Evaluation of erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: impact on the budget of a U.S. health insurance plan

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs. bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone in transplant-ineligible U.S. patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-effectiveness assessment of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), from a U.S. payer perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), direct costs and incremental costs per QALY and LY gained associated with use of Rd vs VMP over a patient's lifetime. Information on the efficacy and safety of Rd and VMP was based on data from multinational phase III clinical trials and a network meta-analysis. Pre-progression direct costs included the costs of Rd and VMP, treatment of adverse events (including prophylaxis) and routine care and monitoring associated with MM. Post-progression direct costs included costs of subsequent treatment(s) and routine care and monitoring for progressive disease, all obtained from published literature and estimated from a U.S. payer perspective. Utilities were obtained from the aforementioned trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

Relative to VMP, use of Rd was expected to result in an additional 2.22 LYs and 1.47 QALYs (discounted). Patients initiated with Rd were expected to incur an additional $78,977 in mean lifetime direct costs (discounted) vs those initiated with VMP. The incremental costs per QALY and per LY gained with Rd vs VMP were $53,826 and $35,552, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, results were found to be most sensitive to differences in survival associated with Rd vs VMP, the cost of lenalidomide and the discount rate applied to effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Rd was expected to result in greater LYs and QALYs compared with VMP, with similar overall costs per LY for each regimen. Results of this analysis indicated that Rd may be a cost-effective alternative to VMP as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with MM, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well within the levels for recent advancements in oncology.

Outcome and economic implications of proteomic test-guided second- or third-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: extended analysis of the PROSE trial

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer accounts for a significant number of new cancer cases and deaths, with the majority of patients presenting with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitors are recommended as an alternative to chemotherapy for certain patients, challenges exist for clinical utilization. The objective of this analysis was to assess the outcome and economic implications of a clinically validated serum-based proteomic test to guide treatment decisions in patients with advanced NSCLC, who are EGFR-negative or status unknown, and have progressed following at least one chemotherapy regimen.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted from a US payer perspective. Clinical outcomes were evaluated over the lifetime of a patient, based on data from randomized trials and clinical studies. The clinical endpoints included treatment utilization, adverse events, survival, and a composite measure of length and quality of life, referred to as the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs for testing, treatment, surveillance, and management of adverse events were analyzed based on publicly available costs of the related procedures. The economic endpoints were cumulative lifetime direct medical costs and cost per QALY gained.

RESULTS

In the base case, treatment recommendation for 27.3% of the patient population changed from erlotinib to chemotherapy after using the proteomic test. Overall survival increased by 0.091 year and QALYs increased by 0.050 year. The total lifetime direct medical cost per patient decreased by $135 with test-guided treatment. The findings were robust over a wide range of variation in the input parameters.

CONCLUSION

The serum-based proteomic test informed treatment selection for patients with advanced NSCLC who failed previous chemotherapy regimen(s), improving QALYs and saving costs.

Targeted therapy for lung cancer: reviewing the cost and its effect on treatment decisions

SUMMARY 

Novel targeted therapies that improve outcome in advanced lung cancer should be adopted. However, given the high costs of targeted therapies and companion molecular testing, the affordability and cost–effectiveness of novel agents are of growing relevance in policy decisions. Incremental cost–effectiveness ratios in excess of US$200,000 per quality-adjusted life year have been described in published literature evaluating currently approved agents. Differing willingness to pay thresholds in different countries determine which therapies will be funded in a given healthcare system. Cost-containment strategies to address costs of molecular testing and drug acquisition need to be implemented. Drug manufacturers, healthcare payers and oncologists have a shared responsibility to ensure that novel therapies are affordable and accessible to patients in need.

Role of the pulmonologist in ordering post-procedure molecular markers in non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for personalized medicine

In the growing era of personalized medicine for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it is becoming increasingly important that sufficient quality and quantity of tumor tissue are available for morphologic diagnosis and molecular analysis. As new treatment options emerge that might require more frequent and possibly higher volume biopsies, the role of the pulmonologist will expand, and it will be important for pulmonologists to work within a multidisciplinary team to provide optimal therapeutic management for patients with NSCLC. In this review, we discuss the rationale for individualized treatment decisions for patients with NSCLC, molecular pathways and specific molecular predictors relevant to personalized NSCLC therapy, assay technologies for molecular marker analysis, and specifics regarding tumor specimen selection, acquisition, and handling. Moreover, we briefly address issues regarding racial and socioeconomic disparities as they relate to molecular testing and treatment decisions, and cost considerations for molecular testing and targeted therapies in NSCLC. We also propose a model for an institution-based multidisciplinary team, including oncologists, pathologists, pulmonologists, interventional radiologists, and thoracic surgeons, to ensure adequate material is available for cytological and histological studies and to standardize methods of tumor specimen handling and processing in an effort to provide beneficial, individualized therapy for patients with NSCLC.

