Pharmacoenhancement of Low Crizotinib Plasma Concentrations in Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer using the CYP3A Inhibitor Cobicistat

The inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) crizotinib significantly increases survival in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). When evaluating crizotinib pharmacokinetics (PKs) in patients taking the standard flat oral dose of 250 mg b.i.d., interindividual PK variability is substantial and patient survival is lower in the quartile with the lowest steady-state trough plasma concentrations (Cmin,ss ), suggesting that concentrations should be monitored and doses individualized. We investigated whether the CYP3A inhibitor cobicistat increases Cmin,ss of the CYP3A substrate crizotinib in patients with low exposure. Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC of our outpatient clinic treated with crizotinib were enrolled in a phase I trial (EudraCT 2016-002187-14, DRKS00012360) if crizotinib Cmin,ss was below 310 ng/mL and treated with cobicistat for 14 days. Crizotinib plasma concentration profiles were established before and after a 14-day co-administration of cobicistat to construct the area under the plasma concentration-time curve in the dosing interval from zero to 12 hours (AUC0-12 ). Patients were also monitored for adverse events by physical examination, laboratory tests, and 12-lead echocardiogram. Enrolment was prematurely stopped because of the approval of alectinib, a next-generation ALK-inhibitor with superior efficacy. In the only patient enrolled, cobicistat increased Cmin,ss from 158 ng/mL (before cobicistat) to 308 ng/mL (day 8) and 417 ng/mL (day 14 on cobicistat), concurrently the AUC0-12 increased by 78% from 2,210 ng/mL*h to 3,925 ng/mL*h. Neither safety signals nor serious adverse events occurred. Pharmacoenhancement with cobicistat as an alternative for dose individualisation for patients with NSCLC with low crizotinib exposure appears to be safe and is cost-effective and feasible.

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer, with or without brain metastases, receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK + NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1 year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1 year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p = 0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK + NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK + NSCLC with BM versus no BM.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alectinib for Patients with Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

To assess the cost-effectiveness of alectinib versus crizotinib as first-line treatments for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from the perspective of China's healthcare system.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs of alectinib and crizotinib, which included five health states: progression-free (PF) without central nervous system (CNS) progression, PF with CNS progression, post-progression (PP) without CNS progression, PP with CNS progression, and death. Clinical data for transition probabilities were obtained from the ALEX trial at the updated data cutoff. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were derived from clinical expert opinions and published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. Scenario analyses were conducted including using clinical data from the ALESIA trial in Asian patients, using utilities from the ALEX trial, and choosing different parametric survival models.

RESULTS

In base case analysis, alectinib yielded an additional 1.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $54,827, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,869/QALY. In scenario analysis, the ICER was $56,787/QALY using clinical data from the ALESIA trial. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities of alectinib being cost-effective were 0.4% and 43.7% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were $28,109/QALY and $50,000/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Alectinib could prolong the mean time of PF and delay the time to CNS progression. However, because of its high drug cost, alectinib was unlikely to be cost-effective for untreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients in China.

Cost Effectiveness of Alectinib vs. Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The recently completed ALEX trial demonstrated that alectinib improved progression-free survival, and delayed time to central nervous system progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. However, the long-term clinical and economic impact of using alectinib vs. crizotinib has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine the potential cost utility of alectinib vs. crizotinib from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. ALEX trial data informed the progression-free and overall survival estimates. Costs included drug treatments and supportive care (central nervous system and non-central nervous system). Utility values were obtained from trial data and literature. Sensitivity analyses included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment with alectinib vs. crizotinib resulted in a gain of 0.91 life-years, 0.87 quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental costs of US$34,151, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$39,312/quality-adjusted life-year. Drug costs and utilities in the progression-free health state were the main drivers of the model in the one-way sensitivity analysis. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, alectinib had a 64% probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/quality adjusted life-year.

CONCLUSIONS

Alectinib increased time in the progression-free state and quality-adjusted life-years vs. crizotinib. The marginal cost increase was reflective of longer treatment durations in the progression-free state. Central nervous system-related costs were considerably lower with alectinib. Our results suggest that compared with crizotinib, alectinib may be a cost-effective therapy for treatment-naïve patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.