Bulgarian Operative System for Chemical Weather Forecast

Iglika Etropolska,M. Prodanova,D. Syrakov,K. Ganev,N. Miloshev,K. Slavov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18466-6_16

2010-08-20

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Cost-utility of afatinib and gefitinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Hao Wang,Chenxin Zeng,Xin Li,Youjie Wang,Xinyi Li,Weihong Ge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2018-0692

2019-01-01

Future Oncology

Abstract:Aim: To evaluate the cost-utility of gefitinib and afatinib as first-line EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer treatments from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Materials & methods: A Markov model was established, state transition probabilities were extracted from the LUX-Lung7 trial and utility values were from previous studies. The cost was extracted from local charge or relevant literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for intention-to-treat, EGFR exon 19 deletion (del19) and exon Leu858Arg (21L858R, L858R) muation subgroups. Results: For the entire population, the afatinib regimen afforded additional 0.29 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were US$9820.41/QALY, US$18,529.65/QALY and US$1585.51/QALY for intention-to-treat, L858R and del19, respectively. Conclusion: First-line afatinib was more cost-effective than gefitinib for EFGR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China.
Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China

Yamin Shu,Yufeng Ding,Xucheng He,Yanxin Liu,Pan Wu,Qilin Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.920479

2022-09-20

Abstract:Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the outcomes and direct medical costs of osimertinib or standard EGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. Individual patient survival data were extracted from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial. Clinical costs and utilities' input estimates were collected from the local hospital and available literature reports. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net health benefit (INHB) were calculated for the two treatment strategies over a 10-year lifetime horizon. In addition, one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results: On baseline analysis, osimertinib achieved additional 0.39 QALYs and $15,443.78 incremental costs compared with standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib), which resulted in the ICER of $39,369.53/QALY. The INMB was -$755.11, and the INHB was -0.02 QALYs at a WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of PFS had the strongest association with the ICER. Osimertinib had approximately 46.4% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY. Conclusion: First-line osimertinib therapy might not be cost-effective in China for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC compared with standard EGFR-TKI based on its current marketed price. A significantly more favorable cost-effectiveness could be achieved when the price of osimertinib was reduced by 5%.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

Wenqian Li,Lei Qian,Wei Li,Xiao Chen,Hua He,Huimin Tian,Yuguang Zhao,Xu Wang,Jiuwei Cui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2021.9774

Abstract:Osimertinib is a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is clinically effective in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the use of this treatment is limited by its high cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration in China and the United States was conducted in the present study. Markov models were established based on data from the FLAURA and AURA3 trials. First-line osimertinib was compared with both first-generation EGFR-TKIs and second-line osimertinib after the failure of first-generation EGFR-TKIs. The analysis also considered different payment modalities available in China. Additionally, one-way and probability sensitivity analyses, with a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of three times the per capita gross domestic product [$27,783/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for China and $100,000/QALY for the United States], were performed. The first-line osimertinib group displayed higher QALYs and costs than those of the first-generation EGFR-TKI group. The first generation EGFR-TKI group displayed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $212,252/QALY in China and $151,922/QALY in the United States. In addition, the ICERs were negative in the second-line osimertinib group, with higher QALYs and lower costs compared with those in the first-line osimertinib group. Furthermore, osimertinib company donation was of benefit in China, with an average cost-effectiveness of $836/QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis highlighted the influence of utilities in different states. First-line osimertinib could be cost-effective either with higher WTP or a price reduction of 68% in China and 9% in the United States. Although first-line osimertinib therapy could have health benefits, it was not cost-effective compared with first-line first-generation EGFR-TKIs and second-line osimertinib therapy. However, paying via company donation may be a good choice in China.
Clinical efficacy and safety analysis of aumolertinib in real-world treatment of EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Xiaojuan Zhang,Mina Zhang,Xinyang Du,Guowei Zhang,Yuanyuan Niu,Chunhua Wei,Lanwei Guo,Chao Shi,Hangfan Liu,Huijuan Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1331138

