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.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia.

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), gefitinib or erlotinib, as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia from a healthcare system perspective.Methods: A partitioned survival model comprising three mutually exclusive health states with a five-year time horizon was developed. Model inputs were sourced from the pivotal trial (FLAURA) and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and cost per life-year (LY) gained, were calculated. Uncertainty of the results was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Compared with standard EGFR-TKIs, osimertinib was associated with a higher incremental cost of A$118,502, and an incremental benefit of 0.274 QALYs and 0.313 LYs. The ICER was estimated to be A$432,197/QALY gained and A$378,157/LY gained. The base-case ICER was most sensitive to changes in cost of first-line osimertinib, time horizon, and choice of overall survival data (interim versus final analysis).Conclusions: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY, first-line osimertinib is not cost-effective compared with standard EGFR-TKIs in Australia based on the current published price. To achieve acceptable cost-effectiveness, the cost of first-line osimertinib needs to be reduced by at least 68.4%.

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.

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.

A comparative study on erlotinib & gefitinib therapy in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients.

Background & objectives: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been evaluated in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib and gefitinib are the first-generation EGFR-TKIs for patients with NSCLC. However, there is a paucity of studies comparing the effectiveness of these two drugs. Hence, this study was aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of erlotinib and gefitinib in NSCLC patients. Methods: This study included 71 NSCLC patients who received EGFR-TKIs between 2013 and 2016. Adverse drug reaction of both erlotinib (n=37) and gefitinib (n=34) was determined and graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grading system. Effectiveness was measured using response evaluation criteria in solid tumours and progression-free survival (PFS). Pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed by cost-effective analysis. Results: When comparing safety profile, both the drugs had similar adverse events except for dermal side effects such as acneiform eruption (51.4%), rash (54.05%) and mucositis (59.5%) for erlotinib and 20.6, 26.5 and 29.4 per cent for gefitinib, respectively. The PFS of the two drugs was compared to differentiate the effectiveness of erlotinib and gefitinib. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two drugs. The pharmacoeconomic analysis showed that gefitinib was more cost-effective than erlotinib. Interpretation & conclusions: This study showed that erlotinib and gefitinib had similar effectiveness but gefitinib had a better safety profile compared to erlotinib. Therefore, gefitinib could be considered a better option for NSCLC patients compared to erlotinib. However, further studies need to be done with a large sample to confirm these findings.

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.