Budget impact of sequential treatment with first-line afatinib versus first-line osimertinib in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with common EGFR mutations.
Acrylamides
/ economics
Afatinib
/ economics
Aged
Aniline Compounds
/ economics
Antineoplastic Agents
/ economics
Budgets
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
/ drug therapy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Decision Support Techniques
ErbB Receptors
/ genetics
Female
Health Care Costs
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Netherlands
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Afatinib
Budget impact
I15
I18
Osimertinib
Treatment sequencing
Journal
The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care
ISSN: 1618-7601
Titre abrégé: Eur J Health Econ
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101134867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
06
09
2019
accepted:
03
04
2020
pubmed:
25
4
2020
medline:
17
6
2021
entrez:
25
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The therapeutic landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that have common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations has changed radically in the last decade. The availability of these treatment options has an economic impact, therefore a budget impact analysis was performed. A budget impact analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients receiving first-line afatinib (Gilotrif Sequential treatment with afatinib versus first-line treatment with osimertinib showed mean total time on treatment (ToT) of 29.1 months versus 24.7 months, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) of 20.2 versus 17.4 with mean cost of €108,166 per patient versus €143,251 per patient, respectively. The 5-year total budget impact was €110.4 million for the afatinib sequence versus €158.6 million for the osimertinib sequence, leading to total incremental cost savings of €48.15 million. First-line afatinib treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC had a lower financial impact on the Dutch healthcare budget with a higher mean ToT and QALM compared to osimertinib sequential treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The therapeutic landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that have common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations has changed radically in the last decade. The availability of these treatment options has an economic impact, therefore a budget impact analysis was performed.
METHODS
METHODS
A budget impact analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients receiving first-line afatinib (Gilotrif
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sequential treatment with afatinib versus first-line treatment with osimertinib showed mean total time on treatment (ToT) of 29.1 months versus 24.7 months, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) of 20.2 versus 17.4 with mean cost of €108,166 per patient versus €143,251 per patient, respectively. The 5-year total budget impact was €110.4 million for the afatinib sequence versus €158.6 million for the osimertinib sequence, leading to total incremental cost savings of €48.15 million.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
First-line afatinib treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC had a lower financial impact on the Dutch healthcare budget with a higher mean ToT and QALM compared to osimertinib sequential treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32328874
doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01186-9
pii: 10.1007/s10198-020-01186-9
pmc: PMC7366569
doi:
Substances chimiques
Acrylamides
0
Aniline Compounds
0
Antineoplastic Agents
0
osimertinib
3C06JJ0Z2O
Afatinib
41UD74L59M
EGFR protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
ErbB Receptors
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
931-943Subventions
Organisme : Boehringer Ingelheim
ID : XXX
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Apr 1;30(10):1122-8
pubmed: 22370314
J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Aug;8(8):997-1003
pubmed: 23787802
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Feb 01;12:9
pubmed: 22297116
Lancet Oncol. 2016 May;17(5):577-89
pubmed: 27083334
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):1454-1466
pubmed: 28958502
Future Oncol. 2019 Feb;15(6):637-652
pubmed: 30404555
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Feb;11(2):121-8
pubmed: 20022809
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018 Jan 22;10:1758834017753338
pubmed: 29383041
Lung Cancer. 2018 Nov;125:1-7
pubmed: 30429004
Value Health. 2014 Jan-Feb;17(1):5-14
pubmed: 24438712
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Ann Oncol. 2013 Jan;24(1):54-9
pubmed: 22967997
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Apr 15;19(8):2240-7
pubmed: 23470965
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 24;362(25):2380-8
pubmed: 20573926
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):113-125
pubmed: 29151359
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 20;36(9):841-849
pubmed: 28841389
Target Oncol. 2019 Feb;14(1):75-83
pubmed: 30539501
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep 20;31(27):3327-34
pubmed: 23816960
J Health Econ. 1999 Jun;18(3):341-64
pubmed: 10537899
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Feb;15(2):213-22
pubmed: 24439929
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv192-iv237
pubmed: 30285222
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Aug;16(8):990-8
pubmed: 26159065
N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 16;376(7):629-640
pubmed: 27959700
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4(8):1080-1084
pubmed: 29852038
Eur J Health Econ. 2017 Jan;18(1):49-58
pubmed: 26721505
Br J Cancer. 2010 Jan 5;102(1):80-6
pubmed: 19920817
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Feb;16(2):141-51
pubmed: 25589191
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Mar;13(3):239-46
pubmed: 22285168
Future Oncol. 2018 Nov;14(27):2861-2874
pubmed: 30336693
Future Oncol. 2018 May;14(11):1117-1132
pubmed: 29336166
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Oct 21;6:84
pubmed: 18939982