Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment with crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: While no direct comparative data exist for crizotinib in ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies have suggested clinical benefit with this targeted agent. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib compared to standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of the Canadian publicly-funded health care system. Health states included progression-free survival (PFS), up to two further lines of therapy post-progression, palliation and death. Given a lack of comparative data and small study samples, crizotinib or chemotherapy studies with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC patients were identified and time-to-event data from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves were collected to pool PFS data. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, monitoring, adverse events and palliative care were included in 2018 Canadian dollars, with 1.5% discounting. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated probabilistically using 5000 simulations. RESULTS: In the base-case probabilistic analysis, crizotinib produced additional 0.885 life-years and 0.772 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $238,077, producing an ICER of $273,286/QALY gained. No simulations were found to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. A scenario analysis assuming efficacy equivalent to the ALK+ NSCLC population showed a slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness profile for crizotinib. CONCLUSIONS: Available data appear to support superior activity of crizotinib compared to chemotherapy in ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. At the list price, crizotinib was not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

Pharmacoenhancement of Low Crizotinib Plasma Concentrations in Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer using the CYP3A Inhibitor Cobicistat.

The inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) crizotinib significantly increases survival in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). When evaluating crizotinib pharmacokinetics (PKs) in patients taking the standard flat oral dose of 250 mg b.i.d., interindividual PK variability is substantial and patient survival is lower in the quartile with the lowest steady-state trough plasma concentrations (Cmin,ss ), suggesting that concentrations should be monitored and doses individualized. We investigated whether the CYP3A inhibitor cobicistat increases Cmin,ss of the CYP3A substrate crizotinib in patients with low exposure. Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC of our outpatient clinic treated with crizotinib were enrolled in a phase I trial (EudraCT 2016-002187-14, DRKS00012360) if crizotinib Cmin,ss was below 310 ng/mL and treated with cobicistat for 14 days. Crizotinib plasma concentration profiles were established before and after a 14-day co-administration of cobicistat to construct the area under the plasma concentration-time curve in the dosing interval from zero to 12 hours (AUC0-12 ). Patients were also monitored for adverse events by physical examination, laboratory tests, and 12-lead echocardiogram. Enrolment was prematurely stopped because of the approval of alectinib, a next-generation ALK-inhibitor with superior efficacy. In the only patient enrolled, cobicistat increased Cmin,ss from 158 ng/mL (before cobicistat) to 308 ng/mL (day 8) and 417 ng/mL (day 14 on cobicistat), concurrently the AUC0-12 increased by 78% from 2,210 ng/mL*h to 3,925 ng/mL*h. Neither safety signals nor serious adverse events occurred. Pharmacoenhancement with cobicistat as an alternative for dose individualisation for patients with NSCLC with low crizotinib exposure appears to be safe and is cost-effective and feasible.

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.

Crizotinib versus chemotherapy: a real-world cost-effectiveness study in China.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib verses platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the real-world setting. Methods: Data from 163 advanced ALK positive NSCLC patients were collected from West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Chengdu, China). They were categorized into two groups as treated with crizotinib (n = 83) or chemotherapy (n = 80) as a first-line therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary clinical outcome, and the direct medical costs were collected from hospital information systems. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs, quality-adjusted life-years, as well as the costs discounted at 3% annually. Additionally, two different kinds of medical insurance (MI) for pharma-economic assessment were considered. Results: Crizotinib improved PFS versus chemotherapy in ALK positive patients (median PFS 19.67 m vs 5.47 m; p < 0.001). Moreover, crizotinib obtained an ICER of US$36,285.39 before the end of 2016, when crizotinib, pemetrexed and anti-angiogenesis drugs were not MI covered. This is more than the willingness to pay threshold (three-times of gross domestic product per capita in mainland China or Sichuan Province). However, ICER was US$7321.16, which is less than willingness to pay, when crizotinib and all chemotherapy drugs were covered by MI from the end of 2016. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 99.7% probability for crizotinib to be more cost-effective than chemotherapy, when crizotinib and all anticancer drugs were MI covered. One-way sensitivity analysis for the reimbursement ratio of crizotinib indicated that cost-effective tendency for crizotinib increased as reimbursement ratio increased. Conclusion: Crizotinib could be an effective, and cost-effective first-line treatment for ALK positive advanced NSCLC with the MI coverage currently available in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.

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 ALK testing and first-line crizotinib therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer in China.

INTRODUCTION: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement gene testing is used increasingly to identify patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are most likely to benefit from crizotinib. This study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the ALK tests followed by crizotinib compared to the standard chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A 10-year Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of crizotinib with standard chemotherapy, guided by the ALK rearrangement tests: next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel tests and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The health states included progression-free survival (PFS), progressed survival, and death. The costs examined included cost of drugs (pemetrexed, standard chemotherapy, salvage chemotherapy, and crizotinib), follow-up, palliative care, supportive care, severe adverse events, and ALK rearrangement testing. RESULTS: Under Patient Assistance Program (PAP), the model demonstrated that the patients using NGS panel tests spent US $31,388 and gained 0.780 QALYs, whereas patients using multiplex PCR spent US $31,362 and gained 0.780 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of crizotinib with PAP compared to the control strategy were projected at $14,384 (NGS) and $13,740 (multiplex PCR) per QALY gained, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed the utility of PFS and the costs of crizotinib and pemetrexed were the most impactful factors on the model outcomes. The results were robust to changes in all parameters. CONCLUSION: ALK-rearrangement test positive followed by crizotinib may be cost-effective compared to standard chemotherapy from the Chinese healthcare system perspective when PAP was available.

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.