Comprehensive assessment of pretreatment sarcopenia impacts on patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC treated with afatinib.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of afatinib in patients with sarcopenia, an important prognostic factor for treatment efficacy and toxicity in patients with cancer. METHODS: The clinical features of patients with advanced NSCLC treated with frontline afatinib between 2014 and 2018 at a medical center in Taiwan were retrospectively reviewed. Sarcopenia was evaluated based on the total cross-sectional area of skeletal muscles assessed by computed tomography (CT) imaging at the L3 level. Baseline characteristics, response rates, survival rates, and adverse events (AEs) were compared between sarcopenic and nonsarcopenic patients. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients evaluated for sarcopenia by CT and treated with afatinib were enrolled in the current study. Sarcopenia was significantly associated with good performance status, low body mass index (BMI), low body surface area (BSA), and low total mass area (TMA). Sarcopenia did not influence the response rate (69.2% vs. 72.0%, p = 0.299), progression-free survival (median 15.9 vs. 14.9 months, p = 0.791), or overall survival (median 26.5 vs. 27.2 months, p = 0.441). However, BSA ≤ 1.7 and the 40 mg afatinib dose were associated with dose reduction. TMA was the only independent factor for afatinib discontinuation due to AEs. CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia was not associated with treatment efficacy or toxicity among patients with NSCLC harboring common mutations treated with afatinib, indicating sarcopenic patients should not be excluded from afatinib treatment. Other factors, such as BSA and TMA, were associated with dose reduction and afatinib discontinuation, respectively, which may require additional evaluations in future studies.

Utilization and costs of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing and targeted therapy in Medicare patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines in 2013 and 2014 recommended Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) testing for metastatic lung adenocarcinoma patients as the efficacy of targeted therapies depends on the mutations. However, adherence to these guidelines and the corresponding costs have not been well-studied. METHODS: We identified 2362 patients at least 65 years old newly diagnosed with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma from January 2013 to December 2015 using the SEER-Medicare database. We examined the utilization patterns of EGFR testing and targeted therapies including erlotinib and afatinib. We further examined the costs of both EGFR testing and targeted therapy in terms of Medicare costs and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. RESULTS: The EGFR testing rate increased from 38% in 2013 to 51% and 49% in 2014 and 2015 respectively. The testing rate was 54% among the 394 patients who received erlotinib, and 52% among the 42 patients who received afatinib. The median Medicare and OOP costs for testing were $1483 and $293. In contrast, the costs for targeted therapy were substantially higher with median 30-day costs at $6114 and $240 for erlotinib and $6239 and $471 for afatinib. CONCLUSION: This population-based study suggests that testing guidelines improved the use of EGFR testing, although there was still a large proportion of patients receiving targeted therapy without testing. The costs of targeted therapy were substantially higher than the testing costs, highlighting the need to improve adherence to testing guidelines in order to improve clinical outcomes while reducing the economic burden for both Medicare and patients.

Preclinical assessment of combination therapy of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in a highly heterogeneous tumor model.

The development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has improved the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. The current research priority is to provide viable treatments for patients who have drug-resistant EGFR mutations. We evaluated the drug sensitivity of various EGFR mutants to monotherapies and combination therapies of EGFR-TKIs. In vitro, the transforming potential and drug sensitivity of 357 EGFR variants were assessed. In vivo, we tested the sensitivity of EGFR variants to different regimens of EGFR-TKIs by examining changes in the proportion of each variant within the tumor. Out of 357 variants thoroughly examined for transforming activities, 144 (40.3%) and 282 (79.0%) transformed 3T3 and Ba/F3 cells, respectively. Among the latter variants, 50 (17.7%) were found to be resistant or only partly resistant to osimertinib or afatinib. Four of 25 afatinib-resistant variants (16%) were sensitive to osimertinib, whereas 25 of 46 osimertinib-resistant variants (54.3%) were sensitive to afatinib. Despite the lack of a synergistic impact, TKI combination treatment effectively reduced in vivo the heterogeneous tumors composed of 3T3 cells with different EGFR variants. Regimens starting with afatinib and subsequently switched to osimertinib suppressed tumor development more efficiently than the opposite combination. Combination EGFR-TKI treatment may decrease tumor growth and prevent the development of resistant variants. This work created an experimental model of a heterogeneous tumor to find the best combination therapy regimen and proposes a basic notion of EGFR-TKI combination therapy to enhance the prognosis of NSCLC patients.