A review of economic impact of targeted oral anticancer medications

There has been a rapid increase in the use of targeted oral anticancer medications (OAMs) in the past decade. As OAMs are often expensive, economic consideration play a significant role in the decision to prescribe, receive or cover them. This paper performs a systematic review of costs or budgetary impact of targeted OAMs to better understand their economic impact on the healthcare system, patients as well as payers. We present our review in a summary table that describes the method and main findings, take into account multiple factors, such as country, analytical approach, cost type, study perspective, timeframe, data sources, study population and care setting when we interpret the results from different papers, and discuss the policy and clinical implications. Our review raises a concern regarding the role of sponsorship on findings of economic analyses as the vast majority of pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported cost advantages toward the sponsor's drugs.

Are the true impacts of adverse events considered in economic models of antineoplastic drugs? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Antineoplastic drugs for cancer are often associated with adverse events, which influence patients' physical health, quality of life and survival. However, the modelling of adverse events in cost-effectiveness analyses of antineoplastic drugs has not been examined.

AIMS

This article reviews published economic evaluations that include a calculated cost for adverse events of antineoplastic drugs. The aim is to identify how existing models manage four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events: the selection of adverse events for inclusion in models, the influence of dose modifications on drug quantity and survival outcomes, the influence of adverse events on quality of life and the consideration of multiple simultaneous or recurring adverse events.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using MESH headings and key words in multiple electronic databases, covering the years 1999-2009. Inclusion criteria for eligibility were papers covering a population of adults with solid tumour cancers, the inclusion of at least one adverse event and the resource use and/or costs of adverse event treatment.

RESULTS

From 4,985 citations, 26 eligible articles were identified. Studies were generally of moderate quality and addressed a range of cancers and treatment types. While the four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events were addressed by some studies, no study addressed all of the issues in the same model.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that current modelling assumptions may restrict our understanding of the true impact of adverse events on cost effectiveness of antineoplastic drugs. This understanding could be improved through consideration of the selection of adverse events, dose modifications, multiple events and quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies.

A trial-based assessment of the cost-utility of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Bevacizumab is approved for treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in combination with chemotherapy based on a 2-month median survival benefit demonstrated in one randomized trial. The cost-utility of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC remains unknown. We evaluated the cost-utility of bevacizumab added to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct medical costs from the US payer perspective in patients treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and compared these outcomes with patients treated with chemotherapy alone. We populated the model with survival and toxicity data from the clinical trial that compared the two strategies. We obtained utilities from a literature search and unit costs from Medicare. We discounted QALYs and costs at 3% per year. We addressed uncertainty with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyzes.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy alone, bevacizumab and chemotherapy increased mean QALYs by 0.13, at an incremental life-time cost of US$72,000 per patient. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was US$560,000/QALY. The ICUR was most sensitive to the survival on bevacizumab treatment, the drug costs of bevacizumab, and the utility of stable disease on treatment. At a threshold of US$100,000/QALY, the addition of bevacizumab had a 0.2% probability of being cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Bevacizumab does not appear to be cost-effective when added to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, based on approximate cost-effectiveness thresholds that have been identified in the United States. These results may inform decision-makers about resource allocation for NSCLC care.

How affordable are targeted therapies in non-small cell lung cancer?

As the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evolves to include more targeted therapies, costs of treatment have increased significantly. Advances in NSCLC treatment include longer survival duration, and in some cases, better progression-free survival and quality of life, and the potential for decreased toxicity. Through pharmacoeconomic analyses, payors seek to value the improvements in outcomes from novel therapies, and relate these improvements to their costs. In NSCLC, three categories of novel agents have been introduced into clinical practice: (1) agents targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR); (2) agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and (3) novel chemotherapy agents, specifically pemetrexed. Here we review published economic analyses for these agents in lung cancer, and their potential impact on treatment decisions.

