Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 6 Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors as First-Line Treatment for ALK-Positive NSCLC in China

Background

Lung cancer ranks first in both cancer incidence and mortality in China. The emergence of novel treatments for ALK-positive NSCLC led to an improvement in survival and quality of life for patients with advanced ALK mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of 6 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)-crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib-as first-line treatments for ALK-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these 6 TKIs. In this model, ALK-positive NSCLC patients were initially simulated to receive 1 of the 6 TKIs as first-line therapy, followed by different TKIs as subsequent treatment and salvage chemotherapy as last-line treatment. Survival data were sourced from the latest published clinical trials. Costs were derived from recent national health insurance negotiations and hospital information systems of selected health care facilities. Utilities for healthy states and adverse events were obtained from the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis as well as scenario analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

Results

Compared to ensartinib, crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib demonstrated incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of -1.13, 0.39, -0.58, -0.09, and 0.35, respectively. The corresponding incremental costs were $10 677, $33 501, -$6426, $2672, and $24 358. This resulted in ICERs of -$9449/QALY, $85 900/QALY, $11 079/QALY, $29 689/QALY and $69 594/QALY, respectively.

Conclusion

Crizotinib was considered to be absolutely dominated by ensartinib. Under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38 223/QALY, ceritinib and brigatinib were cost-effective compared with ensartinib, while lorlatinib and alectinib were not cost-effective when compared with ensartinib. Overall, brigatinib emerged as the most cost-effective treatment among all the options considered.

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.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of brigatinib in adult patients with ALK inhibitor–naive ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer from a US perspective

BACKGROUND: The discovery of specific oncogenic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has led to the development of highly targeted anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALKis). Brigatinib is a next-generation ALKi associated with prolonged progression-free survival in patients with ALKi-naive ALK+ NSCLC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of brigatinib compared with crizotinib and alectinib in patients with ALKi-naive ALK+ NSCLC, from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A lifetime area under the curve-partitioned survival model with 4 health states was used to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of brigatinib in the ALKi-naive ALK+ NSCLC setting. Brigatinib was compared with crizotinib within a cost-effectiveness framework and compared with alectinib in a cost-comparison framework, where all efficacy outcomes were assumed equal. The efficacy of brigatinib and crizotinib was informed by the ALTA-1L trial, and an indirect treatment comparison was performed to inform the efficacy of brigatinib vs alectinib owing to a lack of head-to-head data. Costs were derived from public sources. The main outcomes of the model were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, in addition to multiple scenario analyses, were conducted to assess the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: The improved outcomes observed in ALTA-1L translated into QALY gains (+0.97) in the comparison of brigatinib vs crizotinib. The superior efficacy profile was associated with increased time on treatment with brigatinib, which drove the increase in costs vs crizotinib (+$210,519). The resulting base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $217,607/QALY gained. Compared with alectinib, brigatinib was associated with a cost difference of -$8,546. Sensitivity analysis suggested that extrapolation of overall survival, the assumptions relating to time on treatment, and subsequent therapy costs were the most influential determinants of results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested brigatinib had the highest probability of being cost-effective beyond willingness-to-pay thresholds of $236,000 per QALY vs crizotinib and alectinib. CONCLUSIONS: At list prices and under base-case assumptions in the current analysis, brigatinib was associated with cost-savings vs alectinib, and QALY gains but at higher costs vs crizotinib. Additional research into the real-world efficacy of ALKis is warranted to further understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these therapies. DISCLOSURES: Ms Cranmer and Ms Kearns are employees of Takeda UK Ltd. Dr Young is a former employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. Dr Humphries is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Mr Trueman is an employee of Source Health Economics, the consultancy company that provided health economic and writing services. This work was funded by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Work by Source Health Economics was funded by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Professional medical writing assistance was provided by Phillipa White, of Source Health Economics, and funded by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

INTRODUCTION

Although tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the efficacy of treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the accessibility of TKIs is limited due to high costs. Despite the critical role of the cost-effectiveness of TKIs on decision-making, no systematic reviews have compared the cost-effectiveness of comparable TKIs. Therefore, we systemically reviewed the economic evaluation studies on various TKIs for NSCLC.

AREAS COVERED

We searched PubMed and the Cochran Library to identify the published economic evaluation studies of TKIs in NSCLC patients that were published by January 2022. All of the included studies (n = 38) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-TKIs (n = 29) or anaplastic lymphocyte kinase (ALK)-TKIs (n = 9). The cost-effectiveness results were reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year, except for three studies.

