The Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy as a Second- or Third-Line Treatment in Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)-Positive Non-small-cell Lung Cancer in Sweden

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Studies in Oncology: A Scoping Review Focused on Reporting Quality

OBJECTIVES

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can be used in case of cross-trial heterogeneity or availability of only single-arm trials. Although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides MAIC-development orientation, many still do not adhere to it. Our goal was to map MAIC oncology studies and whether NICE recommendations were observed.

METHODS

We included MAIC studies comparing treatments in oncology from 2010. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to October 1, 2024. We analyzed MAIC characteristics such as previous systematic reviews, whether the analysis was anchored or unanchored, selection of variables, and individual patient data (IPD) reporting. We adopted NICE recommendations for the assessment of MAIC studies.

RESULTS

We included 117 MAIC studies, which often explored multiple myeloma (n = 19%) and non-small cell lung cancer (17%) more frequently. Most MAICs were unanchored (72%), with an average of 1.9 comparisons per study. MAIC studies generally reported using pseudo-IPD (69%) but did not report the source of IPD (78%). In general, MAICs did not conduct systematic reviews to select trials for inclusion (66%). The average sample size reduction, in comparison with the original trials, was 44.9%. Only 3 MAICs fulfilled all NICE recommendations. The least reported aspects were the adjustment for all effect modifiers and prognostic variables (for unanchored MAICs), evidence of effect modifier status, and distribution of weights.

CONCLUSIONS

Most MAIC models did not follow NICE recommendations. Our review highlights the importance of rigorous methodological standards and thorough reporting of MAIC studies to enhance their credibility.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

To assess the economic value of lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer at medical insurance negotiation prices from the viewpoint of China's health system.

METHODS

Based on data from the phase III clinical trial, a three-state partitioned survival model was established. In combination with parameters such as treatment costs, utility values, incidence of adverse reactions, and discount rates, the total incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was simulated.

RESULTS

The results of the fundamental analysis indicated that the patients in the lorlatinib group expended 709,671 yuan more than did the patients in the crizotinib group did but gained 3.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The ICER value was 229,782.6 yuan/QALY, which was lower than three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with crizotinib, lorlatinib may be a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in China.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus second-line use of brigatinib followed by lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer

Background

The ALTA-1 L trial and EXP-3B arm of NCT01970865 trial found that both brigatinib and lorlatinib showed durable and robust responses in treating ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, brigatinib and lorlatinib treatments are costly and need indefinite administration until the disease progression. Thus, it remains uncertain whether using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy is cost-effective compared to reserving these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy.

Methods

We used a Markov model to assess clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of treating ALK-positive NSCLC individuals with brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy versus a strategy of reserving these drugs until progression after chemotherapy. Transition probabilities were estimated using parametric survival modeling based on multiple clinical trials. The drug acquisition costs, adverse events costs, administration costs were extracted from published studies before and publicly available data. We calculated lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the perspective of a United States payer.

Results

Our base-case analysis indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using first-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib compared with second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib is $-400,722.09/QALY which meant that second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib had less costs and better outcomes. Univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the results were most sensitive to the cost of brigatinib. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness versus delaying these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses conducted revealed the robustness of this result, as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios never exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold.

Conclusion

Using brigatinib as first-line treatment followed by lorlatinib for ALK-positive NSCLC may not be cost-effective given current pricing from the perspective of a United States payer. Delaying brigatinib followed by lorlatinib until subsequent lines of treatment may be a reasonable strategy that could limit healthcare costs without affecting clinical outcomes. More mature data are needed to better estimate cost-effectiveness in this setting.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Spain

Purpose

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of lorlatinib compared to alectinib and brigatinib for the treatment of adult patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously not treated, in Spain.

Methods

A partitioned survival model comprised progression free, non-intracranial progression, intracranial progression, and death health states was constructed to estimate the total costs, life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accumulated in a lifetime horizon. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for lorlatinib were obtained from the CROWN study. For alectinib and brigatinib, a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted to estimate OS and PFS hazard ratios versus crizotinib. Utilities were estimated based on EQ-5D-5L data derived from the CROWN (lorlatinib), ALEX (alectinib) and ALTA-1L (brigatinib) studies. According to the Spanish National Health Service perspective the total costs (expressed in euros using a 2021 cost year) included drug acquisition and the administration's subsequent treatment, ALK+ advanced NSCLC management and adverse-event management, and palliative care. Unitary costs were obtained from local cost databases and literature. Costs, LYGs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the model's robustness.

