Yong-Jin Kim1, Mark Oremus2, Helen H Chen2, Thomas McFarlane3, Danielle Fearon2, Susan Horton2. 1. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Lyle Hallman North Building-2714, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. y238kim@uwaterloo.ca. 2. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Lyle Hallman North Building-2714, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. 3. School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Kitchener, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This study used Ontario Cancer Registry-linked administrative data to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer who received EGFR-TKIs as first-line treatment between 1 January, 2014 and 31 August, 2019. A net benefit regression approach accounting for baseline covariates and propensity scores was used to estimate incremental net benefits and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Outcome measures were calculated over a 68-month period and were discounted with an annual rate of 1.5%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess and characterize the uncertainties. RESULTS: A total of 547 patients were included in the study, of whom 20.1%, 23.6%, and 56.3% received afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib, respectively. Erlotinib was dominated by afatinib and gefitinib. Compared to gefitinib, afatinib was associated with higher effectiveness (adjusted incremental quality-adjusted life-year: 0.21), higher total costs (adjusted incremental costs: $9745), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,506 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results from the sensitivity analyses indicated the findings of the base-case analysis were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to previously published studies, our study established head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness and treatment-related costs of first-line EGFR-TKIs. Our findings suggest afatinib was the most cost-effective option among the three EGFR-TKIs.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This study used Ontario Cancer Registry-linked administrative data to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer who received EGFR-TKIs as first-line treatment between 1 January, 2014 and 31 August, 2019. A net benefit regression approach accounting for baseline covariates and propensity scores was used to estimate incremental net benefits and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Outcome measures were calculated over a 68-month period and were discounted with an annual rate of 1.5%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess and characterize the uncertainties. RESULTS: A total of 547 patients were included in the study, of whom 20.1%, 23.6%, and 56.3% received afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib, respectively. Erlotinib was dominated by afatinib and gefitinib. Compared to gefitinib, afatinib was associated with higher effectiveness (adjusted incremental quality-adjusted life-year: 0.21), higher total costs (adjusted incremental costs: $9745), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,506 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results from the sensitivity analyses indicated the findings of the base-case analysis were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to previously published studies, our study established head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness and treatment-related costs of first-line EGFR-TKIs. Our findings suggest afatinib was the most cost-effective option among the three EGFR-TKIs.
Authors: Ji-Youn Han; Keunchil Park; Sang-We Kim; Dae Ho Lee; Hyae Young Kim; Heung Tae Kim; Myung Ju Ahn; Tak Yun; Jin Seok Ahn; Cheolwon Suh; Jung-Shin Lee; Sung Jin Yoon; Jong Hee Han; Jae Won Lee; Sook Jung Jo; Jin Soo Lee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Tomohiro Matsuda; Veronica Di Carlo; Rhea Harewood; Melissa Matz; Maja Nikšić; Audrey Bonaventure; Mikhail Valkov; Christopher J Johnson; Jacques Estève; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Gulnar Azevedo E Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Sultan Eser; Gerda Engholm; Charles A Stiller; Alain Monnereau; Ryan R Woods; Otto Visser; Gek Hsiang Lim; Joanne Aitken; Hannah K Weir; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A Inoue; K Kobayashi; M Maemondo; S Sugawara; S Oizumi; H Isobe; A Gemma; M Harada; H Yoshizawa; I Kinoshita; Y Fujita; S Okinaga; H Hirano; K Yoshimori; T Harada; Y Saijo; K Hagiwara; S Morita; T Nukiwa Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Rondell P Graham; Amanda L Treece; Neal I Lindeman; Patricia Vasalos; Mu Shan; Lawrence J Jennings; David L Rimm Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Sarah Walters; Camille Maringe; Michel P Coleman; Michael D Peake; John Butler; Nicholas Young; Stefan Bergström; Louise Hanna; Erik Jakobsen; Karl Kölbeck; Stein Sundstrøm; Gerda Engholm; Anna Gavin; Marianne L Gjerstorff; Juanita Hatcher; Tom Børge Johannesen; Karen M Linklater; Colleen E McGahan; John Steward; Elizabeth Tracey; Donna Turner; Michael A Richards; Bernard Rachet Journal: Thorax Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 9.139