Advertisement

Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 39, Issue 12, pp 1153–1174 | Cite as

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

  • Daniel GallacherEmail author
  • Peter Auguste
  • Pamela Royle
  • Hema Mistry
  • Xavier Armoiry
Systematic Review

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

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.

Supplementary material

40261_2019_859_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (175 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 175 kb)

References

  1. 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. 2.
    Lung cancer clinical outcomes publication 2017 (for surgical operations performed in 2015). Royal College of Physicians. 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armoiry X, Tsertsvadze A, Connock M, Royle P, Melendez-Torres GJ, Souquet P, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of licensed treatments for previously treated non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0199575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Schmidt C. The benefits of immunotherapy combinations. Nature. 2017;552(7685):S67–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Belani CP, Eckardt J. Development of docetaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer (Amsterdam Netherlands). 2004;46(Suppl 2):S3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leighl NB, Shepherd FA, Kwong R, Burkes RL, Feld R, Goodwin PJ. Economic analysis of the TAX 317 trial: docetaxel versus best supportive care as second-line therapy of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(5):1344–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holmes J, Dunlop D, Hemmett L, Sharplin P, Bose U. A cost-effectiveness analysis of docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2004;22(9):581–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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
  17. 17.
    Carlson JJ, Reyes C, Oestreicher N, Lubeck D, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL. Comparative clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2008;61(3):405–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Lewis G, Peake M, Aultman R, Gyldmark M, Morlotti L, Creeden J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the United Kingdom. J Int Med Res. 2010;38(1):9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Asukai Y, Valladares A, Camps C, Wood E, Taipale K, Arellano J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in Spain: results for the non-squamous histology population. BMC Cancer. 2010;29(10):26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cromwell I, van der Hoek K, Melosky B, Peacock S. Erlotinib or docetaxel for second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(12):2097–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Cromwell I, van der Hoek K, Malfair Taylor SC, Melosky B, Peacock S. Erlotinib or best supportive care for third-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis. Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2012;76(3):472–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 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. 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
  27. 27.
    Matter-Walstra K, Schwenkglenks M, Aebi S, Dedes K, Diebold J, Pietrini M, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab versus docetaxel for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC including PD-L1 testing. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(11):1846–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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.
  30. 30.
    Huang M, Lou Y, Pellissier J, Burke T, Liu FX, Xu R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for the treatment of previously treated PD-L1 positive advanced NSCLC patients in the United States. J Med Econ. 2017;20(2):140–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pignata M, Chouaid C, Le Lay K, Luciani L, McConnachie C, Gordon J, et al. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of afatinib after platinum-based therapy for the treatment of squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in France. Clin Econ Outcome Res. 2017;9:655–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  36. 36.
    Aguiar P Jr, Giglio AD, Perry LA, Penny-Dimri J, Babiker H, Tadokoro H, et al. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of lung cancer immunotherapy in South America: strategies to improve access. Immunotherapy. 2018;10(10):887–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guirgis HM. The impact of PD-L1 on survival and value of the immune check point inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer; proposal, policies and perspective. J Immunotherap Cancer. 2018;6(1):15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 39.
    Zhu J, He W, Ye M, Fu J, Chu YB, Zhao YY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of afatinib and erlotinib as second-line treatments for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Fut Oncol (Lond, Engl). 2018;14(27):2833–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gao L, Li SC. Modelled economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in Australia using both partition survival and Markov models. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(3):371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 42.
    Ondhia U, Conter HJ, Owen S, Zhou A, Nam J, Singh S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Med Econ. 2019;22(7):625–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.
  44. 44.
    Garattini S, Bertele’ V. Ethics in clinical research. J Hepatol. 2009;51(4):792–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gallacher D, Auguste P, Connock M. How do pharmaceutical companies model survival of cancer patients? A review of NICE single technology appraisals in 2017. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(2):160–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical SchoolUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Lyon School of Pharmacy (ISPB)Claude Bernard University Lyon 1LyonFrance

Personalised recommendations