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

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments, such as erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib, for patients diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. MATERIALS & METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Two Bayesian NMAs were performed independently, by using the polynomial fraction method to fit Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and progression-free survival. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty. RESULTS: The ICER was calculated for the four first-line treatments by comparing them with gefitinib, and the ratios obtained were as follows: €166,416/QALY for osimertinib, €183,682/QALY for dacomitinib, €167,554/QALY for afatinib, €36,196/QALY for erlotinib. It was seen that patients who received osimertinib presented higher QALYs (0.49), followed by dacomitinib (0.33), afatinib (0.32), erlotinib (0.31), and gefitinib (0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib is the most cost-effective treatment. In terms of QALYs gained, Osimertinib was more effective than all other TKIs. Nevertheless, with a Spanish threshold of €24,000/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 70%, to obtain a cost-effectiveness alternative.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Afatinib, Erlotinib, and Gefitinib as First-Line Treatments for EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This study used Ontario Cancer Registry-linked administrative data to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer who received EGFR-TKIs as first-line treatment between 1 January, 2014 and 31 August, 2019. A net benefit regression approach accounting for baseline covariates and propensity scores was used to estimate incremental net benefits and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Outcome measures were calculated over a 68-month period and were discounted with an annual rate of 1.5%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess and characterize the uncertainties. RESULTS: A total of 547 patients were included in the study, of whom 20.1%, 23.6%, and 56.3% received afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib, respectively. Erlotinib was dominated by afatinib and gefitinib. Compared to gefitinib, afatinib was associated with higher effectiveness (adjusted incremental quality-adjusted life-year: 0.21), higher total costs (adjusted incremental costs: $9745), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,506 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results from the sensitivity analyses indicated the findings of the base-case analysis were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to previously published studies, our study established head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness and treatment-related costs of first-line EGFR-TKIs. Our findings suggest afatinib was the most cost-effective option among the three EGFR-TKIs.

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.

EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: treatment paradigm, current evidence, and challenges.

Therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been shown to have superior outcomes when compared to chemotherapy. First-generation EGFR TKI, including gefitinib and erlotinib, and second-generation EGFR TKI, including afatinib and dacomitinib, proved to be effective in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR-sensitizing mutation. Later, resistance mutations were identified. Consequently, osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, was studied and demonstrated activity against EGFR-sensitizing and resistant mutations. Osimertinib moved recently to the first-line setting with the positive results of the FLAURA (AZD9291 Versus Gefitinib or Erlotinib in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer) trial. The use of these drugs is limited by their cost and availability mainly in middle- to low-income countries.

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).

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.

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.

Budget impact of sequential treatment with first-line afatinib versus first-line osimertinib in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with common EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that have common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations has changed radically in the last decade. The availability of these treatment options has an economic impact, therefore a budget impact analysis was performed. METHODS: A budget impact analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients receiving first-line afatinib (Gilotrif®) versus first-line osimertinib (Tagrisso®), followed by subsequent treatments. A decision analysis model was constructed in Excel. Scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analysis were used to test the models' robustness. RESULTS: Sequential treatment with afatinib versus first-line treatment with osimertinib showed mean total time on treatment (ToT) of 29.1 months versus 24.7 months, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) of 20.2 versus 17.4 with mean cost of €108,166 per patient versus €143,251 per patient, respectively. The 5-year total budget impact was €110.4 million for the afatinib sequence versus €158.6 million for the osimertinib sequence, leading to total incremental cost savings of €48.15 million. CONCLUSIONS: First-line afatinib treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC had a lower financial impact on the Dutch healthcare budget with a higher mean ToT and QALM compared to osimertinib sequential treatment.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Analysis of real-world data in a tertiary hospital in Taiwan.

