Cross-market cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with stable non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

BackgroundPlatinum-doublet, first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is limited to 4–6 cycles. An alternative strategy used to prolong the duration of first-line treatment and extend survival in metastatic NSCLC is first-line maintenance therapy. Erlotinib was approved for first-line maintenance in a stable disease population following results from a randomized, controlled Phase III trial comparing erlotinib with best supportive care. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of erlotinib 150 mg/day versus best supportive care when used as first-line maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and stable disease.MethodsAn economic decision model was developed using patient-level data for progression-free survival and overall survival from the SATURN (SequentiAl Tarceva in UnResectable NSCLC) study. An area under the curve model was developed; all patients entered the model in the progression-free survival health state and, after each month, moved to progression or death. A time horizon of 5 years was used. The model was conducted from the perspective of national health care payers in France, Germany, and Italy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsTreatment with erlotinib in first-line maintenance resulted in a mean life expectancy of 1.39 years in all countries, compared with a mean 1.11 years with best supportive care, which represents 0.28 life-years (3.4 life-months) gained with erlotinib versus best supportive care. In the base-case analysis, the cost per life-year gained was €39,783, €46,931, and €27,885 in France, Germany, and Italy, respectively.ConclusionErlotinib is a cost-effective treatment option when used as first-line maintenance therapy for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Treatment of lung cancer: will financial issues become a criterion of choice?

“…At this threshold, probability of a cost-effective ratio were 93.6% in the UK, 91% in Germany, 91.7% in France, 92.1% in Spain and 92.9% in Italy. The same conclusions were reached in the subgroup of the SATURN trial (stable diseases) in terms of cost per life years saved [12]. Overall, consolidation treatments have not yet been validated, and further studies are therefore needed.…”

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

“…Eleven studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of the treatment with erlotinib compared to BSC or chemotherapy [ 12 – 22 ]: One study focused on first-line treatment [ 16 ], three on first-line maintenance treatment [ 13 – 15 ] and seven studies on subsequent treatment lines [ 12 , 17 – 22 ]. Wang et al [ 16 ] analyzed the cost-effectiveness of first-line erlotinib monotherapy compared to carboplatin-gemcitabine combination therapy in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.…”

Update on the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: focus on the cost-effectiveness of new agents

“…Vergnenègre et al subsequently performed a cost-effectiveness study for patients with wildtype EGF-R when the disease stabilized after the end of first-line treatment 29. The study was conducted in France, Germany, and Italy.…”