EXPERT OPINION

We found that the economic evaluation studies of the first and second generation of EGFR-TKIs and ALK-TKIs varied by the country and study settings, such as comparator and input parameters. In 12 studies, osimertinib (EGFR-TKI) was not cost-effective compared to other first/second EGFR-TKIs, regardless of the study settings. More evidence can be provided about cost-effectiveness of the third-generation TKIs in future research.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a systematic review

Introduction: Mutation-targeting and immuno-oncology drugs are revolutionizing the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of these drugs have been conducted using various analytical methods and cost-effectiveness thresholds. This systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of the available evidence.Area covered: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were used to select for CEA of targeted therapies for NSCLC in the United States published between 2008 and 2020. Among the 28 included studies, a majority were published from 2017 to 2020 (n = 18) and more than half targeted non-squamous NSCLC (n = 15). The most frequently evaluated therapy was pembrolizumab (n = 11), followed by bevacizumab (n = 8) and erlotinib (n = 4). After 2009, all included studies applied $100,000 or more thresholds. Thresholds of studies supported by industry (median = $150,000) were more distributed than those of studies supported by nonprofits (median = $100,000).Expert commentary: Medications of interest have changed and are individualized to particular mutations. The cost-effectiveness thresholds varied among sponsors but generally trended to increase over time. This review provides an overview of the available cost-effectiveness findings for stakeholders and contributes to evidence-based practice.

How to select the best upfront therapy for metastatic disease? Focus on ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors have demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with ALK-rearranged lung cancers. The echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like (EML)-ALK translocation was first discovered in 2007 and 4 years later, crizotinib, a first-generation ALK inhibitor was approved. Since then, subsequent generations of ALK inhibitors have demonstrated superior efficacy and better CNS activity compared to crizotinib. Alectinib and brigatinib, both second-generation ALK inhibitors have been compared directly to crizotinib in the first-line setting and has demonstrated improved progression free survival (PFS) and intracranial response. Ceritinib, another second-generation ALK inhibitor has been shown to be superior to chemotherapy in ALK-rearranged disease with good CNS activity. Initial responses to ALK inhibitors are not always durable and resistance can occur as on-target or off-target alterations. Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK inhibitor, has demonstrated activity in the treatment naïve setting and in resistance to crizotinib and second-generation ALK inhibitors. Lorlatinib has also shown improved PFS in patients harboring EML4-ALK variant 3, which is associated with the development of ALK resistance mutations, specifically G1202R. Another new ALK inhibitor, ensartinib, has demonstrated efficacy in the first-line setting and in alectinib refractory disease. Additional studies are underway examining mechanisms of resistance and best treatment options post resistance.

Upfront Management of ALK-Rearranged Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: One Inhibitor Fits All?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements represent a seldom event in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Given the oncogene alteration, ALK targeting represents the main therapeutic strategy. Here, we review evidence regarding ALK inhibitors (ALKi): clinical activity, safety profiles, financial costs, and biomarkers of efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the past 10 years, multiple ALKi have been developed, and four different compounds are currently available as upfront options for ALK+ NSCLC patients: crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, and brigatinib. Second-generation (2G) ALKi demonstrated superior clinical activity in terms of median progression-free survival (mPFS), objective response rate (ORR), intracranial disease control, and duration of response (DOR) when compared with crizotinib. 2G ALKi represent the current gold-standard first-line treatment for ALK-rearranged metastatic NSCLC. Among all available options, in our opinion, alectinib has likely the best profile of clinical activity and safety, thus emerging as the best upfront therapy. More insights will come from ongoing trials and analysis of biomarkers.

Longitudinal health utilities, symptoms and toxicities in patients with ALK-rearranged lung cancer treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a prospective real-world assessment

Background

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) have dramatically improved the survival of patients with ALK-rearranged (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). Clinical trial data can generally compare drugs in a pair-wise fashion. Real-world collection of health utility data, symptoms, and toxicities allows for the direct comparison between multiple tki therapies in the population with ALK+ nsclc.

Methods

In a prospective cohort study, outpatients with ALK+ recruited between 2014 and 2018, treated with a variety of tkis, were assessed every 3 months for clinico-demographic, patient-reported symptom and toxicity data and EQ-5D-derived health utility scores (hus).

Results

In 499 longitudinal encounters of 76 patients with ALK+ nsclc, each tki had stable longitudinal hus when disease was controlled, even after months to years: the mean overall hus for each tki ranged from 0.805 to 0.858, and longitudinally from 0.774 to 0.912, with higher values associated with second- or third-generation tkis of alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib. Disease progression was associated with a mean hus decrease of 0.065 (95% confidence interval: 0.02 to 0.11). Health utility scores were inversely correlated to multiple symptoms or toxicities: rho values ranged from -0.094 to -0.557. Fewer symptoms and toxicities were associated with the second- and third-generation tkis compared with crizotinib. In multivariable analysis, only stable disease state and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status were associated with improved hus.