IF: 5.6

2024-04-09

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: This study aims to determine the efficacy and safety profile of aumolertinib in the real-word treatment setting for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 173 EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC patients who received aumolertinib treatment at Henan Cancer Hospital from April 2020 to December 2022. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier survival curves, while a Cox regression model was used for multifactorial analysis and prognostic factor assessment. Results: Among patients administered first-line aumolertinib (n = 77), the objective remission rate (ORR) of 77.92% was observed, along with a disease control rate (DCR) of 100%. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 24.97 months, which did not reach the median overall survival (mOS). The patients treated with aumolertinib after progression on prior EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy (n = 96) exhibited an ORR of 46.88%, a DCR of 89.58%, an mPFS of 15.17 months, and an mOS of 21.27 months. First-line treatment multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated a statistically significant impact of elevated creatine kinase on PFS ( p = 0.016) and a similar significant influence of co-mutation on OS ( p = 0.034). Furthermore, subsequent-line treatment multivariate Cox regression analysis showed a statistically significant impact of elevated creatine kinase on median PFS ( p = 0.026) and a significant effect on the number of metastatic organs ( p = 0.017), co-mutation ( p = 0.035), and elevated creatine kinase ( p = 0.014) on median OS. Conclusion: Aumolertinib has shown clinical significance and can safely be used in the real-world setting for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia

Terence Khoo,Lan Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2021.1847648

2020-12-06

Abstract:<span><b>Objectives</b>: To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), gefitinib or erlotinib, as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia from a healthcare system perspective. <b>Methods</b>: A partitioned survival model comprising three mutually exclusive health states with a five-year time horizon was developed. Model inputs were sourced from the pivotal trial (FLAURA) and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and cost per life-year (LY) gained, were calculated. Uncertainty of the results was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. <b>Results</b>: Compared with standard EGFR-TKIs, osimertinib was associated with a higher incremental cost of A$118,502, and an incremental benefit of 0.274 QALYs and 0.313 LYs. The ICER was estimated to be A$432,197/QALY gained and A$378,157/LY gained. The base-case ICER was most sensitive to changes in cost of first-line osimertinib, time horizon, and choice of overall survival data (interim versus final analysis). <b>Conclusions</b>: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY, first-line osimertinib is not cost-effective compared with standard EGFR-TKIs in Australia based on the current published price. To achieve acceptable cost-effectiveness, the cost of first-line osimertinib needs to be reduced by at least 68.4%.</span>

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Cost-Effectiveness of Alectinib for Patients with Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

Haijing Guan,Yanan Sheng,Wanjie Guo,Sheng Han,Luwen Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-00908-7

2019-03-21

Advances in Therapy

Abstract:IntroductionTo assess the cost-effectiveness of alectinib versus crizotinib as first-line treatments for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from the perspective of China’s healthcare system.MethodsA Markov model was developed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs of alectinib and crizotinib, which included five health states: progression-free (PF) without central nervous system (CNS) progression, PF with CNS progression, post-progression (PP) without CNS progression, PP with CNS progression, and death. Clinical data for transition probabilities were obtained from the ALEX trial at the updated data cutoff. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were derived from clinical expert opinions and published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. Scenario analyses were conducted including using clinical data from the ALESIA trial in Asian patients, using utilities from the ALEX trial, and choosing different parametric survival models.ResultsIn base case analysis, alectinib yielded an additional 1.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $54,827, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,869/QALY. In scenario analysis, the ICER was $56,787/QALY using clinical data from the ALESIA trial. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities of alectinib being cost-effective were 0.4% and 43.7% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were $28,109/QALY and $50,000/QALY, respectively.ConclusionAlectinib could prolong the mean time of PF and delay the time to CNS progression. However, because of its high drug cost, alectinib was unlikely to be cost-effective for untreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients in China.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medicine, research & experimental
Modelled Economic Analysis for Dacomitinib–A Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Patients With EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

Yong-feng Yu,Luan Luan,Fan-fan Zhu,Peng Dong,Li-Heng Ma,Lan-ting Li,Lan Gao,Shun Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.564234

IF: 4.7

2021-12-14

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Objectives To establish the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib compared to gefitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Patients Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Methods Partitioned survival analysis was undertaken to examine the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib utilising individual patient data (IPD) from the pivotal randomised controlled trial (RCT) (ARCHER 1050). The three health states modelled were progression-free, post-progression, and death. Parametric survival distributions were fitted to IPD against the Kaplan-Meier survival curves corresponding to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes by randomised groups. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, outpatient management (outpatient consultation and examinations), and best supportive care costs. Utility weights were sourced from the pivotal trial and other published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Results In the base case, dacomitinib (CNY 265,512 and 1.95 QALY) was associated with higher costs and QALY gains compared to gefitinib (CNY 247,048 and 1.61 QALYs), resulting in an ICER of CNY 58,947/QALY. Using the empirical WTP/QALY threshold, dacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that dacomitinib had a 97% probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions Dacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy in treating patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib could be reduced if long-term survival data become available. Clinical Trial Registration NCT01024413

oncology
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of osimertinib plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR‐mutated advanced non‐small cell lung cancer

