Utility values associated with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: data needs for economic modeling

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analyses often inform healthcare reimbursement decisions. The preferred measure of effectiveness is the quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, where the quality of life adjustment is measured in terms of utility. Areas covered: We assessed the availability and variation of utility values for health states associated with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to identify values appropriate for cost-effectiveness models assessing alternative treatments. Our systematic search of six electronic databases (January 2000 to August 2015) found the current literature to be sparse in terms of utility values associated with NSCLC, identifying 27 studies. Utility values were most frequently reported over time and by treatment type, and less frequently by disease response, stage of disease, adverse events or disease comorbidities. Expert commentary: In response to rising healthcare costs, payers increasingly consider the cost-effectiveness of novel treatments in reimbursement decisions, especially in oncology. As the number of therapies available to treat NSCLC increases, cost-effectiveness analyses will play a key role in reimbursement decisions in this area. Quantifying the relationship between health and quality of life for NSCLC patients via utility values is an important component of assessing the cost effectiveness of novel treatments.

Cost‐effectiveness analysis of first‐line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor‐mutant non‐small cell lung cancer patients

“…The utilities of administration methods (including oral and intravenous administration) as well as utilities of different EGFR‐TKIs, were distinguished 15,27 . In addition, utilities of PD state and AE ≥grade 3 were included 27,28 . Both costs and utilities are displayed in Table 2, and the discount rate was set at 3%.…”

“…To detect the influence of various parameters and the stability of results, both one‐way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed by Treeage. In the one‐way sensitivity analysis, cost parameters were assumed with a 30% range and a 20% range for both utilities and probabilities 28 (Table ). Results are shown in Tornado Diagrams.…”

Comprehensive Comparison Between Adjuvant Targeted Therapy and Chemotherapy for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Patients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

“…Health state utility parameters were extracted from published literature and were ranged from 0 to 1 with 1 representing the best physical and psychological conditions. Extracted utilities contained utilities for DFS state, including oral therapy (0.8) and intravenous therapy (0.76) respectively; PD state (0.7); death (0); and AEs of grades 3–4 (−0.0731), thereinto considering the unavailability of accurate utilities of various AEs, the average value was obtained for substitution based on published studies ( 19 , 20 ). Specific utilities were adjusted based on clinical reports in the ADJUVANT trial.…”

Utility value estimates in cardiovascular disease and the effect of changing elicitation methods: a systematic literature review

“…Economic evaluations, such as cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), are important for comparing new and existing treatments; they are used to determine a treatment’s economic value and to demonstrate that value to patients, physicians, and third-party payers [ 5 , 6 ]. These analyses often inform healthcare reimbursement decisions [ 7 ]. The preferred outcome measure of one type of CEA—cost-utility analyses—is quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, where the quality of life adjustment is based on utility values [ 8 ].…”