A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Licensed Drugs Used for Previously Treated Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Negative Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Journal
Clinical drug investigation
ISSN: 1179-1918
Titre abrégé: Clin Drug Investig
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9504817
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
5
10
2019
medline:
28
1
2020
entrez:
5
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers. There are many published studies of cost-effectiveness analyses of licensed treatments, but no study has compared these studies or their approaches simultaneously. To investigate the methodology used in published economic analyses of licensed interventions for previously treated advanced/metastatic NSCLC in patients without anaplastic lymphoma kinase or epidermal growth factor receptor expression. A systematic review was performed, including a systematic search of key databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Cost-effectiveness Registry) limited to the period from 01 January 2001 to 26 July 2019. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and quality appraised identified studies. The reporting quality of the studies was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklists. Thirty-one published records met the inclusion criteria, which corresponded to 30 individual cost-effectiveness analyses. Analytical approaches included partitioned survival models (n = 14), state-transition models (n = 7) and retrospective analyses of new or published data (n = 8). Model structure was generally consistent, with pre-progression, post-progression and death health states used most commonly. Other characteristics varied more widely, including the perspective of analysis, discounting, time horizon, usually to align with the country that the analysis was set in. There are a wide range of approaches in the modelling of treatments for advanced NSCLC; however, the model structures are consistent. There is variation in the exploration of sensitivity analyses, with considerable uncertainty remaining in most evaluations. Improved reporting is necessary to ensure transparency in future analyses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers. There are many published studies of cost-effectiveness analyses of licensed treatments, but no study has compared these studies or their approaches simultaneously.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the methodology used in published economic analyses of licensed interventions for previously treated advanced/metastatic NSCLC in patients without anaplastic lymphoma kinase or epidermal growth factor receptor expression.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review was performed, including a systematic search of key databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Cost-effectiveness Registry) limited to the period from 01 January 2001 to 26 July 2019. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and quality appraised identified studies. The reporting quality of the studies was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklists.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-one published records met the inclusion criteria, which corresponded to 30 individual cost-effectiveness analyses. Analytical approaches included partitioned survival models (n = 14), state-transition models (n = 7) and retrospective analyses of new or published data (n = 8). Model structure was generally consistent, with pre-progression, post-progression and death health states used most commonly. Other characteristics varied more widely, including the perspective of analysis, discounting, time horizon, usually to align with the country that the analysis was set in.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There are a wide range of approaches in the modelling of treatments for advanced NSCLC; however, the model structures are consistent. There is variation in the exploration of sensitivity analyses, with considerable uncertainty remaining in most evaluations. Improved reporting is necessary to ensure transparency in future analyses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31583605
doi: 10.1007/s40261-019-00859-5
pii: 10.1007/s40261-019-00859-5
doi:
Substances chimiques
ALK protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase
EC 2.7.10.1
EGFR protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
ErbB Receptors
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1153-1174Subventions
Organisme : University of Warwick
ID : RDF 2017
Références
J Med Econ. 2017 Feb;20(2):140-150
pubmed: 27571538
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 25;13(7):e0199575
pubmed: 30044785
Lung Cancer. 2012 Jun;76(3):472-7
pubmed: 22226627
Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(9):581-9
pubmed: 15209527
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017 Oct 25;9:655-668
pubmed: 29123418
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019 Jan;35(2):160-167
pubmed: 31017564
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Jun;17(3):371-380
pubmed: 30535675
J Int Med Res. 2010 Jan-Feb;38(1):9-21
pubmed: 20233509
Farm Hosp. 2016 Jun 01;40(4):316-27
pubmed: 27571499
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Jan;6(1):161-8
pubmed: 21150465
J Hepatol. 2009 Oct;51(4):792-7
pubmed: 19664839
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
Health Policy. 2018 Jun;122(6):607-613
pubmed: 29731176
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Dec;6(12):2097-103
pubmed: 22052223
Clin Drug Investig. 2019 Dec;39(12):1153-1174
pubmed: 31583605
Lung Cancer. 2004 Dec;46 Suppl 2:S3-11
pubmed: 15698529
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Jun;13 Suppl 1:41-7
pubmed: 19567213
BMC Cancer. 2010 Jan 29;10:26
pubmed: 20113499
J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Feb 20;6(1):15
pubmed: 29463302
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Sep;8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158
pubmed: 15361314
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Mar 1;20(5):1344-52
pubmed: 11870178
Future Oncol. 2018 Nov;14(27):2833-2840
pubmed: 29878848
Lung Cancer. 2008 Sep;61(3):405-15
pubmed: 18295368
BMJ. 2013 Mar 25;346:f1049
pubmed: 23529982
J Med Econ. 2019 Jul;22(7):625-637
pubmed: 30836031
J Med Econ. 2016 Jun;19(6):630-44
pubmed: 26850122
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Jun;19(47):1-134
pubmed: 26134145
Nature. 2017 Dec 21;552(7685):S67-S69
pubmed: 29293245
Int J Clin Pharm. 2019 Feb;41(1):272-279
pubmed: 30578473
Immunotherapy. 2018 Aug;10(10):887-897
pubmed: 30073895
BMC Med. 2017 Oct 30;15(1):193
pubmed: 29082855
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Nov;11(11):1846-1855
pubmed: 27311996
Rev Port Pneumol. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):803-27
pubmed: 19023496
BMC Cancer. 2019 Apr 25;19(1):392
pubmed: 31023244