Wentao Tian,Lishui Niu,Rongrong Zhou,Ziqi Wang,Jiaoyang Ning,Ruoyu Lu,Yin Shi,Zhaohua Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.70083

IF: 4.711

2024-09-02

Cancer Medicine

Abstract:Introduction First‐line osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression‐free survival of patients with EGFR‐mutated advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to osimertinib, according to the FLAURA2 trial. Methods We established a Markov model to compare the cost‐effectiveness of osimertinib plus chemotherapy with that of osimertinib alone. Clinical data were obtained from the FLAURA and FLAURA2 trials, and additional data were extracted from online resources and publications. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. We used A willingness‐to‐pay threshold of ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 223,727.1 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses identified the cost of osimertinib and the hazard ratio for overall survival as the top 2 influential factors and a 1.9% probability of osimertinib plus chemotherapy to be cost‐effective. The subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of 224,449.8, 130,159.7 per QALY gained for L858R mutations, exon 19 deletions, CNS metastases, and no CNS metastases subgroups, respectively. Conclusions From the perspective of the United States health care system, osimertinib plus chemotherapy is not cost‐effective compared to osimertinib alone for treatment‐naïve patients with EGFR‐mutated advanced NSCLC, but more favorable cost‐effectiveness occurs in patients with L858R mutations and patients without baseline CNS metastases.

oncology
Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib vs Docetaxel-bevacizumab in Third-line Treatment in EGFR T790M Resistance Mutation Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

Mingjun Rui,Hongchao Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.08.018

IF: 3.637

2020-11-01

Clinical Therapeutics

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Purpose</h3><p>This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in <em>EGFR</em> T790M resistance mutation advanced non–small cell lung cancer in China from the perspective of the health care system.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p>To explore modeling uncertainty, 2 different model methods (a Markov model and a partitioned survival [PS] model) were developed to simulate costs and health outcomes during a lifetime. Both models consisted of 3 health states: progression-free survival, postprogression survival, and death. Efficacy and safety data of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in patients who had acquired <em>EGFR</em> T790M resistance mutation were derived from a key head-to-head clinical trial. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges, the literature, the China Drug Bidding Database, and patients' health care documents. Two scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the results.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Findings</h3><p>In the Markov model, compared with docetaxel and bevacizumab, osimertinib yielded 0.69 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an additional cost (in US dollars) of $17,311 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $25,463 per QALY. In the PS model, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.69 QALYs with an incremental cost of $17,827 for an ICUR of $25,951 per QALY. From the Markov model, the ICUR was $29,416 per QALY in scenario 1 and $25,543 per QALY in scenario 2. From the PS model, the ICUR was $30,264 per QALY and $25,947 per QALY for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, osimertinib treatment had a 21%–63% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $9777 to $29,330 per QALY (1–3 times the gross domestic product per capita).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Implications</h3><p>The findings from the present analysis suggest that osimertinib could be cost-effective vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in <em>EGFR</em> T790M resistance mutation advanced non–small cell lung cancer in China.</p>

pharmacology & pharmacy
EGFR mutation-guided use of afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Hong Kong – A cost-effectiveness analysis

Joyce H. S. You,William C. S. Cho,Wai-kit Ming,Yu-chung Li,Chung-kong Kwan,Kwok-hung Au,Joseph Siu-kie Au

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247860

IF: 3.7

2021-03-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Introduction Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) therapy targets at epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the EGFR mutation-guided target therapy versus empirical chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in the public healthcare setting of Hong Kong. Methods A Markov model was designed to simulate outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC adult patients with un-tested EGFR-sensitizing mutation status. Four treatment strategies were evaluated: Empirical first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin-pemetrexed (empirical chemotherapy group), and EGFR mutation-guided use of a TKI (afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib). Model outcome measures were direct medical cost, progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost per QALY gained (ICER) was estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine robustness of model results. Results Empirical chemotherapy and EGFR mutation-guided gefitinib gained lower QALYs at higher costs than the erlotinib group. Comparing with EGFR mutation-guided erlotinib, the afatinib strategy gained additional QALYs with ICER (540,633 USD/QALY). In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations for probabilistic sensitivity analysis, EGFR mutation-guided afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and empirical chemotherapy were preferred strategy in 0%, 98%, 0% and 2% of time at willingness-to-pay (WTP) 47,812 USD/QALY (1x gross domestic product (GDP) per capita), and in 30%, 68%, 2% and 0% of time at WTP 143,436 USD/QALY (3x GDP per capita), respectively. Conclusions EGFR mutation-guided erlotinib appears to be the cost-effective strategy from the perspective of Hong Kong public healthcare provider over a broad range of WTP.

