EGFR mutation-guided use of afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Hong Kong - A cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) therapy targets at epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the EGFR mutation-guided target therapy versus empirical chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in the public healthcare setting of Hong Kong. METHODS: A Markov model was designed to simulate outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC adult patients with un-tested EGFR-sensitizing mutation status. Four treatment strategies were evaluated: Empirical first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin-pemetrexed (empirical chemotherapy group), and EGFR mutation-guided use of a TKI (afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib). Model outcome measures were direct medical cost, progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost per QALY gained (ICER) was estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine robustness of model results. RESULTS: Empirical chemotherapy and EGFR mutation-guided gefitinib gained lower QALYs at higher costs than the erlotinib group. Comparing with EGFR mutation-guided erlotinib, the afatinib strategy gained additional QALYs with ICER (540,633 USD/QALY). In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations for probabilistic sensitivity analysis, EGFR mutation-guided afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and empirical chemotherapy were preferred strategy in 0%, 98%, 0% and 2% of time at willingness-to-pay (WTP) 47,812 USD/QALY (1x gross domestic product (GDP) per capita), and in 30%, 68%, 2% and 0% of time at WTP 143,436 USD/QALY (3x GDP per capita), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EGFR mutation-guided erlotinib appears to be the cost-effective strategy from the perspective of Hong Kong public healthcare provider over a broad range of WTP.

Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor in Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequences starting with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), afatinib and osimertinib, for the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive (Exon 19 deletion or L858R) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), stages IIIB - IV in Colombia. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was designed, using information from global and progression-free survival curves. For first and second-generation TKI, second line treatment was assumed according to the presence of T790M mutation to define the use of osimertinib or chemotherapy. The cost of the states without progression and post-progression was estimated using the base case approach, identified through consultation with clinical experts. RESULTS: The cost of treatment starting with afatinib in the first line was of 222,247 USD (1 USD = 3171.99 COP) and produced 1.36 QALYs. The strategy with afatinib was dominant with respect to that of first line TKI (227,289 USD and 1.34 QALY). The strategy with osimertinib resulted in more QALYs and higher costs, with ICERs of 35,062 USD, exceeding the current willingness to pay threshold for Colombia. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment starting with afatinib in the first line is dominant with respect to the strategy with first line TKI. The ICER of osimertinib sequence exceeds the threshold when compared with afatinib one.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first and second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first line of treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have become the cornerstone treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer that harbor oncogenic EGFR mutations. The counterpart of these drugs is the financial burden that they impose, which often creates a barrier for accessing treatment in developing countries. The aim if the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of three different first and second generation TKIs. METHODS: We designed a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of three different TKIs (afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib) administered as first-line therapy for patients with NSCLC that harbor EGFR mutations. RESULTS: We included 99 patients with the following TKI treatment; 40 treated with afatinib, 33 with gefitinib, and 26 with erlotinib. Median PFS was not significantly different between treatment groups; 15.4 months (95% CI 9.3-19.5) for afatinib; 9.0 months (95% CI 6.3- NA) for erlotinib; and 10.0 months (95% CI 7.46-14.6) for gefitinib. Overall survival was also similar between groups: 29.1 months (95% CI 25.4-NA) for afatinib; 27.1 months (95% CI 17.1- NA) for erlotinib; and 23.7 months (95% CI 18.6-NA) for gefitinib. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean TKIs costs; being afatinib the most expensive treatment. This difference was observed in the daily cost of treatment (p < 0.01), as well as the total cost of treatment (p = 0.00095). Cost-effectiveness analysis determined that afatinib was a better cost-effective option when compared with first-generation TKIs (erlotinib and gefitinib). CONCLUSION: In our population, erlotinib, afatinib, and gefitinib were statistically equally effective in terms of OS and PFS for the treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC population. Owing to its marginally increased PFS and OS, the cost-effectiveness analysis determined that afatinib was a slightly better cost-effective option when compared with first-generation TKIs (erlotinib and gefitinib).

Treatment sequence of first and second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor followed by osimertinib in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a real life study.

Background: We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost of patients with first line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sequence of first (1G) and second generation (2G) followed by osimertinib. Materials & methods: Using the French nationwide claims and hospitalization database, we analyzed non-small-cell lung cancer patients who had been treated with osimertinib between April 2015 and December 2017, after a first line treatment with a TKI-1G/2G. Results: The median time on treatment for sequential TKI-1G/2G followed by osimertinib was 34 months (95% CI: 31-46); 13 and 12months, respectively for TKI 1G or 2G and TKI 3G, respectively. The median overall survival for sequential TKI 1G or 2G followed by osimertinib was 37 months (95% CI: 34-42). The mean monthly costs per patient was €5162. Conclusion: These results, in line with those observed during clinical trials, confirm the effectiveness of the sequence TKI-1G/2G followed by osimertinib in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.

