Cost-Effectiveness of Eltrombopag versus Romiplostim for the Treatment of Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag compared with romiplostim to be used in the treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia in patients in England and Wales who are splenectomized or ineligible for splenectomy and are refractory to other treatments. METHODS: A Markov cohort model in which patients were administered a sequence of treatments was used to predict long-term outcomes associated with each treatment. The model was informed by data from the eltrombopag clinical trial program and the available literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, and a lifetime time horizon was used. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Eltrombopag dominated romiplostim (i.e., eltrombopag was as effective as but less costly than romiplostim) in both splenectomized and nonsplenectomized patients, assuming a class effect for the two treatments. Eltrombopag also dominated romiplostim in most deterministic sensitivity analyses with the exception of when indirect efficacy estimates were incorporated into the model. In this analysis, eltrombopag no longer dominated romiplostim but remained cost-effective versus romiplostim at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that there was a 99% and 92% chance of eltrombopag being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in splenectomized and nonsplenectomized patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study demonstrate that eltrombopag is cost-effective when compared with romiplostim to be used in the treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia, representing good value for the UK National Health Service.

Relative efficacy and safety of simeprevir and telaprevir in treatment-naïve hepatitis C-infected patients in a Japanese population: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

AIM: Simeprevir (SMV) is an oral, once-daily protease inhibitor for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. In phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCT) conducted in Japan, SMV, in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin (PEG IFN/RBV), demonstrated potent efficacy in HCV genotype 1-infected patients relative to PEG IFN/RBV and was generally well tolerated. Telaprevir (TVR) in combination with PEG IFN/RBV is licensed for the treatment of HCV in Japan. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons of TVR and SMV in a Japanese population, we undertook a network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the relative efficacy and safety of SMV and TVR in combination with PEG IFN/RBV. METHODS: A systematic review identified SMV and TVR RCT in Japanese treatment-naïve patients. Bayesian NMA was performed assuming fixed study effects. RESULTS: Three studies met our inclusion criteria: two SMV and one TVR. SMV showed a higher mean odds ratio (OR) of achieving SVR versus TVR (OR, 1.68 (95% credible interval 0.66-4.26)). SMV showed a lower mean OR of discontinuation: overall, 0.35 (0.12-1.00); and due to AE, 0.87 (0.23-3.34) versus TVR. SMV showed a lower mean OR of experiencing anemia 0.20 (0.07-0.56) and rash 0.41 (0.17-0.99) but a higher mean OR of experiencing pruritus 1.26 (0.46-3.47) versus TVR. CONCLUSION: In this indirect treatment comparison, SMV, in combination with PEG IFN/RBV, showed a favorable risk-benefit profile compared with TVR with PEG IFN/RBV in Japanese treatment-naïve HCV patients.

Pharmacological and Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Management of Obsessive-compulsive Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Reprinted under Creative Commons CC-BY license.

Directly Acting Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention of Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation in England and Wales: Cost-Effectiveness Model and Value of Information Analysis.

Objectives. Determine the optimal, licensed, first-line anticoagulant for prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in England and Wales from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and estimate value to decision making of further research. Methods. We developed a cost-effectiveness model to compare warfarin (international normalized ratio target range 2-3) with directly acting (or non-vitamin K antagonist) oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, edoxaban 60 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg, over 30 years post treatment initiation. In addition to death, the 17-state Markov model included the events stroke, bleed, myocardial infarction, and intracranial hemorrhage. Input parameters were informed by systematic literature reviews and network meta-analysis. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) were estimated to provide an upper bound on value of further research. Results. At willingness-to-pay threshold £20,000, all DOACs have positive expected incremental net benefit compared to warfarin, suggesting they are likely cost-effective. Apixaban has highest expected incremental net benefit (£7533), followed by dabigatran (£6365), rivaroxaban (£5279), and edoxaban (£5212). There was considerable uncertainty as to the optimal DOAC, with the probability apixaban has highest net benefit only 60%. Total estimated population EVPI was £17.94 million (17.85 million, 18.03 million), with relative effect between apixaban versus dabigatran making the largest contribution with EVPPI of £7.95 million (7.66 million, 8.24 million). Conclusions. At willingness-to-pay threshold £20,000, all DOACs have higher expected net benefit than warfarin but there is considerable uncertainty between the DOACs. Apixaban had the highest expected net benefit and greatest probability of having highest net benefit, but there is considerable uncertainty between DOACs. A head-to-head apixaban versus dabigatran trial may be of value.