multidisciplinary sciences
Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib As a Second-line Treatment in Patients with EGFR-mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

Haijing Guan,Gordon Liu,Feng Xie,Yanan Sheng,Luwen Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.09.008

IF: 3.637

2019-01-01

Clinical Therapeutics

Abstract:PURPOSE:To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib used as a second-line treatment after failure of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.METHODS:From the perspective of China's health care system, a Markov model was used for estimating the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib and 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, including pemetrexed + platinum (PP), gemcitabine + platinum (GP), docetaxel + platinum (DP), and paclitaxel + platinum (TP). Two scenarios were considered, one in all confirmed patients with T790M-positive disease (scenario 1) and the other in all patients whose disease progressed after epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, which consisted of patients with T790M-positive or T790M-negative NSCLC (scenario 2). Clinical data for transition probabilities and treatment effects were obtained from published clinical trials. Health care resource utilization and costs were derived from local administrative databases and published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results.FINDINGS:In the base-case analysis, compared with the 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.671 to 0.846 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with incremental costs of 15,943 to 20,299 USD in scenario 1, and an additional 0.376 to 0.808 QALY with incremental costs of 9710 to 15,407 USD in scenario 2. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that osimertinib would be cost-effective were 57.7% in scenario 1 and 58.4% in scenario 2 if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 30,000 USD/QALY, and probabilities would be more than 75 % in both scenarios if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 50,000 USD/QALY.IMPLICATIONS:Osimertinib is likely to be cost-effective when used as a second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in China based on the latest reimbursement price of osimertinib through National Reimbursement Drug List negotiation.
A cellulase/xylanase‐negative mutant of Streptomyces lividans 1326 defective in cellobiose and xylobiose uptake is mutated in a gene encoding a protein homologous to ATP‐binding proteins

Y. Hurtubise,F. Shareck,D. Kluepfel,R. Morosoli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.1995.mmi_17020367.x

1995-07-01

Molecular Microbiology

Abstract:Centre de Recherche en Microbiologie Appliquée, Institut Armand‐Frappier, Université du Québec, Ville de Laval, Québec H7N 4Z3, Canada.
OP11 Cost-Effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy As A First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Liu,Yi Yang,Dunming Xiao,Yingyao Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323000612

2023-01-01

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract:IntroductionTreatment with atezolizumab plus standard chemotherapy can prolong the overall survival of patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the economic value of this treatment regimen is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from a healthcare system perspective in China.MethodsA partitioned survival model consisting of three discrete health states was developed to estimate the cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab plus carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed (APP) versus carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed (PP) in the first-line treatment of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC over a 12-year lifetime horizon. Key clinical data were generated from the IMpower132 trial. Local direct medical and non-medical costs were used and health preference data were collected from patients with NSCLC in 13 tertiary hospitals across five provinces in China. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.ResultsCompared with the PP regimen, APP therapy yielded a gain of 0.21 QALYs at an increased cost of CNY145,602 (USD22,574), resulting in an ICER of CNY684,894 (USD106,185) per QALY gained. The ICER was significantly higher than three times the gross domestic product per capita for China in 2021 (USD37,663). One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that one of the most influential factors in this model was the cost of atezolizumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was 14.7% probability that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was cost effective at a willingness-to-pay value of CNY242,928 (USD37,663) per QALY gained.ConclusionsThe APP regimen could prolong survival and improve health benefits over standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, but it is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment option in China.
Posttransplant diabetes mellitus in renal allograft recipients.