INTRODUCTION: Comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) would improve patients' clinical benefits and save costs. Using real-world data, this study attempted to directly compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib. METHODS: During May 2011-December 2017, all patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) visiting a tertiary center were invited to fill out the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires and World Health Organization Quality of Life, brief version (WHOQOL-BREF), and received follow-ups for survival and direct medical costs. A total of 379 patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC under first-line TKIs were enrolled for analysis. After propensity score matching for the patients receiving afatinib (n = 48), erlotinib (n = 48), and gefitinib (n = 96), we conducted the study from the payers' perspective with a lifelong time horizon. RESULTS: Patients receiving afatinib had the worst lifetime psychometric scores, whereas the differences in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) were modest. Considering 3 treatments together, afatinib was dominated by erlotinib. Erlotinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness of US$17,960/life year and US$12,782/QALY compared with gefitinib. Acceptability curves showed that erlotinib had 58.6% and 78.9% probabilities of being cost-effective given a threshold of 1 Taiwanese per capita GDP per life year and QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: Erlotinib appeared to be cost-effective. Lifetime psychometric scores may provide additional information for effectiveness evaluation.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with patients prescribed afatinib or erlotinib as first-line therapy for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in the United States.

Aims: To assess healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors afatinib or erlotinib as first-line treatment.Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis used data from three large administrative claims databases in the US: Truven MarketScan, IMS PharMetrics Plus, and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. Patients with diagnosis codes of lung cancer treated with afatinib or erlotinib were included in the sample. Treatment cohorts were matched on baseline characteristics using propensity scores to account for potential selection bias. HCRU and healthcare costs were compared between the matched afatinib and erlotinib cohorts.Results: In total, 3,152 patients met the study inclusion criteria; propensity score matching of the afatinib and erlotinib patients yielded 525 matched pairs with well-balanced baseline characteristics. The afatinib cohort had significantly fewer patients with ≥1 inpatient visits (40.4% vs 52.2%, p = 0.0001) and outpatient emergency room (ER) visits (45.7% vs 54.1%, p = 0.0066). Per patient per month (PPPM) visits were significantly different between afatinib compared to erlotinib for inpatient visits (0.1 vs 0.2, p = 0.0152), other outpatient visits PPPM (2.6 vs 3.0, p = 0.022) and outpatient office visits (2.0 vs 1.7, p = 0.0059). Although costs of outpatient office ($1,624 vs $1,070; p = 0.0086) and pharmacy ($6,709 vs $5,932; p < 0.0001) visits were higher for afatinib vs erlotinib, total costs did not differ significantly between cohorts ($14,972 vs $14,412; p = 0.4415).Limitations: Retrospective claims data can be subject to coding errors or data omissions; patients were required to have continuous health plan enrolment; EGFR mutation status was not confirmed.Conclusions: Patients treated with afatinib as first-line monotherapy experienced fewer inpatient stays and ER visits compared with erlotinib. Total costs were not significantly different between the two treatment cohorts.

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.

From Diagnostic-Therapeutic Pathways to Real-World Data: A Multicenter Prospective Study on Upfront Treatment for EGFR-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (MOST Study).

INTRODUCTION: Gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib represent the approved first-line options for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because pivotal trials frequently lack external validity, real-world data may help to depict the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway and treatment outcome in clinical practice. METHODS: MOST is a multicenter observational study promoted by the Veneto Oncology Network, aiming at monitoring the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway of patients with nonsquamous EGFR-mutant NSCLC. We reported treatment outcome in terms of median time to treatment failure (mTTF) and assessed the impact of each agent on the expense of the regional health system, comparing it with a prediction based on the pivotal trials. RESULTS: An EGFR mutation test was performed in 447 enrolled patients, of whom 124 had EGFR mutation and who received gefitinib (n = 69, 55%), erlotinib (n = 33, 27%), or afatinib (n = 22, 18%) as first-line treatment. Because erlotinib was administered within a clinical trial to 15 patients, final analysis was limited to 109 patients. mTTF was 15.3 months, regardless of the type of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) used. In the MOST study, the budget impact analysis showed a total expense of €3,238,602.17, whereas the cost estimation according to median progression-free survival from pivotal phase III trials was €1,813,557.88. CONCLUSION: Good regional adherence and compliance to the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway defined for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC was shown. mTTF did not significantly differ among the three targeted TKIs. Our budget impact analysis suggests the potential application of real-world data in the process of drug price negotiation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The MOST study is a real-world data collection reporting a multicenter adherence and compliance to diagnostic-therapeutic pathways defined for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. This represents an essential element of evidence-based medicine, providing information on patients and situations that may be challenging to assess using only data from randomized controlled trials, e.g., turn-around time of diagnostic tests, treatment compliance and persistence, guideline adherence, challenging-to-treat populations, drug safety, comparative effectiveness, and cost effectiveness. This study may be of interest to various stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and payers), providing a meaningful picture of the value of a given therapy in routine clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness of afatinib, gefitinib, erlotinib and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.

