RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Lower-dose ceritinib (450 mg) once-daily with food was approved in 2018 in Hong Kong (HK) for first-line treatment of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK +) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study examined the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib vs. crizotinib in the first-line treatment of ALK + NSCLC from a HK healthcare service provider's or government's perspective. METHODS: Costs and effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs. crizotinib over a 20-year time horizon was evaluated using a partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressed disease, and death). The efficacy data for ceritinib were obtained from a phase 3 trial comparing ceritinib with chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4) and extrapolated using parametric survival models. Long-term survival associated with crizotinib were estimated using hazard ratio of crizotinib vs. ceritinib obtained from matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014 trials. Drug acquisition, administration, adverse events costs, and medical costs associated with each health state were obtained from public sources and converted to 2018 US Dollars. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY) gained were estimated for ceritinib vs. crizotinib. RESULTS: The base case results showed that ceritinib was associated with 3.22 QALYs, 4.51 LYs, and total costs of $157,581 over 20 years. Patients receiving crizotinib had 2.68 QALYs, 3.85 LYs, and $150,424 total costs over the same time horizon. The incremental cost per QALY gained for ceritinib vs crizotinib was $13,343. Results were robust to deterministic sensitivity analyses in most scenarios. CONCLUSION: Ceritinib offers a cost-effective option compared to crizotinib for previously untreated ALK + advanced NCSLC in HK.
RESUMO
Introduction: Upfront next-generation sequencing (NGS) in patients with metastatic NSCLC has been associated with cost savings and shorter time-to-test results in the United States. Nevertheless, this may not apply in jurisdictions where the prevalence of patients with actionable mutations, cost of health care, and reimbursement models differ. Methods: A decision analytical model was built to compare sequential, panel, exclusionary, and upfront NGS testing in patients with metastatic NSCLC in Hong Kong. In sequential and panel testing, patients were tested for genomic alterations (GAs) with treatment followed by sequential or NGS. In exclusionary testing, EGFR and ALK were tested first, followed by NGS. For each modality, the mutation identified, time to receive testing results, and costs (2020 U.S. dollars) were estimated. Results: Exclusionary testing required the shortest time-to-results (1.6 wk) and was most cost saving. In the scenario where all patients used exclusionary testing, a cost saving of $4.6 million was expected relative to current practice, with 90.7% of actionable and 46.5% of nonactionable GAs detected; when all patients used NGS, it would be $2.9 million more expensive with a 100% GA detection rate. Results were sensitive to testing costs and the proportion of patients that continued testing. Conclusions: Exclusionary testing is the best option in terms of cost and time-to-results in Hong Kong. This finding may be applicable for other Asian countries; however, exclusionary testing does not capture all possible GAs. As more GAs become actionable and the cost of NGS declines, NGS may become a cost-saving option.