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model. DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adults. INTERVENTION: Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies. RESULTS: Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations. LIMITATIONS: Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability. FUTURE WORK: Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements. OBJECTIVE: To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE. DESIGN: Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials. SETTING: Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention). PARTICIPANTS: Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE). INTERVENTIONS: NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Safety Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models. RESULTS: Apixaban (Eliquis®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana®, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication. CONCLUSIONS: NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE. LIMITATIONS: These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs. FUTURE WORK: Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis.

Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results 23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological interventions for the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in children/adolescents and adults.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a relatively common and disabling condition. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological interventions for the treatment of OCD in children, adolescents and adults. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Trials Registers, which includes trials from routine searches of all the major databases. Searches were conducted from inception to 31 December 2014. REVIEW METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of available treatments. Outcomes for effectiveness included mean differences in the total scores of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale or its children's version and total dropouts for acceptability. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we developed a probabilistic model informed by the results of the NMA. All analyses were performed using OpenBUGS version 3.2.3 (members of OpenBUGS Project Management Group; see www.openbugs.net ). RESULTS: We included 86 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in our systematic review. In the NMA we included 71 RCTs (54 in adults and 17 in children and adolescents) for effectiveness and 71 for acceptability (53 in adults and 18 in children and adolescents), comprising 7643 and 7942 randomised patients available for analysis, respectively. In general, the studies were of medium quality. The results of the NMA showed that in adults all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and clomipramine had greater effects than drug placebo. There were no differences between SSRIs, and a trend for clomipramine to be more effective did not reach statistical significance. All active psychological therapies had greater effects than drug placebo. Behavioural therapy (BT) and cognitive therapy (CT) had greater effects than psychological placebo, but cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) did not. BT and CT, but not CBT, had greater effects than medications, but there are considerable uncertainty and methodological limitations that should be taken into account. In children and adolescents, CBT and BT had greater effects than drug placebo, but differences compared with psychological placebo did not reach statistical significance. SSRIs as a class showed a trend for superiority over drug placebo, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. However, the superiority of some individual drugs (fluoxetine, sertraline) was marginally statistically significant. Regarding acceptability, all interventions except clomipramine had good tolerability. In adults, CT and BT had the highest probability of being most cost-effective at conventional National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds. In children and adolescents, CBT or CBT combined with a SSRI were more likely to be cost-effective. The results are uncertain and sensitive to assumptions about treatment effect and the exclusion of trials at high risk of bias. LIMITATIONS: The majority of psychological trials included patients who were taking medications. There were few studies in children and adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: In adults, psychological interventions, clomipramine, SSRIs or combinations of these are all effective, whereas in children and adolescents, psychological interventions, either as monotherapy or combined with specific SSRIs, were more likely to be effective. Future RCTs should improve their design, in particular for psychotherapy or combined interventions. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002441. FUNDING DETAILS: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions for management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several interventions are available for management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults, but few studies have compared their relative efficacy in a single analysis. We aimed to simultaneously compare all available treatments using both direct and indirect data. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the two controlled trials registers maintained by the Cochrane Collaboration Common Mental Disorders group for trials published up to Feb 16, 2016. We selected randomised controlled trials in which an active psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention had been used in adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder. We allowed all comorbidities except for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on treatment-resistant patient populations defined within the same study. We extracted data from published reports. The primary outcome was symptom severity as measured by the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. We report mean differences with 95% credible intervals compared with placebo. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002441. FINDINGS: We identified 1480 articles in our search and included 53 articles (54 trials; 6652 participants) in the network meta-analysis. Behavioural therapy (mean difference -14·48 [95% credible interval -18·61 to -10·23]; 11 trials and 287 patients), cognitive therapy (-13·36 [-18·40 to -8·21]; six trials and 172 patients), behavioural therapy and clomipramine (-12·97 [-19·18 to -6·74]; one trial and 31 patients), cognitive behavioural therapy and fluvoxamine (-7·50 [-13·89 to -1·17]; one trial and six patients), cognitive behavioural therapy (-5·37 [-9·10 to -1·63]; nine trials and 231 patients), clomipramine (-4·72 [-6·85 to -2·60]; 13 trials and 831 patients), and all SSRIs (class effect -3·49 [95% credible interval -5·12 to -1·81]; 37 trials and 3158 patients) had greater effects than did drug placebo. Clomipramine was not better than were SSRIs (-1·23 [-3·41 to 0·94]). Psychotherapeutic interventions had a greater effect than did medications, but a serious limitation was that most psychotherapeutic trials included patients who were taking stable doses of antidepressants (12 [80%] of the 15 psychotherapy trials explicitly allowed antidepressants). INTERPRETATION: A range of interventions is effective in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder, but considerable uncertainty and limitations exist regarding their relative efficacy. Taking all the evidence into account, the combination of psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological interventions is likely to be more effective than are psychotherapeutic interventions alone, at least in severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Sipuleucel-T for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Relapsed Prostate Cancer: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal; An Evidence Review Group Perspective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Dendreon, the company manufacturing sipuleucel-T, to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of sipuleucel-T for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer patients in whom chemotherapy is not yet clinically indicated, as part of NICE's single technology appraisal process. The comparator was abiraterone acetate (AA) or best supportive care (BSC). The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company submission (CS), ERG review, and subsequent decision of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of sipuleucel-T based upon the CS. Clinical-effectiveness data relevant to the decision problem were taken from three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of sipuleucel-T and a placebo (PBO) comparator of antigen-presenting cells (APC) being re-infused (APC-PBO) (D9901, D9902A and D9902B), and one RCT (COU-AA-302) of AA plus prednisone vs. PBO plus prednisone. Two trials reported a significant advantage for sipuleucel-T in median overall survival compared with APC-PBO: for trial D9901, an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.47; (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.29, 0.76) p < 0.002; for D9902B, adjusted HR 0.78 (95 % CI 0.61, 0.98) p = 0.03. There was no significant difference between groups in D9902A, unadjusted HR 0.79 (95 % CI 0.48, 1.28) p = 0.331. Sipuleucel-T and APC-PBO groups did not differ significantly in time to disease progression, in any of the three RCTs. Most adverse events developed within 1 day of the infusion, and resolved within 2 days. The CS included an indirect comparison of sipuleucel-T (D9902B) and AA plus prednisone (COU-AA-302). As trials differed in prior use of chemotherapy, an analysis of only chemotherapy-naïve patients was included, in which the overall survival for sipuleucel-T and AA was not significantly different, HR 0.94 (95 % CI 0.69, 1.28) p = 0.699. The ERG had several concerns regarding the data and assumptions incorporated within the company's cost-effectiveness analyses and conducted exploratory analyses to quantify the impact of making alternative assumptions or using alternative data inputs. The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sipuleucel-T vs. BSC when using the ERG's preferred data and assumptions was £ 108,585 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the whole licensed population and £ 61,204/QALY in the subgroup with low prostate-specific antigen at baseline. The ERG also conducted an incremental analysis comparing sipuleucel-T with both AA and BSC in the chemotherapy-naïve subgroup. Sipuleucel-T had a deterministic ICER of £ 111,682/QALY in this subgroup, when using the ERG's preferred assumptions, and AA was extendedly dominated. The ERG also concluded that estimates of costs and benefits for AA should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the indirect comparison. The AC noted that the ICER for sipuleucel-T was well above the range usually considered cost effective, and did not recommend sipuleucel-T for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line induction and maintenance treatment sequences in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the U.S.