PURPOSE: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are becoming the standard treatments for Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an EGFR mutation. However, the economic impact is unclear yet in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to simulate 1-month patient transitions in a 10-year time horizon from Chinese heath care system perspective. The health and economic outcomes of four first-line strategies (pemetrexed plus cisplatin [PC], gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib) among NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations were estimated and assessed via indirect comparisons. Costs in the Chinese setting were estimated by using local hospital data and literatures. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to both costs and outcomes. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Afatinib achieved additional 0.382, 0.216 and 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with marginal $7930, $3680 and $2818 costs in comparison with PC, gefitinib and erlotinib, which resulted in the ICERs of $20,758, $17,693 and $16,197 per QALY gained, respectively. The hazard ratios (HR) of overall survival (OS) of afatinib against gefitinib, erlotinib and PC strategy had substantial influential parameters. CONCLUSIONS: First-line afatinib is cost-effective compared with gefitinib, erlotinib and PC treatment for Chinese patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

Cost-utility of afatinib and gefitinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-utility of gefitinib and afatinib as first-line EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer treatments from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. MATERIALS & METHODS: A Markov model was established, state transition probabilities were extracted from the LUX-Lung7 trial and utility values were from previous studies. The cost was extracted from local charge or relevant literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for intention-to-treat, EGFR exon 19 deletion (del19) and exon Leu858Arg (21L858R, L858R) muation subgroups.  Results: For the entire population, the afatinib regimen afforded additional 0.29 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were US$9820.41/QALY, US$18,529.65/QALY and US$1585.51/QALY for intention-to-treat, L858R and del19, respectively. CONCLUSION: First-line afatinib was more cost-effective than gefitinib for EFGR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China.

Eficacia y seguridad de afatinib como tratamiento de primera línea en pacientes adultos con cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas avanzado (estadios IIIB/IV), con mutaciones activadoras del gen del receptor del factor de crecimiento epidérmico, con contraindicación a erlotinib por hipersensibilidad / Efficacy and safety of afatinib as first-line treatment in adult patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stages IIIB/IV), with activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene, with contraindication to erlotinib due to hypersensitivity

