Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib as a First-Line Therapy for Untreated Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Recently, a phase III CROWN trial compared the efficacy of two anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors and demonstrated that lorlatinib displayed clinical improvement over crizotinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced ALK-positive (+) NSCLC.

Materials and methods

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a microsimulation model from the US payer perspective and a lifetime horizon (30 years) in patients with previous untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC. Based on the CROWN trial, patient characteristics were obtained, and the transition probabilities were estimated. All direct costs were derived from official sources and published literature. The main outcomes of the model were total costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years (LYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and multiple scenario analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model outcomes.

Results

In the base case analysis, in which 1 million patients were simulated, treatment with lorlatinib or crizotinib as the first-line treatment was related to a mean cost of $909,758 and $616,230 (incremental cost: $293,528) and a mean survival of 4.81 QALYs and 4.09 QALYs (incremental QALY: 0.72) per patient, respectively. The main drivers of cost effectiveness were drug price and subsequent cost. PAS indicated that lorlatinib has 90% cost-effectiveness when compared to crizotinib when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in increased to $448,000/QALY. Scenario analysis demonstrated that lorlatinib has 100% cost-effectiveness at a WTP threshold of 200,000/QALY compared to crizotinib treatment when the price of lorlatinib is decreased to 75% ($424.5) of its original price.

Conclusions

In this study, lorlatinib was unlikely to be cost effective compared with crizotinib for patients with previously untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC at a WTP threshold of 200,000/QALY.

SUBMITTER: Li S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8203315 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAtezolizumab has recently been approved for first-line treatment of high PD-L1 expression metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients with no EGFR or ALK mutations, on the basis of the IMpower110 trial. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with pembrolizumab among these patients in Spanish settings, based on the results of the two cut-offs of the IMpower110 study.MethodsA three-state partitioned-survival model was adapted to Spanish settings to calculate health outcomes and costs over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data for atezolizumab were collected from the interim and the exploratory results (data cut-off: Sept'18 and Feb'20, respectively) of the IMpower110 trial while a network meta-analysis was used to model pembrolizumab treatment. Utility data were collected from the trial. Direct medical costs were considered based on resources identified by experts. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Health outcomes were expressed as cost per Life Year (LY) and cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results.ResultsOver a lifetime horizon, the incremental results showed that atezolizumab generated similar health outcomes (LYs and QALYs) to pembrolizumab, with minimal differences depending on the cut-off used (+ 0.70 and + 0.42 LYs and QALYs with Sept'18 cut-off and - 0.80 and - 0.72 LYs and QALYs with Feb'20 cut-off). However, for both cut-offs, atezolizumab produced meaningfully less costs than pembrolizumab (€ - 54,261 with Sept'18 cut-off and € - 81,907 with Feb'20 cut-off). The sensitivity analyses carried out confirmed the robustness of the base-case results.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing the two cut-off of IMpower110, shows that atezolizumab provides similar health gains to pembrolizumab but at a lower cost for the first-line treatment of metastasic NSCLC patients in Spain.

Project description:Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC. Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured. Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were -0.15 QALYs and -$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was <50% in most subgroups. Conclusion: Nivolumab was not cost-effective, although it was associated with better clinical benefit and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of aHCC compared with sorafenib from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. If the price of nivolumab is substantially reduced, favorable cost-effectiveness can be achieved among patients with aHCC.