Crizotinib versus chemotherapy: a real-world cost-effectiveness study in China

Trends in Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Rearranged Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Receiving One or More ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs): A Cohort Study in Ontario, Canada

The treatment landscape for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC has rapidly evolved following the approval of several ALK TKIs in Canada. However, public funding of ALK TKIs is mostly limited to the first line treatment setting. Using linked provincial health administrative databases, we examined real-world outcomes of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC receiving ALK TKIs in Ontario between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2021. Demographic, clinical characteristics and treatment patterns were summarized using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among the treatment groups. A total of 413 patients were identified. Patients were administered alectinib (n = 154), crizotinib (n = 80), or palliative-intent chemotherapy (n = 55) in the first-line treatment. There was a significant difference in first-line PFS between the treatment groups. The median PFS (mPFS) was not reached for alectinib (95% CI, 568 days-not reached), compared to 8.2 months (95% CI, 171-294 days) for crizotinib (HR = 0.34, p < 0.0001) and 2.4 months (95% CI, 65-100 days) for chemotherapy (HR = 0.14, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in first-line OS between the treatment groups. In patients who received more than one line of treatment, there was a significant difference in mOS between patients who received two or more lines of ALK TKIs compared to those who received one line of ALK TKI (mOS = 55 months (95% CI, 400-987 days) and 26 months (95% CI, 1448-2644 days), respectively, HR = 4.64, p < 0.0001). This study confirms the effectiveness of ALK TKIs in real-world practice and supports the potential benefit of multiple lines of ALK TKI on overall survival in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of replacing antimetabolites with mTOR inhibitors in heart transplant immunosuppression in China: a network meta-analysis-based economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Although several pharmacoeconomic studies have assessed the cost-effectiveness of maintenance immunosuppressive regimens for heart transplant recipients, economic comparisons between various combination drug therapies remain sparse.

AIM

This study used an economic evaluation based on network meta-analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of four immunosuppressive regimens for adult heart transplant recipients in China.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic search for clinical trials in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and VIP database. A validated Markov model was adapted to reflect the Chinese medical landscape. Four maintenance immunosuppression regimens were considered: tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil (TAC/MMF), cyclosporine/mycophenolate mofetil (CSA/MMF), everolimus/cyclosporine (EVL/CSA), and sirolimus/tacrolimus (SRL/TAC). The probabilities of health events were derived from a comprehensive literature review. Direct medical costs, adjusted for 2022 values, were from public documents and websites, while utilities for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were taken from previous studies. Primary outcomes were mean lifetime cost, QALYs, and cost-effectiveness, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold set at three times China's GDP per capita in 2022. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The base case analysis identified TAC/MMF as the most cost-effective regimen, producing a mean of 6.31 QALYs per patient at a cost of Chinese Yuan (CNY) 534,182.89. Sensitivity analyses consistently reinforced TAC/MMF as the most cost-effective and robust choice.

CONCLUSION

TAC/MMF is the most cost-effective maintenance immunosuppressive regimen for heart transplant recipients within the Chinese health system. The study findings are reinforced by sensitivity analyses, affirming their robustness amid various uncertainties.

The impact of CYP3A4 genetic polymorphism on crizotinib metabolism and drug-drug interactions

To elucidate the impact of CYP3A4 activity inhibition and genetic polymorphism on the metabolism of crizotinib. Enzymatic incubation systems for crizotinib were established, and Sprague-Dawley rats were utilized for in vivo experiments. Analytes were quantified using LC-MS/MS. Upon screening 122 drugs and natural compounds, proanthocyanidins emerged as inhibitor of crizotinib metabolism, exhibiting a relative inhibition rate of 93.7%. The IC50 values were 24.53 ± 0.32 μM in rat liver microsomes and 18.24 ± 0.12 μM in human liver microsomes. In vivo studies revealed that proanthocyanidins markedly affected the pharmacokinetic parameters of crizotinib. Co-administration led to a significant reduction in the AUC(0-t), Cmax of PF-06260182 (the primary metabolite of crizotinib), and the urinary metabolic ratio. This interaction is attributed to the mixed-type inhibition of liver microsome activity by proanthocyanidins. CYP3A4, being the principal metabolic enzyme for crizotinib, has its genetic polymorphisms significantly influencing crizotinib's pharmacokinetics. Kinetic data showed that the relative metabolic rates of crizotinib across 26 CYP3A4 variants ranged from 13.14% (CYP3A4.12, 13) to 188.57% (CYP3A4.33) when compared to the wild-type CYP3A4.1. Additionally, the inhibitory effects of proanthocyanidins varied between CYP3A4.12 and CYP3A4.33, when compared to the wild type. Our findings indicate that proanthocyanidins coadministration and CYP3A4 genetic polymorphism can significantly influence crizotinib metabolism.

Economic Evaluation of Targeted Therapies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase- and ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in India

PURPOSE

Targeted therapies, such as crizotinib and ceritinib, have shown promising results in treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with specific oncogenic drivers like anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros (ROS1) oncogene, etc. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of these therapies for patients with NSCLC in India.

METHODS

The Markov model consisted of three health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Lifetime costs and consequences were estimated for three treatment arms: crizotinib, ceritinib, and chemotherapy for patients with ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with crizotinib and ceritinib was compared to chemotherapy and assessed using a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time per capita gross domestic product in India.