INTRODUCCIÓN: El cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (CPCNP) es la causa más frecuente (85 % - 90 %) de tumores pulmonares malignos que generalmente afectan a adultos que fuman y que tienen ≥ 65 años. En Perú, en 2017, el cáncer de pulmón fue la segunda causa de muerte entre todos los cánceres, con una mortalidad anual de 8.8 muertes por cada 100,000 personas.  La terapia de primera línea del CPCNP avanzado (estadio IIIB/IV) depende del estado de las mutaciones conductoras oncogénicas, la expresión de PD-L1 y la histología. Así, para los casos en los que se detecta una mutación sensibilizante1 del receptor de factor de crecimiento epidérmico (EGFR, por sus siglas en inglés), se recomienda ofrecer una terapia dirigida contra el EGFR utilizando los inhibidores de la tirosina quinasa del EGFR (de aquí en adelante llamados TKI, por sus siglas en inglés) de primera línea (e.g., erlotinib, afatinib).  En el Seguro Social de Salud del Perú (EsSalud), los pacientes con CPCNP avanzado cuyos tumores poseen mutaciones positivas2 del EGFR disponen de erlotinib como tratamiento de primera línea según lo establecido en el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud. Sin embargo, existe un grupo de pacientes que presentan eventos adversos (EA) cutáneos severos (grado 3 o mayor) asociados al tratamiento con erlotinib, quienes, en ciertos casos, requerirán de la discontinuación de uso del medicamento, a pesar del manejo óptimo de las toxicidades cutáneas (e.g., reducción de dosis). En este grupo de pacientes con hipersensibilidad a erlotinib (contraindicación de uso), los médicos especialistas de la institución sugieren el uso de un TKI alternativo: afatinib. OBJETIVO: Evaluar la mejor evidencia disponible sobre la eficacia y seguridad de afatinib, en comparación con la quimioterapia, en pacientes adultos con CPCNP avanzado, con mutaciones activadoras3 del gen del EGFR, con contraindicación a erlotinib por hipersensibilidad. TECNOLOGÍA SANITARIA DE INTERÉS: Afatinib: Afatinib es un inhibidor selectivo e irreversible de la actividad de la tirosina quinasa de los receptores de la familia ErbB: EGFR (ErbB1), HER2 (ErbB2), HER3 (ErbB3) y HER4 (ErbB4). Afatinib se une en forma covalente a los dominios de la tirosina quinasa de estos receptores e inhibe irreversiblemente la autofosforilación de la tirosina quinasa, lo que resulta en un bloqueo de las señales de los receptores ErbB (European Medicines Agency 2019). METODOLOGÍA: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de literatura con el objetivo de identificar evidencia sobre la eficacia y seguridad de afatinib, en comparación con la quimioterapia, en pacientes adultos con CPCNP avanzado, con mutaciones activadoras del gen del EGFR, con contraindicación a erlotinib por hipersensibilidad. Se utilizó la base de datos The Cochrane Library, PubMed, LILACS y el metabuscador TRIP Database, priorizándose evidencia proveniente de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados. Asimismo, se realizó una búsqueda dentro de bases de datos pertenecientes a grupos que realizan evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias y guías de práctica clínica, incluyendo el Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), el National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), la Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), el Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), además de la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA) y páginas web de sociedades especializadas en cáncer de pulmón. Se hizo una búsqueda adicional en la página web de clinicaltrials.gov, para poder identificar ensayos clínicos en curso o que no hayan sido publicados para, de este modo, disminuir el riesgo de sesgo de publicación. La búsqueda sistemática se basó en una metodología escalonada, la cual consistió en la búsqueda inicial de estudios secundarios (tipo revisiones sistemáticas con o sin metaanálisis). RESULTADOS: Se realizó una búsqueda de la literatura con respecto a la eficacia y seguridad de afatinib, en comparación con la quimioterapia, en pacientes adultos con CPCNP avanzado, con mutaciones activadoras del gen del EGFR, con contraindicación a erlotinib por hipersensibilidad. Dado que no se identificaron estudios en una población específica de pacientes con contraindicación a erlotinib, se procedió a revisar la evidencia para la población general de pacientes con CPCNP avanzado, con mutaciones activadoras del gen del EGFR. CONCLUSIONES: Dado que no se identificaron estudios en la población específica de pacientes con contraindicación a erlotinib, se procedió a revisar la evidencia para la población general de pacientes con CPCNP avanzado, con mutaciones activadoras del gen del receptor del factor de crecimiento epidérmico. En líneas generales, todas las GPC y ETS basaron sus recomendaciones y/o conclusiones en los resultados de los estudios LUX-Lung 3 y/o LUX-Lung 6. La evidencia procedente de los estudios LUX-Lung 3 y LUX-Lung 6 muestra que afatinib comparado con la quimioterapia ofrece un beneficio clínico en términos de una mayor sobrevida global (aproximadamente 11 meses adicionales) en los pacientes con CPCNP metastásico, ECOG 0-1 y mutaciones del EGFR tipo Del19, sin