Results

Lorlatinib provided higher health outcomes (+0.70 LYG/patient, +1.42 QALYs/patient) and lower costs (-€9239/patient) than alectinib. Lorlatinib yielded higher LYG (+1.74) and QALYs (+2.30) versus brigatinib but higher costs/patient (+€36,627), resulting in an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of €15,912/QALY gained.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that lorlatinib may be a dominant treatment option versus alectinib. Considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000/QALY, lorlatinib may be an efficient option compared to brigatinib.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Inhibitors in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

The anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor treatment landscape is rapidly evolving, providing patients with ALK-positive (+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with multiple therapy options, multiple lines of treatments, and prolonged survival. However, these recent treatment advances have resulted in additional increases in treatment costs. The objective of this article is to review the economic evidence of ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK+ NSCLC.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic reviews of economic evaluation. The population included adult patients with locally advanced (stage IIIb/c) or metastatic (stage IV) NSCLC cancer with confirmed ALK fusions. The interventions included the ALK inhibitors alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, or lorlatinib. The comparators included the listed ALK inhibitors, chemotherapy, or best supportive care. The review considered cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) that reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in quality-adjusted life years and/or in life years gained. Published literature was searched in Medline (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in Embase (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, and in Cochrane library (via Wiley) by 11 January 2023. Preliminary screening of titles and abstracts was conducted against the inclusion criteria by two independent researchers followed by a full text of selected citations. Search results are presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Critical appraisal was conducted using the validated Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS) tool as well as the Phillips et al. 2004 appraisal tool to assess the reporting and quality of the economic evaluations. Data were extracted from the final set of articles and presented in a table of characteristics of included studies, an overview of study methods of included studies, and a summarization of outcomes of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies met all inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were in the first-line treatment setting (n = 15). Included CEAs varied in the interventions and comparators being evaluated and were conducted from different country perspectives, limiting their comparability. Outcomes from the included CEAs showed that ALK inhibitors may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with ALK+ NSCLC in the first-line and subsequent lines of treatment setting. However, the probability of cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors ranged from 46 to 100% and were mostly achieved at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 USD or higher (> $30,000 or higher in China) in the first-line treatment setting and at thresholds of $50,000 USD or higher in subsequent lines of treatment setting. The number of published full-text CEAs is low and the studies represent a handful of country perspectives. The source of survival data was dependent on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Where RCT data were not available, indirect treatment comparisons or matched adjusted indirect comparisons were performed using efficacy data from different clinical studies. Real world evidence was rarely used for efficacy and costing data inputs.

CONCLUSION

The findings summarized available evidence on cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC across lines of treatment settings and generated a valuable overview of analytical approaches utilized to support future economic analyses. To help further inform treatment and policy decisions, this review emphasizes the need for comparative cost effectiveness of multiple ALK inhibitors simultaneously using real-world data sources with broad representation of settings.

Cost‑Effectiveness of Lorlatinib in First-Line Treatment of Adult Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)‑Positive Non‑Small‑Cell Lung Cancer in Sweden

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of lorlatinib, a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), used first-line in Sweden to treat patients with ALK-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In January 2022, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) extended its approval of lorlatinib to include adult patients with ALK+ NSCLC not previously treated with an ALK inhibitor. Extended first-line approval was based on results from CROWN, a phase III randomized trial that enlisted 296 patients randomized 1:1 to receive lorlatinib or crizotinib. Our analysis compared lorlatinib against the first-generation ALK-TKI crizotinib, and second-generation ALK TKIs alectinib and brigatinib.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with four health states [pre-progression, non-intracranial (non-central nervous system [CNS]) progression, CNS progression, and death] was constructed. The progressed disease state (which is typically modelled in cost-effectiveness analyses of oncology treatments) was explicitly separated into non-CNS and CNS progression as brain metastases, which are common in NSCLC, and can have a large impact on patient prognosis and health-related quality of life. Treatment effectiveness estimates in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms of the model were derived from CROWN data, while indirect relative effectiveness estimates for alectinib and brigatinib were informed using network meta-analysis (NMA). Utility data were derived from the CROWN study in the base case, and cost-effectiveness results were compared when applying UK and Swedish value sets. Costs were obtained from Swedish national data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model robustness.

