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

Cost-effectiveness of aumolertinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aumolertinib as the epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer first-line treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the AENEAS trial. Only direct medical costs were considered in the model. Utilities were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model.Results: Compared with gefitinib, aumolertinib yielded an additional 0.941 expected life-years and 0.692 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an incremental cost of $18,855.55 over a 20-year time horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $20,051.67/life-year and $27,272.29/QALY, that below the willing-to-pay threshold of $38,223.34/QALY.Conclusion: Aumolertinib was a cost-effective alternative first-line treatment for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-positive advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer 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.

Comparing efficacy and safety of upfront treatment strategies for anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis

Aim

This article is based on our previous research, which was presented as a post at the Congress Aiom 2022 Congress and published in Tumori Journal as Conference Abstract (Tumori J. 2022;108:1-194. doi: 10.1177/03008916221114500). In this paper, a comprehensive presentation of all the achieved results is provided. Several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been investigated to treat patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, direct comparisons between these TKIs are lacking, with many only being compared to crizotinib. To address this gap, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of various first-line systemic therapies for ALK-positive NSCLC.

Methods

A thorough search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 01, 2000 and April 01, 2022, and included trials that investigated upfront treatments for this molecular subgroup and reported overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or higher (grade ≥ 3 AEs).

Results

The analysis included 9 RCTs with 2,443 patients receiving eight different treatments: alectinib (at two different dosages), brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, lorlatinib, and chemotherapy. Second and third-generation TKIs significantly prolonged PFS compared to crizotinib, with lorlatinib having the highest probability of yielding the most favorable PFS, followed by alectinib (300 mg or 600 mg). However, only alectinib has been shown to significantly prolong OS compared to crizotinib to date. Lorlatinib appears superior in reducing the risk of central nervous system (CNS) progression, followed by alectinib 600 mg. Ceritinib had the highest rate of AEs, followed by lorlatinib and brigatinib.

Conclusions

Based on the network meta-analysis, alectinib and lorlatinib emerged as the most promising upfront treatment options. These treatments provide prolonged disease control while maintaining an acceptable safety profile.

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.