Hongchao Li1, Lei Lai2, Bin Wu3. 1. School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Tongxiang First People's Hospital, Tongxiang, 314500, China. 3. Medical Decision and Economic Group, Department of Pharmacy, Ren Ji Hospital, South Campus, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China. scilwsjtu-wb@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib improved survival in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the long-term economic outcomes of using ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the Chinese healthcare setting. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with ceritinib, alectinib or crizotinib. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the hazard ratios of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib by pooling published trials. Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. The primary outputs included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Treatment with alectinib and ceritinib yielded an additional 1.00 and 1.09 QALYs and incremental costs of $62,232 and $15,165, resulting in an ICER of $62,231 and $13,905 per QALY compared with crizotinib, respectively. Parameters related to drug costs and progression-free survival were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ceritinib and alectinib had a 99.9% and 0% probability of being cost effective, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28,410/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that compared with crizotinib and alectinib, ceritinib is a cost-effective option for treatment-naïve patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.
BACKGROUND:Crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib improved survival in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the long-term economic outcomes of using ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the Chinese healthcare setting. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with ceritinib, alectinib or crizotinib. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the hazard ratios of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib by pooling published trials. Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. The primary outputs included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Treatment with alectinib and ceritinib yielded an additional 1.00 and 1.09 QALYs and incremental costs of $62,232 and $15,165, resulting in an ICER of $62,231 and $13,905 per QALY compared with crizotinib, respectively. Parameters related to drug costs and progression-free survival were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ceritinib and alectinib had a 99.9% and 0% probability of being cost effective, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28,410/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that compared with crizotinib and alectinib, ceritinib is a cost-effective option for treatment-naïve patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.
Authors: Solange Peters; D Ross Camidge; Alice T Shaw; Shirish Gadgeel; Jin S Ahn; Dong-Wan Kim; Sai-Hong I Ou; Maurice Pérol; Rafal Dziadziuszko; Rafael Rosell; Ali Zeaiter; Emmanuel Mitry; Sophie Golding; Bogdana Balas; Johannes Noe; Peter N Morcos; Tony Mok Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Zheng-Yi Zhou; Alex Mutebi; Simeng Han; Arielle G Bensimon; Marie Louise Ricculli; Jipan Xie; Anand Dalal; Ken Culver Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: David S Ettinger; Dara L Aisner; Douglas E Wood; Wallace Akerley; Jessica Bauman; Joe Y Chang; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Thomas J Dilling; Michael Dobelbower; Ramaswamy Govindan; Matthew A Gubens; Mark Hennon; Leora Horn; Rudy P Lackner; Michael Lanuti; Ticiana A Leal; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Jules Lin; Billy W Loo; Renato Martins; Gregory A Otterson; Sandip P Patel; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Steven E Schild; Theresa A Shapiro; James Stevenson; Scott J Swanson; Kurt Tauer; Stephen C Yang; Kristina Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Petros Christopoulos; Jan Budczies; Martina Kirchner; Steffen Dietz; Holger Sültmann; Michael Thomas; Albrecht Stenzinger Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2019-05-03
Authors: Daniel S W Tan; Sarayut Geater; Chong-Jen Yu; Chun-Ming Tsai; Te-Chun Hsia; Jun Chen; Meng-Chih Lin; You Lu; Virote Sriuranpong; Cheng-Ta Yang; Paramita Sen; Fabrice Branle; Michael Shi; Yi-Long Wu Journal: JTO Clin Res Rep Date: 2020-12-17
Authors: Raymond Henderson; Peter Keeling; Declan French; Dave Smart; Richard Sullivan; Mark Lawler Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 6.603