M. Koselj,M. Koselj-Kajtna,A. Kandus,A. Bren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-1345(01)02578-7

IF: 1.014

2001-11-01

Transplantation Proceedings

Abstract:
Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer in Singapore

Mohamed Ismail Abdul Aziz,Wayne Yong Xiang Foo,Chee Keong Toh,Wan-Teck Lim,Kwong Ng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.23388/v1

2020-02-12

Abstract:Abstract Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for the majority of all lung cancer cases and is usually associated with a poor prognosis. However, targeted therapy with 1st and 2nd generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has so far improved progression-free survival of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant NSCLC patients. Osimertinib, a third generation EGFR TKI has recently shown improved overall survival in previously untreated EGFR mutant NSCLC patients. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR TKIs (gefitinib or erlotinib) as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic EGFR mutant NSCLC patients in Singapore. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) was developed from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Survival curves from the FLAURA trial were extrapolated beyond trial period over a 10-year time horizon to estimate the underlying progression-free survival and overall survival parametric distributions. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct costs were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties and assumptions on cost-effectiveness results. Results: Compared with 1st or 2nd generation TKI, osimertinib had a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SG$418,839 per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER was most sensitive to time horizon and variations in progression-free utility values. Scenario analyses showed that a 50% reduction in the cost of osimertinib was still associated with a high ICER that was unlikely to be deemed cost effective. Conclusions: Osimertinib is not cost effective as a first-line treatment compared to standard EGFR TKIs in advanced EGFR mutant NSCLC patients in Singapore. The findings from our evaluation, alongside other considerations including the lack of survival benefit in the Asian subgroup of the FLAURA trial, will be useful to inform policy makers on funding decisions for NSCLC treatments in Singapore.
Economics of First-Line Treatment with Tislelizumab in Patients with Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Lin Wang,Ting Liu,Xihan Lin,Yu Zhang,Luwen Shi,Ruxu You,Jinyu Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750743x.2024.2433408

2024-01-01

Immunotherapy

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic (IIIB/IV) nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsq-NSCLC) in China. METHODS:A Markov model projected health outcomes and costs over a lifetime, with health states including progression-free survival, progressive disease, terminal progressive disease (TPD) and death. Data came from a Chinese phase III trial. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) calculated. Using sensitivity analysis to confirm the robustness of the results. RESULTS:The base-case analysis showed that tislelizumab combined chemotherapy group had 1.06 more QALYs (3.967 QALYs VS 2.909 QALYs) than the chemotherapy-alone group at an incremental cost of U.S. dollars ($) 19594.75 ($43390.52 VS $23795.77), resulting in an ICER of $18,512.47/QALY. This ICER is below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of three times China's 2023 per capita GDP ($36,672.23/QALY), indicating tislelizumab is economically favorable. CONCLUSION:The conclusion is that tislelizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for nsq-NSCLC patients in China.
Biomarkers-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Toripalimab Plus Chemotherapy for Patients with Treatment-Naive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Huixian Zhang,Lanfang Li,Lei Feng,Zhen Zhou,Xin Zhang,Jianbo Feng,Qiao Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02679-8

Abstract:Introduction: This study examined the cost-effectiveness of first-line toripalimab plus chemotherapy (TC) for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), excluding patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and EGFR/ALK mutations. It further analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this strategy in biomarker-based subgroups, all within the context of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Eighteen Markov models with 21-day Markov cycle lengths and 30-year time horizons were constructed in this study. Clinical effectiveness data were derived from the CHOICE-01 trial. Health state utilities and costs data were obtained from various sources. The primary outputs were the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were then compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $17,961 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). This comparison was used to determine the treatment that offered greater cost-effectiveness. To account for uncertainty in the model, sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: For the overall patient population, the estimated ICER between first-line TC and placebo plus chemotherapy (PC) was $9445/QALY, significantly lower than the WTP threshold used in the model. In subgroups based on pathologic types, first-line TC had an ICER of $16,757/QALY for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, slightly below the WTP threshold; first-line TC demonstrated dominance in patients with squamous NSCLC, indicating both better effectiveness and lower costs compared to first-line PC. In biomarkers-based subgroups, first-line TC was dominant over first-line PC in the subgroups with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 50% and SMARCA4 mutations. Moreover, first-line TC had ICERs lower than the WTP threshold in other subgroups, except for the subgroup with RB1 mutations. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these findings. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, this study's findings suggested that first-line TC represents a cost-effective strategy for patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the cost-effectiveness of first-line TC varied across different subgroups when considering predictive biomarkers.
Osimertinib in the treatment of resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States

Gengwei Huo,Ying Song,Wenjie Liu,Xuchen Cao,Peng Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1300183