Conclusions

There was no significant decrease in hus when patients with ALK+ disease were treated longitudinally with each tki, as long as patients were clinically stable. Alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib had the best toxicity profiles and exhibited high mean hus longitudinally in the real-world setting.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib vs. crizotinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Hong Kong

INTRODUCTION

Lower-dose ceritinib (450 mg) once-daily with food was approved in 2018 in Hong Kong (HK) for first-line treatment of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK +) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study examined the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib vs. crizotinib in the first-line treatment of ALK + NSCLC from a HK healthcare service provider's or government's perspective.

METHODS

Costs and effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs. crizotinib over a 20-year time horizon was evaluated using a partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressed disease, and death). The efficacy data for ceritinib were obtained from a phase 3 trial comparing ceritinib with chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4) and extrapolated using parametric survival models. Long-term survival associated with crizotinib were estimated using hazard ratio of crizotinib vs. ceritinib obtained from matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014 trials. Drug acquisition, administration, adverse events costs, and medical costs associated with each health state were obtained from public sources and converted to 2018 US Dollars. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY) gained were estimated for ceritinib vs. crizotinib.

RESULTS

The base case results showed that ceritinib was associated with 3.22 QALYs, 4.51 LYs, and total costs of $157,581 over 20 years. Patients receiving crizotinib had 2.68 QALYs, 3.85 LYs, and $150,424 total costs over the same time horizon. The incremental cost per QALY gained for ceritinib vs crizotinib was $13,343. Results were robust to deterministic sensitivity analyses in most scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Ceritinib offers a cost-effective option compared to crizotinib for previously untreated ALK + advanced NCSLC in HK.

Cost Effectiveness of Ceritinib and Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer

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.

Medical innovation, education, and labor market outcomes of cancer patients

Innovations in cancer treatment have lowered mortality, but little is known about their economic benefits. We assess the effect of two decades of improvement in cancer treatment options on the labor market outcomes of breast and prostate cancer patients. In addition, we compare this effect across cancer patients with different levels of educational attainment. We estimate the effect of medical innovation on cancer patients' labor market outcomes employing tax return and cancer registry data from Canada and measuring medical innovation by using the number of approved drugs and a quality-adjusted patent index. We find that innovations in cancer treatment during the 1990s and 2000s reduced the negative employment effects of cancer by 63% to 70%, corresponding to a reduction in the economic costs of prostate and breast cancer diagnoses by 13,500 and 5800 dollars per year, respectively. The benefits of medical innovation are limited to cancer patients with postsecondary education.

Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Ceritinib and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatments for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

A trial-based assessment was completed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib as a first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rearrangement of anaplastic lymphoma kinase.

METHODS

Based on the disease situation of advanced NSCLC, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the costs and benefits of ceritinib and platinum-based chemotherapy. The cost information and health utilities were obtained from published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. The stability of the model was verified by sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base case analysis results indicated that compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, ceritinib therapy would increase benefits in a 5-, 10- and 15-year time horizon, with extra costs of $230,661.61, $149,321.52 and $136,414.43 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The most sensitive parameter in the model analysis was the cost of ceritinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that at the current price of ceritinib, the chance of ceritinib being cost-effective was 0 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $27,142.85 per quality-adjusted life-year (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China).

CONCLUSION

As a first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC with rearrangement of anaplastic lymphoma kinase, ceritinib is unlikely to be cost-effective at the current price from the Chinese healthcare perspective. To meet the treatment demands of patients, it may be a better option to reduce the price or provide appropriate drug assistance policies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of Ceritinib And Alectinib Versus Crizotinib In The Treatment Of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib versus ceritinib or alectinib as first-line-targeted drug therapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Methods

The Markov model was used to simulate the medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients using crizotinib, ceritinib, or alectinib over a 10-year period by establishing three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. Randomized controlled clinical data were collected from the open-label, randomized phase 3 trials ALEX and ASCEND-4. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges and literature. Sensitivity analyses included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Compared with patients who used crizotinib as first-line treatment, patients in the ceritinib and alectinib groups yielded an additional 1.32 and 3.30 QALYs with an incremental cost of $84,728.20 and $339,114.36, respectively. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $64,398.83 and $102,675.74 per QALY in the ceritinib and alectinib groups, respectively. Alectinib was estimated to be more effective (4.68 QALY) and more costly ($432,063.06) with an ICER of $128,019.42 per QALY compared with ceritinib (2.69 QALY and $177,676.90). Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

As a first-line treatment regimen, ceritinib and alectinib can extend the survival time of patients compared with crizotinib, but the medical cost also increases accordingly. According to the World Health Organization's three-percent GDP measurement, first-line treatment with Crizotinib is the most cost-effective.