pemetrexed in all countries, as was administration cost. As an oral treatment, erlotinib is not associated with any administration costs, except in Germany, where the cost is lower than for pemetrexed. The sensitivity analysis showed acquisition costs to be the main driver of total monthly per-patient costs. Erlotinib appears to be a cost-saving treatment alternative to pemetrexed, producing comparable survival benefits, based on an indirect comparison, at a lower cost.

Chronic bronchitis in the general population: influence of age, gender and socio-economic conditions.

Chronic bronchitis (CB) is an indicator of an increased risk of developing COPD, but its symptoms are often underestimated. Demographic and socio-economic conditions might influence its prevalence, reporting and impact. Data from a large epidemiological survey of the French general population were analyzed to determine the burden of CB, the magnitude of under-diagnosis and the influence of age, gender and socio-economic conditions. Altogether, 9050 participants aged 45 years or more provided complete data. The prevalence of symptoms and diagnosis of CB was 3.5% and 3.4%, respectively. CB was associated with impaired health status and activity and, in women, work loss. Among subjects with symptoms of CB, only 28.6% declared a known diagnosis of respiratory disease. Factors associated with symptoms of CB in multivariate analysis were male gender, active smoking, lower income and occupational category: the highest prevalence was observed in manual workers (5.6%) and self-employed subjects (5.2%). The under-diagnosis of CB was more marked in men and subjects of higher socio-economic categories. These results confirm that CB is markedly under-diagnosed in the general population. Socio-economic conditions influence both its prevalence (higher in low categories) and rate of diagnosis (lower in high categories), which should be considered when elaborating prevention and detection campaigns.

An indirect comparison of the efficacy of bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel versus pemetrexed with cisplatin in patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous adenocarcinoma non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: There are two new treatment options available for the treatment of adenocarcinoma histology non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) which offer improved benefit in terms of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) over chemotherapy. Both bevacizumab and pemetrexed when combined with chemotherapy significantly increase PFS and OS in patients with advanced NSCLC versus chemotherapy alone. The aim of this analysis was to compare the efficacy for patients with non-squamous adenocarcinoma NSCLC treated with bevacizumab, carboplatin and paclitaxel (BCP) to pemetrexed and cisplatin (PC) by using indirect comparison (ITC) methodology. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In the absence of head-to-head trials, ITC was performed on patients with adenocarcinoma histology non-squamous NSCLC to compare the relative benefit of first-line therapies BCP vs. PC by hazard ratios (HR). Subsequently, these HRs were used in a decision-analytic Markov model with a lifelong time horizon to extrapolate the long-term effectiveness of the two treatments. RESULTS: ITC estimated HRs for the primary endpoints in the bevacizumab study E4599 showed that BCP treatment in non-squamous adenocarcinoma NSCLC patients resulted in a BCP HR of 0.82 versus PC. The long-term predictions from the Markov model yielded a mean survival of 1.48 years (95% CI 1.34, 1.62 years) (or 17.7 months) for BCP compared with 1.29 years (95% CI 1.16, 1.42 years) (or 15.4 months) for PC. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our decision analysis, triplet BCP targeted therapy in patients with advanced non-squamous adenocarcinoma NSCLC compared with doublet PC chemotherapy results in improved expected values for overall long-term survival. Therefore, from the efficacy perspective, bevacizumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy can be considered as the targeted therapy of choice for patients with advanced non-squamous adenocarcinoma NSCLC.