IF: 5.6

2024-03-29

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: In the double-blind phase III ADAURA randomized clinical trial, adjuvant osimertinib showed a substantial overall survival benefit in patients with stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of adjuvant osimertinib to placebo in patients with stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, resected NSCLC. Methods: Based on the results obtained from the ADAURA trial, a Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate patients who were administered either osimertinib or placebo until disease recurrence or completion of the study period (3 years). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore the robustness of the model. Results: Osimertinib produced additional 1.59 QALYs with additional costs of 309,962.66/QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that the utility of disease-free survival (DFS), cost of osimertinib, and discount rate had the greatest impact on the outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that osimertinib exhibited a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective for patients using a WTP threshold $150,000/QALY. Conclusion: In our model, osimertinib was unlikely to be cost-effective compared to placebo for stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, completely resected NSCLC patients from the perspective of a U.S. payer at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Cost-effectiveness of ensartinib, crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib and lorlatinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China

Xia Luo,Zhen Zhou,Xiaohui Zeng,Liubao Peng,Qiao Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.985834

IF: 5.2

2022-09-21

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Objective Six anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs), including one domestic (ensartinib) and five imported ALK-TKIs (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), have been recommended as first-line treatments for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in China. This study sought to examine the cost-effectiveness of these six novel therapies in Chinese patients. Material and methods We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of the six ALK-TKIs as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were estimated by synthesizing data from the PROFILE 1,029 trial and a network meta-analysis. Health state utilities and costs were sourced from published literature, publicly available national databases, and local general hospitals. The robustness of model was assessed via deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results Compared with crizotinib, ensartinib achieved additional 0.12 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) with marginal costs of $3,249, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,553/ QALY. When compared with ceritinib and brigatinib, ensartinib achieved additional 0.06 and 0.03 QALYs with substantially reduced costs. When compared with lorlatinib and alectinib, ensartinib was associated with a lower QALY and decreased total costs; the ICERs for lorlatinib and alectinib were $934,101/ QALY and $164,888/ QALY, respectively. Conclusion For Chinese patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, ensartinib was a cost-effective option compared with crizotinib, and was a dominant alternative to ceritinib and brigatinib. Although lorlatinib and alectinib were associated with prolonged survival compared with ensartinib, they were less cost-effective than ensartinib due to the overwhelming total costs.

public, environmental & occupational health
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the tislelizumab versus docetaxel for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in China

Xiaoyu Zhang,Xiongxiong Fan,Jin Zhang,Fengli Jiang,Yiping Wu,Beibei Yang,Xinghuan Li,Dong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1425734

IF: 5.2

2024-07-18

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Background: Tislelizumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor in China to demonstrate superior efficacy in second-line or third-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab compared to docetaxel from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A dynamic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in comparison to docetaxel in second or third-line treatment. The efficacy data utilized in the model were derived from the RATIONALE-303 clinical trial, while cost and utility values were obtained from the drug data service platform and published studies. The primary outcomes of the model encompassed quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to validate the robustness of the base case analysis results. Results: The tislelizumab group demonstrated a cost increase of CNY 117,473 and a gain of 0.58 QALYs compared to the docetaxel group, resulting in an ICER value of CNY 202,927 per QALY gained. Conclusion: The administration of tislelizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC not only extends the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Moreover, this treatment demonstrates a favorable cost-effectiveness profile across the Chinese population.

public, environmental & occupational health

Bulgarian Operative System for Chemical Weather Forecast

Cost-utility of afatinib and gefitinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

Clinical efficacy and safety analysis of aumolertinib in real-world treatment of EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia

Cost-Effectiveness of Alectinib for Patients with Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

Modelled Economic Analysis for Dacomitinib–A Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Patients With EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

Cost‐effectiveness analysis of osimertinib plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR‐mutated advanced non‐small cell lung cancer

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib vs Docetaxel-bevacizumab in Third-line Treatment in EGFR T790M Resistance Mutation Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

EGFR mutation-guided use of afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Hong Kong – A cost-effectiveness analysis

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib As a Second-line Treatment in Patients with EGFR-mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

A cellulase/xylanase‐negative mutant of Streptomyces lividans 1326 defective in cellobiose and xylobiose uptake is mutated in a gene encoding a protein homologous to ATP‐binding proteins

OP11 Cost-Effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy As A First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Posttransplant diabetes mellitus in renal allograft recipients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer in Singapore

Economics of First-Line Treatment with Tislelizumab in Patients with Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Biomarkers-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Toripalimab Plus Chemotherapy for Patients with Treatment-Naive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Osimertinib in the treatment of resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States

Cost-effectiveness of ensartinib, crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib and lorlatinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the tislelizumab versus docetaxel for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in China