Cabazitaxel: a novel second-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Until recently, patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) had limited therapeutic options once they became refractory to docetaxel chemotherapy, and no treatments improved survival. This changed in June 2010 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved cabazitaxel as a new option for patients with CRPC whose disease progresses during or after docetaxel treatment. For most of these patients, cabazitaxel will now replace mitoxantrone (a drug that was FDA-approved because of its palliative effects) as the treatment of choice for docetaxel-refractory disease. The approval of cabazitaxel was based primarily on the TROPIC trial, a large (n = 755) randomized Phase III study showing an overall median survival benefit of 2.4 months for men with docetaxel-pretreated metastatic CRPC receiving cabazitaxel (with prednisone) compared to mitoxantrone (with prednisone). Cabazitaxel is a novel tubulin-binding taxane that differs from docetaxel because of its poor affinity for P-glycoprotein (P-gp), an ATP-dependent drug efflux pump. Cancer cells that express P-gp become resistant to taxanes, and the effectiveness of docetaxel can be limited by its high substrate affinity for P-gp. Preclinical and early clinical studies show that cabazitaxel retains activity in docetaxel-resistant tumors, and this was confirmed by the TROPIC study. Common adverse events with cabazitaxel include neutropenia (including febrile neutropenia) and diarrhea, while neuropathy was rarely observed. Thus, the combination of cabazitaxel and prednisone is an important new treatment option for men with docetaxel-refractory metastatic CRPC, but this agent should be administered cautiously and with appropriate monitoring (especially in men at high risk of neutropenic complications).

Economic analysis: randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial of erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The NCIC Clinical Trials Group conducted the BR.21 trial, a randomized placebo-controlled trial of erlotinib (an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor) in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This trial accrued patients between August 14, 2001, and January 31, 2003, and found that overall survival and quality of life were improved in the erlotinib arm than in the placebo arm. However, funding restrictions limit access to erlotinib in many countries. We undertook an economic analysis of erlotinib treatment in this trial and explored different molecular and clinical predictors of outcome to determine the cost-effectiveness of treating various populations with erlotinib.

METHODS

Resource utilization was determined from individual patient data in the BR.21 trial database. The trial recruited 731 patients (488 in the erlotinib arm and 243 in the placebo arm). Costs arising from erlotinib treatment, diagnostic tests, outpatient visits, acute hospitalization, adverse events, lung cancer-related concomitant medications, transfusions, and radiation therapy were captured. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the ratio of incremental cost (in 2007 Canadian dollars) to incremental effectiveness (life-years gained). In exploratory analyses, we evaluated the benefits of treatment in selected subgroups to determine the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for erlotinib treatment in the BR.21 trial population was $94,638 per life-year gained (95% confidence interval = $52,359 to $429,148). The major drivers of cost-effectiveness included the magnitude of survival benefit and erlotinib cost. Subgroup analyses revealed that erlotinib may be more cost-effective in never-smokers or patients with high EGFR gene copy number.

CONCLUSION

With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $94 638 per life-year gained, erlotinib treatment for patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer is marginally cost-effective. The use of molecular predictors of benefit for targeted agents may help identify more or less cost-effective subgroups for treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Erlotinib versus Docetaxel for Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the United Kingdom

This study was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib compared with docetaxel in the second-line management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) within the UK National Health Service (NHS). A health-state transition model, based on two randomized phase III studies of erlotinib or docetaxel versus best supportive care, was used to estimate total direct costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the subsequent net monetary benefit. Erlotinib was associated with a reduction in total costs (£13 730 versus £13 956) and improved outcomes (total QALYs of 0.238 versus 0.206) compared with docetaxel. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of this analysis. In summary, erlotinib appeared to generate similar overall survival, an increase in QALYs and a small reduction in total NHS costs compared with docetaxel, due to lower adverse event and drug administration costs. Consequently, from a health economics perspective for the treatment of relapsed stage III - IV NSCLC patients in the UK, erlotinib has advantages over docetaxel.

