Budget impact of tepotinib in the treatment of adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring METex14 skipping alterations in the United States

Abstract

Budget impact of tepotinib in the treatment of adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring METex14 skipping alterations in the United States

The Health Inequality Impact of Liquid Biopsy to Inform First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

“…65 More information about annual drug costs is provided in Appendix Tables 1 and 2 in Supplemental Materials found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.08.010 . Healthcare resources for disease management in the pre- and post-progression states were based on Stargardter et al 58 (see Appendix Tables 3 and 4 in Supplemental Materials found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.08.010 ). The frequency of healthcare resource use was assumed the same for all therapies and subgroups.…”

“… 57 Separate estimates were used for Medicare and commercial payer perspectives. Costs from a Medicare perspective associated with intravenous drug administration and disease management were calculated based on the resource use 58 multiplied by unit cost obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2022 fee schedule. 66 Costs from a commercial payer perspective were based on a prior study.…”

Is the Scope of Costs Considered in Budget Impact Analyses for Anticancer Drugs Rational? A Systematic Review and Comparative Study

“…Most of the included studies originated in the United States (n = 18, 62%) (42-46, 48, 50-59, 64, 66), followed by Italy (n = 2, 7%) (69,70) and one from each of Brazil (60), the Netherlands (62), France (47), Japan (49), Norway (65), Saudi Arabia (61), Spain (63), and Thailand (67), as well as one multi-country study (58). The studies covered 11 types of cancer including non-small-cell lung cancer (n =8, 28%) (43,45,47,54,55,57,62,65), prostate cancer (n =5, 17%) (42,44,48,59,64), colorectal cancer (n = 4, 14%) (60,67,68,70), ovarian cancer (n = 3, 10%) (46,53,63), breast cancer (n = 2, 7%) (56,61), myeloma (n = 2, 7%) (49,58), melanoma (n = 1, 3%) (52), head and neck cancer (n = 1, 3%) (69), cell carcinoma of the urothelium (n = 1, 3%) (50), gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (n = 1, 3%) (66), and epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (n = 1, 3%) (51). Most of the interventions in these studies involved innovative anticancer drugs, including selective poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP)-1 and PARP-2 inhibitor (e.g., niraparib) (51,53), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 tyrosine kinases inhibitor (e.g., afatinib) (55,…”

“…Regarding the perspective, three studies (10%) considered the societal perspective (57,67,69), four studies (14%) considered the healthcare system perspective (60,62,63,70), and all other studies (n = 22, 76%) considered the budget-holder perspective (42-56, 58, 59, 61, 64-66, 68). Regarding the budget-holder perspective, one study calculated the budget impact from the hospital perspective (66), five adopted the health-plan perspective (45,46,48,55,64), and 16 adopted the third-party payer perspective including public health insurance, Medicare, and commercial insurance (42-44, 47-54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 65, 68). Five studies reported results from more than one perspective (43,50,54,58,68).…”

“…ContinuedFrontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org provided a clear reason why they considered condition-related costs, while the other 13 (48%) reported condition-related costs directly. For example, Stargardter et al(45) considered condition-related costs because they adopted ISPOR task force recommendations, while Appukkuttan et al(42) considered the costs associated with prostate cancer in the United States without providing any reference framework. In addition, although there were 25 studies considering condition-related costs, only 11 (38%) considered subsequent treatment costs.…”