RESULTS

The total lifetime cost per patient for ALK-positive NSCLC was ₹332,456 ($4,054 US dollars [USD]), ₹1,284,100 ($15,659 USD), and ₹2,337,779 ($28,509 USD) in the chemotherapy, crizotinib, and ceritinib arms, respectively. The mean QALYs lived per patient were 1.20, 2.21, and 3.34, respectively. For patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC, the total cost was ₹323,011 ($3,939 USD) and ₹1,763,541 ($21,507 USD) for chemotherapy and crizotinib, with mean QALYs lived per patient of 1.16 and 2.73, respectively. Nearly 92% and 81% reduction in the price of ceritinib and crizotinib is required to make it a cost-effective treatment option for ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings suggest that the prices of ceritinib and crizotinib need to be reduced significantly to justify their value for inclusion in India's publicly financed health insurance scheme for treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC, respectively.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

A real-world cost-effectiveness study of vancomycin versus linezolid for the treatment of late-onset neonatal sepsis in the NICU in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Currently, the detection rates of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (MRCoNS) in the blood cultures of neonates with sepsis exceed the national average drug resistance level, and vancomycin and linezolid are the primary antibacterial drugs used for these resistant bacteria according to the results of etiological examinations. However, a comprehensive evaluation of their costs and benefits in late-onset neonatal sepsis in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) has not been conducted. This study aimed to compare the cost and effectiveness of vancomycin and linezolid in treating neonatal sepsis in the NICU.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis of real-world data was carried out by retrospective study in our hospital, and the cost and effectiveness of vancomycin and linezolid were compared by establishing a decision tree model. The drug doses in the model were 0.6 g for linezolid and 0.5 g for vancomycin. The cost break down included cost of medical ward, NICU stay, intravenous infusion of vancomycin or linezolid, all monitoring tests, culture tests and drugs. The unit costs were sourced from hospital information systems. The effectiveness rates were obtained by cumulative probability analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to analyze uncertain influencing factors.

RESULTS

The effectiveness rates of vancomycin and linezolid in treating neonatal sepsis in the NICU were 89.74% and 90.14%, respectively, with no significant difference. The average cost in the vancomycin group was ¥12261.43, and the average cost in the linezolid group was ¥17227.96. The incremental cost effectiveness was ¥12416.33 cost per additional neonate with treatment success in the linezolid group compared to vancomycin group at discharge. Factors that had the greatest influence on the sensitivity of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were the price of linezolid and the effectiveness rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost for treatment success of one neonate in linezolid group was ¥5449.17 more than that in vancomycin group, indicating that vancomycin was more cost-effective. Therefore, these results can provide a reference for a cost effectiveness treatment scheme for neonatal sepsis in the NICU.

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.

Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list

PURPOSE

To assess the reporting quality of published economic evaluations of the negotiated oncology drugs listed for China's 2020 National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in China's 2020 NRDL using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, and WanFang Database up to March 31, 2021. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist scored the reporting quality between 0 and 100. A linear regression analysis was employed to examine the influence of various characteristics on the reporting quality scores.

RESULTS

Eighty papers were included in the study, with the majority published during the past decade. Furthermore, more than half of the articles (57.5%, or 46 out of 80) were written in English. The average CHEERS score was 74.63 ± 12.75 and ranged from 43.48 to 93.75. The most inadequately reported items included choice of model, characterization of heterogeneity, and discussion, as well as currency, price date and conversion. Higher scores were associated with articles published from 2019 to 2021 and English publications.

CONCLUSION

The economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in 2020 NRDL had moderate reporting quality. The Chinese economic evaluation publications could improve the reporting quality if the CHEERS checklist is consistently implemented. Also, the Chinese journals maybe explore introducing a reporting standard for economic evaluations.

Cost-effectiveness of ensartinib for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in China

Background: Crizotinib and ensartinib improved survival in patients with ALK arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the economic outcomes of using ensartinib versus crizotinib are still unclear. Aim: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ensartinib versus crizotinib for ALK-positive NSCLC patients from the perspective of China's healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable, progressive and death) was developed. Survival data were obtained from published eXalt3 clinical trials of ensartinib verses crizotinib for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Parametric models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the trial period. The drug cost comes from the local drug procurement platform. Other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. Results: In the whole life cycle, the average annual cost of ensatinib was US$77,636.63, and utility value was 5.5 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Patients receiving crizotinib had 3.315QALYs and US$32,935.88 costs over the same time horizon. The incremental cost utility ratio is US$19,810.55/QALYs. In 2021, the per capita GDP of China is US$12,721.33, and the incremental cost utility is lower than the threshold of willingness to pay US$38,163.99. Conclusion: Compared with crizotinib, ensatinib is economical in the treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC and should be promoted.

Big Data and Real-World Data based Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Decision-making Models: A Systematic Review and Analysis

Background: Big data and real-world data (RWD) have been increasingly used to measure the effectiveness and costs in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). However, the characteristics and methodologies of CEA based on big data and RWD remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to review the characteristics and methodologies of the CEA studies based on big data and RWD and to compare the characteristics and methodologies between the CEA studies with or without decision-analytic models. Methods: The literature search was conducted in Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (as of June 2020). Full CEA studies with an incremental analysis that used big data and RWD for both effectiveness and costs written in English were included. There were no restrictions regarding publication date. Results: 70 studies on CEA using RWD (37 with decision-analytic models and 33 without) were included. The majority of the studies were published between 2011 and 2020, and the number of CEA based on RWD has been increasing over the years. Few CEA studies used big data. Pharmacological interventions were the most frequently studied intervention, and they were more frequently evaluated by the studies without decision-analytic models, while those with the model focused on treatment regimen. Compared to CEA studies using decision-analytic models, both effectiveness and costs of those using the model were more likely to be obtained from literature review. All the studies using decision-analytic models included sensitivity analyses, while four studies no using the model neither used sensitivity analysis nor controlled for confounders. Conclusion: The review shows that RWD has been increasingly applied in conducting the cost-effectiveness analysis. However, few CEA studies are based on big data. In future CEA studies using big data and RWD, it is encouraged to control confounders and to discount in long-term research when decision-analytic models are not used.