Second- and third-line treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with erlotinib in the community setting: retrospective study of patient healthcare utilization and symptom burden

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to describe treatment use patterns and outcomes with single-agent erlotinib among patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the community oncology setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective chart review identified patients treated with single-agent erlotinib as either second- or third-line therapy from 4 community oncology clinics. Medical records were extracted for medical outcomes and resource utilization. Patients reported outcome measures of symptom burden and functioning.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients with stage IIIB/IV disease in second- (n = 27) or third-line (n = 18) therapy were 44% female and 84% white (16% black), with mean age of 66.7 years (SD, 9.2). Over 93% of the patients had previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were treated with erlotinib for an average of 24 weeks. Dose reductions (24%) and treatment delays (29%) were due to skin reactions, diarrhea, and fatigue. The most common reasons for stopping erlotinib therapy were disease progression (53%), death (22%), and toxicities (11%). Patients' physical functioning improved during the first 3 months of erlotinib therapy. Hospitalizations (22%) were not due to erlotinib complications, and unplanned medical visits to the clinics were rare.

CONCLUSION

Data from this community sample were generally in agreement with the major clinical trial of erlotinib. Erlotinib is well tolerated by second- and third-line patients with advanced NSCLC in the community setting.

Erlotinib in non-small-cell lung cancer: a review of the clinical and economic evidence

Lung cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis in the world and the leading cause of cancer-related death. Despite considerable investment into drug development, to date, the survival gains have been relatively modest and treatment costs are often high, leading to concerns regarding the value of the existing therapeutic options. Erlotinib, an oral EGF-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been evaluated in multiple trials and patient populations in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and is currently approved for use after failure of first- or second-line treatment. Recently reported clinical trial data suggest that the indication for erlotinib may be expanded into the first-line maintenance setting after chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. However, the monthly treatment cost for erlotinib is high, raising concerns regarding its value, especially in combination with other, often expensive, treatments. This article reviews the clinical and economic evidence on the use of erlotinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Erlotinib: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Erlotinib (Tarceva), an oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is associated with modest improvements in survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have previously received one or more prior chemotherapy regimens. In a well designed clinical trial in this patient population, median overall survival and progression-free survival were significantly longer in patients receiving erlotinib 150 mg/day than in those receiving placebo. Erlotinib is generally well tolerated, with most adverse events being of mild to moderate severity. A large body of modelled pharmacoeconomic data suggests that second- or third-line erlotinib 150 mg/day is a cost-saving option relative to treatment with the approved second-line intravenous chemotherapies of docetaxel and pemetrexed in patients with advanced NSCLC. In patients who had received at least one prior chemotherapy regimen, erlotinib was predicted to be dominant (i.e. more effective and less costly) or cost saving (i.e. equally effective and less costly) relative to docetaxel or pemetrexed with regard to the cost per QALY or life-year gained in cost-effectiveness analyses. Although the effect of erlotinib on overall survival was generally assumed to be equivalent to that of the chemotherapies, the estimated amount of QALYs gained was slightly greater with erlotinib than with docetaxel. In cost-minimization and national budgetary impact analyses, estimated total direct costs with erlotinib were lower than those with docetaxel and pemetrexed, because of the generally lower drug acquisition, administration and adverse event management costs associated with erlotinib. Cost advantages with erlotinib were predicted across analyses, regardless of the type of model developed, specific costs that were included, country that the study was conducted in and year of costing. Sensitivity analyses consistently showed that these results were robust to plausible changes in the key model assumptions. In conclusion, in patients with advanced NSCLC, second- or third-line treatment with erlotinib is clinically effective in improving survival. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of erlotinib as a cost-saving treatment relative to chemotherapy with docetaxel or pemetrexed in this patient population.

Budget-impact analyses: a critical review of published studies

This article reviews budget-impact analyses (BIAs) published to date in peer-reviewed bio-medical journals with reference to current best practice, and discusses where future research needs to be directed. Published BIAs were identified by conducting a computerized search on PubMed using the search term 'budget impact analysis'. The years covered by the search included January 2000 through November 2008. Only studies (i) named by authors as BIAs and (ii) predicting financial consequences of adoption and diffusion of a new health intervention(s) within a specific healthcare setting were included. Relevant studies were evaluated according to the checklist that focuses on issues unique to BIA, highlighting areas of agreement or dissent between published studies and methodological guidelines. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority published in 2007-8. Of these, 41% were from the US, 54% were prepared for pharmaceuticals and 65% had BIA as their main aim. The published BIAs were heterogeneous in respect of methods for deriving budget-impact estimates, time horizon and population. There is fairly good agreement between published studies and methodological guidelines within the scope of perspective, comparator, cost included and data sources. Specific issues that need to be addressed and/or improved are reporting format, sensitivity analysis and discounting. The results indicate that, recently, BIAs have appeared more frequently in peer-reviewed journals, providing stimulus to development, validation and dissemination of methods. Many published studies fail to reach the desired quality, but this situation should change with good research practice principles that will help codify and clarify important issues and promote standardization and transparency. Future research needs to be directed to quality assurance of published BIAs and investment in data collection for parameters specific to BIAs.

