Cuc Thi Thu Nguyen1, Fabio Petrelli2, Stefania Scuri2, Binh Thanh Nguyen3, Iolanda Grappasonni2. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Administration and Economics, Hanoi University of Pharmacy, Hanoi, Vietnam. cucnguyen.pharm@gmail.com. 2. School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University of Camerino, Camerino, Marche, Italy. 3. Department of Pharmaceutical Administration and Economics, Hanoi University of Pharmacy, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review and assess the quality of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify full-text original economic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC written in English and published from the year 2000 onwards. Study characteristics and results were recorded and compared. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) questionnaire. RESULTS: Eleven out of 130 papers were chosen for this review. Comparative regimens consisted of a best supportive care, reverse strategy, bevacizumab, cisplatin plus pemetrexed, carboplatin plus gemcitabine or gefitinib. The methods most used in these studies were modeling and sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. All of the studies evaluated direct costs and used quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-years gained (LYG) as outcome, with 3% and 3.5% discount rate. The studies assigned ICER that ranged from dominant to I$305,510.31/QALY and from I$31,209.55/LYG to I$66,540.20/LYG. Based on the willingness to pay threshold, seven studies concluded that erlotinib was cost-effective, two studies showed that erlotinib was cost-effective on specific patients with certain conditions, and two studies comparing erlotinib with reverse strategy did not find a difference in cost-effectiveness. The high quality of these studies was confirmed using the QHES tool: the mean score was 75.77 out of 100 (SD 9.38). CONCLUSION: Most of these high-quality studies suggested that erlotinib was cost-effective in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.
OBJECTIVE: To review and assess the quality of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify full-text original economic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC written in English and published from the year 2000 onwards. Study characteristics and results were recorded and compared. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) questionnaire. RESULTS: Eleven out of 130 papers were chosen for this review. Comparative regimens consisted of a best supportive care, reverse strategy, bevacizumab, cisplatin plus pemetrexed, carboplatin plus gemcitabine or gefitinib. The methods most used in these studies were modeling and sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. All of the studies evaluated direct costs and used quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-years gained (LYG) as outcome, with 3% and 3.5% discount rate. The studies assigned ICER that ranged from dominant to I$305,510.31/QALY and from I$31,209.55/LYG to I$66,540.20/LYG. Based on the willingness to pay threshold, seven studies concluded that erlotinib was cost-effective, two studies showed that erlotinib was cost-effective on specific patients with certain conditions, and two studies comparing erlotinib with reverse strategy did not find a difference in cost-effectiveness. The high quality of these studies was confirmed using the QHES tool: the mean score was 75.77 out of 100 (SD 9.38). CONCLUSION: Most of these high-quality studies suggested that erlotinib was cost-effective in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.
Authors: Joshua J Ofman; Sean D Sullivan; Peter J Neumann; Chiun-Fang Chiou; James M Henning; Sally W Wade; Joel W Hay Journal: J Manag Care Pharm Date: 2003 Jan-Feb
Authors: Johan C F van Luijn; Arie C van Loenen; Frank W J Gribnau; Hubert G M Leufkens Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2008-10-28 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Lenka Spacilova; Hana Klusonova; Fabio Petrelli; Carlo Signorelli; Peter Visnovsky; Iolanda Grappasonni Journal: Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.245