Jun Zhu1, Wei He2, Ming Ye3, Jie Fu4, Yun-Bo Chu5, Yi-Yang Zhao6, Yan-Jun Zhang5, David Kuo6, Bin Wu4. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, PR China. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Ningxia, PR China. 3. Department of Radiotherapy, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, PR China. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Medical Decision & Economic Group, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, PR China. 5. Boehringer Ingelheim (China) Investment Co., Ltd, Beijing, PR China. 6. Boehringer Ingelheim (China) Investment Co., Ltd, Shanghai, PR China.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of afatinib and erlotinib as second-line therapy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. MATERIALS & METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed for projecting the economic outcomes. Clinical parameters and utilities were from the LUX-Lung 8 trial. Costs were mainly estimated from the Chinese health system. The outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The afatinib strategy generated additional 0.154 quality-adjusted life-years compared with erlotinib, with incremental costs of ¥16,852. Relative to erlotinib, afatinib resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥109,429 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The overall survival time of afatinib had a considerable impact on the model outcomes. CONCLUSION: Afatinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared with erlotinib in patients with squamous cell carcinoma.
AIM: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of afatinib and erlotinib as second-line therapy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. MATERIALS & METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed for projecting the economic outcomes. Clinical parameters and utilities were from the LUX-Lung 8 trial. Costs were mainly estimated from the Chinese health system. The outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The afatinib strategy generated additional 0.154 quality-adjusted life-years compared with erlotinib, with incremental costs of ¥16,852. Relative to erlotinib, afatinib resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥109,429 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The overall survival time of afatinib had a considerable impact on the model outcomes. CONCLUSION:Afatinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared with erlotinib in patients with squamous cell carcinoma.
Entities:
Keywords:
afatinib; cost–effectiveness; erlotinib; squamous cell carcinoma of the lung