The potential clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenomic approaches to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacogenomic applications in oncology offer significant promise, but the clinical and economic implications remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost-utility of implementing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing before initiating second-line therapy for advanced refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We developed a decision analytic model to evaluate the cost-utility of EGFR protein expression or gene copy number testing compared to standard care with erlotinib in refractory advanced NSCLC patients. Costs and utilities were obtained from publicly available sources. We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate uncertainty in the results.

RESULTS

The quality-adjusted life expectancies for erlotinib, EGFR protein expression testing, and gene copy number testing were: 0.44, 0.48, and 0.50 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); and the costs were: $57,238, $63,512, and $66,447, respectively. The most cost-effective testing option, EGFR gene copy number testing, produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $162,018/QALY compared to no testing (erlotinib). The results were most sensitive to the survival estimates, health state utilities, and cost of disease progression. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, erlotinib without testing was the optimal treatment strategy until the $150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, after which gene copy testing was optimal. The discounted expected value of perfect information at a $100,000/QALY threshold in the USA over 5 years was $31.4 million.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results suggest that EGFR pharmacogenomic testing has the potential to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy in the treatment of refractory NSCLC by a clinically meaningful margin at a value commensurate with the approved therapies in this setting. Additional research in this area is warranted.

Drug waste minimisation and cost-containment in Medical Oncology: two-year results of a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Cost-containment strategies are required to face the challenge of rising drug expenditures in Oncology. Drug wastage leads to economic loss, but little is known about the size of the problem in this field.

METHODS

Starting January 2005 we introduced a day-to-day monitoring of drug wastage and an accurate assessment of its costs. An internal protocol for waste minimisation was developed, consisting of four corrective measures: 1. A rational, per pathology distribution of chemotherapy sessions over the week. 2. The use of multi-dose vials. 3. A reasonable rounding of drug dosages. 4. The selection of the most convenient vial size, depending on drug unit pricing.

RESULTS

Baseline analysis focused on 29 drugs over one year. Considering their unit price and waste amount, a major impact on expense was found to be attributable to six drugs: cetuximab, docetaxel, gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, pemetrexed and trastuzumab. The economic loss due to their waste equaled 4.8% of the annual drug expenditure. After the study protocol was started, the expense due to unused drugs showed a meaningful 45% reduction throughout 2006.

CONCLUSION

Our experience confirms the economic relevance of waste minimisation and may represent a feasible model in addressing this issue.A centralised unit of drug processing, the availability of a computerised physician order entry system and an active involvement of the staff play a key role in allowing waste reduction and a consequent, substantial cost-saving.

Cost-minimisation analysis of erlotinib in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Brazilian perspective

OBJECTIVE

A cost-minimisation and budget impact analysis of erlotinib versus docetaxel or pemetrexed as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Costs and budgetary impacts were estimated from the perspective of a Brazilian private healthcare payer, based on results of the BR.21 study of erlotinib and pivotal trials of docetaxel and pemetrexed. A 126-day timeframe was evaluated, based on the progression-free survival determined for erlotinib in BR.21. A Delphi panel identified local practices and associated costs in Brazil. Other costs accounted for included medical payments, pre- and post-chemotherapy medication and drug administration costs. Multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed, but given the short time frame used, discounting was not applied.

RESULTS

Total costs were R$26,825 for erlotinib, R$42,284 for docetaxel and R$79,841 for pemetrexed. Cost savings with erlotinib were attributable to lower acquisition costs (R$26,795 vs. R$40,217 for docetaxel and R$78,911 for pemetrexed) and lower costs for the management of side effects. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The budget impact analysis showed savings with erlotinib in the first year, ranging from R$3 million to R$28 million.

CONCLUSION

Erlotinib is cost-saving over established chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC under the Brazilian private healthcare system.