Cost-effectiveness analysis of alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background Compassionate use programs (CUP) for medicines respond to the ethical imperative of providing access to medicines before marketing approval to patients not recruited in trials. The economic impact of clinical trials has previously been investigated. No evidence on the net economic benefit of CUP exists. This research aims to address this information gap by estimating the economic consequences of 11 CUP in Italy conducted between March 2015 and December 2020 from the perspective of public health care system in Italy (National Health Service). Eight programs concern cancer treatments, two refer to spinal muscular atrophy, and one is indicated for multiple sclerosis. Methods Since CUP medicines are covered by the industry, the net economic benefit includes: (i) avoided costs of the Standard of Care (SoC) the patients would have received had they not joined the CUP, (ii) costs not covered by the pharmaceutical industry sponsor, but instead sustained by payers, such as those associated with adverse events (only severe side effects resulting in hospitalisation and attributable to CUP medicines), and (iii) costs for combination therapies and diagnostic procedures not used with the SoC. The SoC costing relied on publicly available data. Information on adverse events and diagnostic procedures was retrieved from the CUP and monetized using the relevant fee for episode or service. One CUP was excluded since a SoC was not identified. Results 2,713 patients were treated in the 11 CUP where a SoC was identified. The SoC mean cost per patient ranged from €11,415 to €20,299. The total cost of the SoC ranged between €31.0 and €55.1 million. The mean cost per patient covered by hospitals hosting CUP was equal to €1,646, with a total cost of €4.5 million. The net economic benefit ranged €26.5 million - €50.6 million. Conclusions Despite research limitations, this paper illustrates for the first time the net economic impact of CUP from a public payer perspective. It is important to integrate these estimates with the prospective effects of CUP implementation, i.e., the economic value of the comparative benefit profile of medicines used in CUP versus the SoC, including effects from a societal perspective.

show abstract

The economic impact of compassionate use of medicines

Jommi

Pantellini

Stagi

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cost-utility analysis of brigatinib compared to alectinib in the treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC in patients previously not treated with an ALK inhibitor

Ravasio¹,

Cranmer

Kearns

et al. 2022

abtpn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this economic evaluation was to assess the cost-utility of brigatinib versus alectinib in the treatment of naïve patients to anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (ALK-positive aNSCLC) from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (INHS). Methods: A partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free [PFS], no central nervous system progression [CNS-PFS], central nervous system progression [CNS-PD] and death) was used. The clinical data (progression-free survival, overall survival and time to progression) was based on the ALTA-1L trial for brigatinib and on ALEX trial for alectinib. Utility values were derived from EORTC QLQ-C30 scores evaluated in the ALTA-1L trial and literature. Costs included frontline therapies, subsequent therapies, best supportive care (BSC), administration, concomitant medications, adverse events and health states. Direct medical costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) were discounted at a 3.0% annual rate. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: The analysis showed that brigatinib was dominant versus alectinib; brigatinib led to a gain of 0.216 QALYs and to a treatment cost reduction of € 85,635. The results of the DSA showed that no parameters of the model significantly modified the base case result. Conclusions: This economic evaluation suggested that, compared with alectinib, brigatinib can be considered a valid cost-utility option from the perspective of INHS in the treatment of patients with ALK-positive aNSCLC.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Cited by 2 publications

References 29 publications

The economic impact of compassionate use of medicines

The economic impact of compassionate use of medicines

Cost-utility analysis of brigatinib compared to alectinib in the treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC in patients previously not treated with an ALK inhibitor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About