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
- 68 Downloads
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.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This project was funded by the University of Warwick Research Development Fund (Warwick Medical School, December 2017).
Conflict of Interest
Daniel Gallacher, Peter Auguste, Pamela Royle, Hema Mistry and Xavier Armoiry have no conflict of interest to decalre.
- 1.Latest global cancer data: Cancer burden rises to 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million cancer deaths in 2018. 12 September 2018; Available from: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pr263_E.pdf. Cited 30 Aug 2019.
- 2.Lung cancer clinical outcomes publication 2017 (for surgical operations performed in 2015). Royal College of Physicians. 2017.Google Scholar
- 4.Connock M, Armoiry X, Tsertsvadze A, Melendez-Torres GJ, Royle P, Andronis L, et al. Comparative survival benefit of currently licensed second or third line treatments for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) negative advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and secondary analysis of trials. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Créquit P, Chaimani A, Yavchitz A, Attiche N, Cadranel J, Trinquart L, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Armoiry XMH, Royle P, Auguste P, Gallacher D. A systematic review of the use of economic evaluations to assess the cost-effectiveness of licensed drugs used in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=88805. Cited 30 Aug 2019.
- 8.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 2009-07-21 10:46:49–339.Google Scholar
- 11.Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2004;8(36):iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–158.Google Scholar
- 15.NICE. Pemetrexed for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer, Technology appraisal guidance [TA124]. 2007; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta124. Cited 27 Feb 2019.
- 16.Araujo A, Parente B, Sotto-Mayor R, Teixeira E, Almodovar T, Barata F, et al. An economic analysis of erlotinib, docetaxel, pemetrexed and best supportive care as second or third line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Revista portuguesa de pneumologia. 2008;14(6):803–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.McLeod C, Bagust A, Boland A, Hockenhull J, Dundar Y, Proudlove C, et al. Erlotinib for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, Engl). 2009;13(Suppl 1):41–7.Google Scholar
- 22.Vergnenegre A, Corre R, Berard H, Paillotin D, Dujon C, Robinet G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of second-line chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: an economic, randomized, prospective, multicenter phase III trial comparing docetaxel and pemetrexed: the GFPC 05-06 study. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(1):161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Greenhalgh J, Bagust A, Boland A, Dwan K, Beale S, Hockenhull J, et al. Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, Engl). 2015;19(47):1–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.NICE. Nintedanib for previously treated locally advanced, metastatic, or locally recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer, Technology appraisal guidance [TA347]. 2015; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta347. Cited 27 Feb 2019.
- 26.Espinosa Bosch M, Asensi Diez R, Garcia Agudo S, Clopes EA. Nintedanib in combination with docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer; GENESIS-SEFH drug evaluation report. Farmacia hospitalaria: organo oficial de expresion cientifica de la Sociedad Espanola de Farmacia Hospitalaria. 2016;40(4):316–27.Google Scholar
- 28.Goeree R, Villeneuve J, Goeree J, Penrod JR, Orsini L, Tahami Monfared AA. Economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced squamous NSCLC in Canada: a comparison of modeling approaches to estimate and extrapolate survival outcomes. J Med Econ. 2016;19(6):630–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.NICE. Ramucirumab for previously treated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, Technology appraisal guidance [TA403]. 2016; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta403. Cited 27 Feb 2019.
- 32.NICE. Pembrolizumab for treating PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer after chemotherapy, Technology appraisal guidance [TA428]. 2017; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta428. Cited 27 Feb 2019.
- 33.NICE. Nivolumab for previously treated squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, Technology appraisal guidance [TA483]. 2017; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta483. Cited 27 Feb 2019.
- 34.NICE. Nivolumab for previously treated non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, Technology appraisal guidance [TA484]. 2017; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta484. Cited 27 Feb 2019.
- 35.NICE. Atezolizumab for treating locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after chemotherapy, Technology appraisal guidance [TA520]. 2018; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta520. Cited 27 Feb 2019.
- 38.Shafrin J, Skornicki M, Brauer M, Villeneuve J, Lees M, Hertel N, et al. An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: does it make a difference? Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2018;122(6):607–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Merino Almazan M, Duarte Perez JM, Marin Pozo JF, Ortega Granados AL, Muros De Fuentes B, Quesada Sanz P, et al. A multicentre observational study of the effectiveness, safety and economic impact of nivolumab on non-small-cell lung cancer in real clinical practice. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019;41(1):272–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Woods B, Sideris E, Palmer S, Latimer N, Soares M. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 19. Partitioned survival analysis for decision modelling in health care: a critical review. 2017; Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk. Cited 27 Feb 2019.