tratamiento previo. Además, afatinib tuvo un perfil de seguridad similar al de la quimioterapia con cisplatino más pemetrexed y un mejor perfil de seguridad que la quimioterapia con gemcitabina más cisplatino, en términos de EA severos, EA serios y discontinuación debido a EA. A diferencia de las GPC identificadas, que recomendaron el uso de afatinib en la población general de pacientes con CPCNP y mutaciones positivas del EGFR, esta evaluación de la evidencia identificó que los pacientes con mutaciones Del19 serían el subgrupo con mayor probabilidad de beneficiarse del tratamiento con afatinib. Por otro lado, no se identificó evidencia directa que sustente el uso de afatinib en el grupo de pacientes previamente tratados. Sin embargo, tal como se menciona en el Dictamen Preliminar de Evaluación de Tecnología Sanitaria N° 041-SDEPFyOTSDETS-IETSI-2019: Eficacia y Seguridad de erlotinib en pacientes adultos con CPCNP, metastásico o irresecable, con mutación del gen del EGFR, tras fallo a al menos una línea de quimioterapia, se valora que la evidencia del uso de afatinib en el contexto de primera línea puede ser extrapolada al grupo de pacientes que han sido previamente tratados con quimioterapia sistémica y que han experimentado hipersensibilidad severa a erlotinib. Adicionalmente, es importante analizar el contexto de intercambio de TKI (de erlotinib a afatinib) debido a EA cutáneos severos como resultado de uma hipersensibilidad a erlotinib (contraindicación de uso) en pacientes con CPCNP avanzado y mutación del EGFR, ya que es el grupo específico de pacientes en quienes se propone el uso de afatinib en la institución. Así, si bien la evidencia sobre el intercambio de TKI debido a EA es limitada, algunas series de casos han sugerido que esta aproximación proporciona un efecto beneficioso en pacientes con CPCNP avanzado y mutaciones del EGFR. Además, el intercambio de erlotinib a afatinib podría justificarse biológicamente dada las diferencias en las estructuras químicas de erlotinib y afatinib, que podrían influir en los EA asociados con estos medicamentos. De este modo, teniendo en cuenta que los pacientes que recibirían un segundo TKI tendrían que haber demostrado no tener una mutación resistente a TKI, se estima que los pacientes que discontinúan el tratamiento con erlotinib debido a hipersensibilidad severa aún podrían beneficiarse de "cambiar" a un segundo TKI (afatinib). Con ello, y considerando la experiencia de uso de TKI a nivel institucional y la opinión favorable por parte de los médicos especialistas de la institución, el equipo evaluador del IETSI encuentra suficientes argumentos técnicos para aprobar el uso de afatinib en pacientes adultos con CPCNP avanzado, con mutaciones activadoras del gen del EGFR (Del19), con contraindicación a erlotinib por hipersensibilidad. Por lo expuesto, el IETSI aprueba el uso de afatinib en pacientes adultos con CPCNP avanzado, con mutaciones activadoras del gen del receptor del factor de crecimiento epidérmico, con contraindicación a erlotinib por hipersensibilidad, según lo establecido en el Anexo N° 1. La vigencia del presente dictamen preliminar es de un año a partir de la fecha de publicación. Así, la continuación de dicha aprobación estará sujeta a los resultados obtenidos de los pacientes que reciban este tratamiento, a los reportes de seguridad que puedan surgir durante farmacovigilancia activa y nueva evidencia que pueda surgir en el tiempo.

Economic analysis of osimertinib in previously untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Osimertinib improves progression-free survival in previously untreated EGFR-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, with marked intracranial response rates. However, its cost-effectiveness in a publically funded health care system has not been established. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of first-line osimertinib from the public payer perspective in the Canadian health care system. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the outcomes and direct medical costs of initial treatment with osimertinib or current standard-of-care (SoC) EGFR TKIs, gefinitib or afatinib, in patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. Clinical and cost input estimates were informed from the available literature. Model outcomes included costs (in 2018 Canadian dollars), life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the cost utility of osimertinib compared to SoC EGFR TKI, or incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Initial treatment with osimertinib was associated with a gain of 0.79 QALY [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74 to 0.83] at an incremental cost of $176,394 CAD (95% CI, 176,383 to 176,405) vs. SoC EGFR TKI (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $223,133/QALY gained; 95%CI, 198,144 to 252,805). Osimertinib had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of osimertinib had the largest impact on ICER results. CONCLUSION: At the current marketed price, first-line osimertinib therapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma is not cost-effective in Canada. Reduction of osimertinib cost, for example by 25%, can significantly improve the cost-effectiveness profile.