Real-world assessment of afatinib for patients with EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

Introduction Afatinib is used to treat patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring common EGFR mutations; however, the clinicopathological factors that predict this drug's effectiveness in real-world settings remain unclear. We therefore evaluated the effectiveness of afatinib in such patients and assessed potential prognostic factors. Methods We retrospectively investigated patients with NSCLC who received first-line afatinib between July 2014 and August 2018. Variables (including sex, age, performance status, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, EGFR genotype, smoking status, clinical stage prior to treatment [stage IV vs.. postoperative recurrence], presence or absence of brain metastases, body surface area, any afatinib dose reductions, and afatinib starting dose [40 vs.. 20 or 30 mg]) were subjected to a Cox proportional hazards regression model to estimate progression-free survival (PFS). Results Forty-eight patients with a median age of 67 years were included; the objective response rate was 62.5% (30 patients). The median PFS was 14.1 months; the PFS periods were 11.8 and 15.9 months for patients receiving 40 mg versus 20-30 mg of afatinib (P = 0.41), respectively, and were 14.5 and 13.8 months for patients who required afatinib dose reduction and those who did not, respectively (P = 0.80). The PFS tended to be longer in patients without brain metastases (albeit not significantly). Ultimately, no significant predictive values for PFS were identified. Conclusions Afatinib is effective for patients with NSCLC harboring common EGFR mutations irrespective of their clinicopathological backgrounds. A direct comparison of afatinib and osimertinib in treatment-naïve patients is warranted to determine the optimal standard of care.

The rate of occurrence, healthcare resource use and costs of adverse events among metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with first- and second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials with first- and second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) reported severe adverse events (SAEs) in 6%-49% of patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. This study describes incremental healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with real-world management of AEs in this population, with a focus on SAEs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients receiving erlotinib, gefitinib, or afatinib as first-line (1L) monotherapy were identified from IQVIA™ Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US database (04/01/2012-03/31/2017). Relevant AEs were selected from corresponding prescribing information; SAEs were identified from hospitalization claims. HRU and cost per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were assessed during 1L treatment and compared for patients with and without each AE using multivariate Poisson and linear regression, respectively, adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 1646 patients, 86.9% were treated with erlotinib, 12.1% with afatinib, and 1.0% with gefitinib. In 1L, 12.2% of patients had ≥1 acute SAE (220.1/1000 patient-years). Patients with any SAE had higher PPPM costs than patients without SAEs (cost difference = $4700, p < 0.001). Incremental costs ranged from $2604 PPPM for diarrhea to $10,143 PPPM for microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA), and were statistically significant for all SAEs (all p < 0.001) except MAHA (p < 0.0528). Patients with any SAEs had higher rates of HRU relative to patients without SAEs (hospitalization rate ratio = 6.15; outpatient visits rate ratio = 1.21; all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: More than one-tenth of patients experienced SAEs, resulting in sizeable economic burden with respect to HRU and costs. EGFR-TKIs with more favorable safety profiles may reduce the burden of managing this population.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib in the First-Line Treatment of Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: The survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations has improved substantially in the last decade with the development of targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients who develop EGFR T790M mutations, has recently shown improved clinical outcomes compared with gefitinib and erlotinib for treatment-naive patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we extracted individual patient data from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial and used findings of our earlier meta-analysis to develop a decision-analytic model and determine the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib (AZD9291) compared with first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs over a 10-year time horizon. All direct costs were based on US and Brazilian payer perspectives. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by using osimertinib compared with first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs in previously untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Results: In the base case using the data as reported in the FLAURA trial, the incremental QALY for osimertinib was 0.594 compared with the first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs. In the United States, the osimertinib ICERs were $226 527 vs erlotinib, $231 123 vs gefitinib, and $219 874 vs afatinib. In Brazil, the ICERs were $162 329, $180 804, and $175 432, respectively. The overall survival (95% CI) reported in the FLAURA trial (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88) had the strongest association with the ICER (ranging from $84 342 to $859 771). Osimertinib price adjustments to the FLAURA trial data improved cost-effectiveness. For example, a discount of 10% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 20% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER, and a discount of 20% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 40% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER. Conclusions and Relevance: At current costs, by World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold criteria, osimertinib is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC in either the United States or Brazil.

Cost effectiveness analysis of afatinib versus pemetrexed-cisplatin for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer from the Singapore healthcare payer's perspective.

BACKGROUND: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% of all lung cancers and is associated with a poor prognosis. Afatinib is an irreversible ErbB family blocker recommended in clinical guidelines as a first-line treatment for NSCLC which harbours an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of afatinib versus pemetrexed-cisplatin for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation positive NSCLC in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressive disease and death) was developed from a healthcare payer perspective. Survival curves from the LUX-Lung 3 trial (afatinib versus pemetrexed-cisplatin chemotherapy) were extrapolated beyond the trial period to estimate the underlying progression-free survival and overall survival parametric distributions. Rates of adverse reactions were also estimated from LUX-Lung 3 while health utilities from overseas were derived from the literature in the absence of local estimates. Direct costs were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a 5 year time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and additional scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties and assumptions on the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the ICER for afatinib versus pemetrexed-cisplatin was SG$137,648 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and SG$109,172 per life-year gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the utility values, the cost of afatinib and time horizon. Scenario analyses showed that even reducing the cost of afatinib by 50% led to a high ICER which was unlikely to represent a cost-effective use of healthcare resources. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with pemetrexed-cisplatin, afatinib is not cost-effective as a first-line treatment for advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in Singapore. The findings from our study will be useful to inform local healthcare decision-making and resource allocations for NSCLC treatments, together with other considerations such as clinical effectiveness, safety and affordability of TKIs.