OBJECTIVES: Due to the lack of direct head-to-head trials, there are limited data regarding the comparative effectiveness of induction-maintenance sequences. The objective of this study was to develop a cost-effectiveness model to compare induction-maintenance sequences in the US for the treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision analytic modelling was used to synthesize the treatment effect and baseline risk estimates for nine induction and maintenance treatment sequences, reflecting treatments used in the US. The model was structured using an area-under-the-curve approach and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Model validation was conducted by an independent third party. RESULTS: All active maintenance therapy-containing regimens, with the exception of gemcitabine+cisplatin (first-line)→erlotinib (maintenance), were more costly than induction-only regimens. Concerning treatments that may be cost effective, the incremental costs per life-year gained were $121,425, $148,994, and $191,270 for gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib versus gemcitabine+cisplatin→best supportive care (BSC), pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC versus gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib, and for pemetrexed+cisplatin→pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC, respectively. All other regimens were found to be dominated (carboplatin+paclitaxel→BSC; carboplatin+paclitaxel→erlotinib; carboplatin+paclitaxel→pemetrexed; bevacizumab+carboplatin+paclitaxel→bevacizumab) or extendedly dominated (cisplatin+gemcitabine→pemetrexed). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the specific cost-effectiveness threshold used by a decision maker, the most cost-effective treatment sequence may include the referent comparator gemcitabine+cisplatin and the studied regimens of gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib, pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC, or pemetrexed+cisplatin→pemetrexed.