RESULTS

Fully incremental analysis identified crizotinib as the least costly and least effective treatment. Brigatinib was extendedly dominated by alectinib and, subsequently, alectinib was extendedly dominated by lorlatinib. Lorlatinib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Swedish Krona (SEK) 613,032 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with crizotinib. Probabilistic results were generally consistent with deterministic results, and one-way sensitivity identified NMA HRs, alectinib and brigatinib treatment duration, and the CNS-progressed utility multiplier as key model drivers.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICER of SEK613,032 for lorlatinib versus crizotinib falls below the typical willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained for high-severity diseases in Sweden (approximately SEK1,000,000). Furthermore, as brigatinib and alectinib were extendedly dominated in the incremental analysis, the results of our study indicate that lorlatinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for first-line patients with ALK+ NSCLC in Sweden when compared with crizotinib, alectinib, and brigatinib. Longer-term follow-up data for endpoints informing treatment effectiveness for all first-line treatments would help to reduce uncertainty in the findings.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy for Patients With Second-Line or Later Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the relative efficacy of lorlatinib, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with chemotherapy, for patients with second-line or later advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The endpoints of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

METHODS

Evidence for lorlatinib was informed by the single-arm phase I/II trial B7461001. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify OS and PFS data for chemotherapy. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) between lorlatinib and chemotherapy (pemetrexed/docetaxel, platinum-based, or systemic therapy) were performed.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 3 relevant studies reporting PFS. Lorlatinib was associated with a significant decrease in the hazard of progression versus the 2 types of chemotherapy assessed. For PFS, the MAIC of lorlatinib versus the combined treatment arm of docetaxel or pemetrexed resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.31). When lorlatinib was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy through an MAIC, the adjusted HR for PFS was 0.40 (95% CI 0.29-0.55). An exploratory comparison was performed for OS with evidence for systemic therapy (assumed equivalent to chemotherapy) not identified in the SLR. Lorlatinib provided a significant decrease in hazard of death (OS) versus systemic therapy, with HRs ranging from 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.27) to 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Lorlatinib demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS compared with chemotherapy, although limitations in the analyses were identified. The evidence informing OS comparisons was highly limited but suggested benefit of lorlatinib compared with systemic therapy.

Lorlatinib as a treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer

Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been approved as a treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer. This review provides information regarding the pharmacology and clinical features of lorlatinib, including its efficacy and associated adverse events. Pivotal clinical trials are discussed along with the current status of lorlatinib as a treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer and future therapeutic challenges.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Lorlatinib in Patients Previously Treated with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Inhibitors for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Greece

Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which accounts for about 80%-85% of lungcancer cases, is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Lorlatinib is a potent third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC previously treated with at least one second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Objective: The present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib vs pemetrexed with platinum combination of carboplatin or cisplatin (P-ChT) in Greece. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states, referring to pre-progression, progressed disease, and death, was locally adapted from a Greek payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Clinical and safety data and utility values applied in the model were extracted from the literature. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of lorlatinib and P-ChT was performed. Only direct medical costs (€) from 2020 were included in the analysis. Primary outcomes were patient life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per QALY and LY gained. All future outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for model uncertainty. Results: The analysis showed that, over a lifetime horizon, the estimated total costs of lorlatinib and P-ChT were €81 754 and €12 343, respectively. Lorlatinib was more effective than P-ChT with 2.4 and 1.5 more LYs and QALYs gained, respectively. The generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of lorlatinib compared with P-ChT were €28 613 per LY gained and €46 102 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the deterministic results. Conclusion: The present analysis suggests that lorlatinib may be considered as a cost-effective option compared with P-ChT in Greece for the treatment of patients with advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC whose disease has progressed after at least one second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor. In addition, this option addresses a significant unmet medical need.