RESUMO
Importance: Standard of care for unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) involves definitive chemoradiotherapy followed by maintenance therapy with durvalumab. However, the cost of durvalumab has been cited as a barrier to its use in various health systems. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab vs placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from 4 international payer perspectives (US, Brazil, Singapore, and Spain). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was designed to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of maintenance durvalumab for unresectable stage III NSCLC with that of placebo, using 5-year outcomes data from the PACIFIC randomized placebo-controlled trial. Individual patient data were extracted from the PACIFIC, KEYNOTE-189, ADAURA, ALEX, and REVEL randomized clinical trials to develop a decision-analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared with placebo maintenance therapy over a 10-year time horizon. Direct costs, adverse events, and patient characteristics were based on country-specific payer perspectives and demographic characteristics. The study was conducted from June 1, 2022, through December 27, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds ([data reported in US$] US: $150â¯000 per QALY; Brazil: $22â¯251 per QALY; Singapore: $55â¯288 per QALY, and Spain: $107â¯069 per QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameters of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed. Results: The US base-case model found that treatment with durvalumab was associated with an increased cost of $114â¯394 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $228â¯788 per QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, according to base-case models, were $141â¯146 for Brazil, $153â¯461 for Singapore, and $125â¯193 for Spain. Durvalumab price adjustments to the PACIFIC data improved cost-effectiveness in Singapore, with an ICER of $45â¯164. The model was most sensitive to the utility of durvalumab. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab as maintenance therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC, the therapy was found to be cost-prohibitive from the perspective of various international payers according to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY. The findings of the study suggest that discounted durvalumab acquisition costs, as possible in Singapore, might improve cost-effectiveness globally.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Análise Custo-Benefício , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/economia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economia , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais/economia , Brasil , Espanha , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Masculino , Singapura , Feminino , Estados Unidos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Idoso , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/economia , Cadeias de Markov , Análise de Custo-EfetividadeRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The ACHOCC-19 study was performed to characterize COVID-19 infection in a Colombian oncological population. METHODOLOGY: Analytical cohort study of patients with cancer and COVID-19 infection in Colombia. From April 1 to October 31, 2020. Demographic and clinical variables related to cancer and COVID-19 infection were collected. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality from all causes. The association between the outcome and the prognostic variables was analyzed using logistic regression models and survival analysis with Cox regression. RESULTS: The study included 742 patients; 72% were >51 years. The most prevalent neoplasms were breast (132, 17.77%), colorectal (92, 12.34%), and prostate (81, 10.9%). Two hundred twenty (29.6%) patients were asymptomatic and 96 (26.3%) died. In the bivariate descriptive analysis, higher mortality occurred in patients who were >70 years, patients with lung cancer, ≥2 comorbidities, former smokers, receiving antibiotics, corticosteroids, and anticoagulants, residents of rural areas, low socioeconomic status, and increased acute-phase reactants. In the logistic regression analysis, higher mortality was associated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 3 (odds ratio [OR] 28.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.2-99.6); ECOG PS 4 (OR 20.89; 95% CI, 3.36-129.7); two complications from COVID-19 (OR 5.3; 95% CI, 1.50-18.1); and cancer in progression (OR 2.08; 95% CI, 1.01-4.27). In the Cox regression analysis, the statistically significant hazard ratios (HR) were metastatic disease (HR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.16-2.16), cancer in progression (HR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.24-2.61) cancer in partial response (HR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.88), use of steroids (HR 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01-2.06), and use of antibiotics (HR 2.11; 95% CI, 1.47-2.95). CONCLUSION: In our study, patients with cancer have higher mortality due to COVID-19 infection if they have active cancer, metastatic or progressive cancer, ECOG PS >2, and low socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study's findings raise the need to carefully evaluate patients with metastatic cancer, in progression, and with impaired Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status to define the relevance of cancer treatment during the pandemic, consider the risk/benefit of the interventions, and establish clear and complete communication with the patients and their families about the risk of complications. There is also the importance of offering additional support to patients with low income and residence in rural areas so that they can have more support during cancer treatment.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Estudos de Coortes , Humanos , América Latina , Neoplasias Pulmonares/complicações , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/epidemiologia , Masculino , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
Importance: The survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations has improved substantially in the last decade with the development of targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients who develop EGFR T790M mutations, has recently shown improved clinical outcomes compared with gefitinib and erlotinib for treatment-naive patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we extracted individual patient data from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial and used findings of our earlier meta-analysis to develop a decision-analytic model and determine the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib (AZD9291) compared with first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs over a 10-year time horizon. All direct costs were based on US and Brazilian payer perspectives. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by using osimertinib compared with first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs in previously untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Results: In the base case using the data as reported in the FLAURA trial, the incremental QALY for osimertinib was 0.594 compared with the first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs. In the United States, the osimertinib ICERs were $226â¯527 vs erlotinib, $231â¯123 vs gefitinib, and $219â¯874 vs afatinib. In Brazil, the ICERs were $162â¯329, $180â¯804, and $175â¯432, respectively. The overall survival (95% CI) reported in the FLAURA trial (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88) had the strongest association with the ICER (ranging from $84â¯342 to $859â¯771). Osimertinib price adjustments to the FLAURA trial data improved cost-effectiveness. For example, a discount of 10% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 20% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER, and a discount of 20% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 40% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER. Conclusions and Relevance: At current costs, by World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold criteria, osimertinib is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC in either the United States or Brazil.
Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economia , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economia , Mutação , Acrilamidas/administração & dosagem , Afatinib/administração & dosagem , Compostos de Anilina/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Brasil , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/genética , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/patologia , Receptores ErbB/genética , Cloridrato de Erlotinib/administração & dosagem , Seguimentos , Gefitinibe/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patologia , Prognóstico , Estados UnidosRESUMO
PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in Mexico. A large proportion of Mexican patients present with advanced disease, and 25% have HER2-positive tumors. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequencing strategies of HER2-targeted agents in Mexico according to various payer perspectives. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2-targeted treatment sequences among patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer treated in Mexico according to three public and one private payer perspectives. Patients were followed weekly over their remaining life expectancies within the model. Health states considered were progression-free survival (PFS) 1st-3rd lines, and death. Transition probabilities between states were based on published trials. Cost data were obtained from official publications from Mexican healthcare institutions. The evaluated outcomes were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the public payer perspective, sequences containing pertuzumab or T-DM1 were not cost-effective when compared with a sequence including the combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab, even when utilizing alternate definitions for willingness to pay thresholds. In the private payer perspective, a sequence containing T-DM1 but not pertuzumab proved cost-effective at a lower clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In Mexico, the use of at least three lines of trastuzumab in combination with other therapies, but not with pertuzumab or TDM-1, represents the most cost-effective option for patients covered by the public healthcare system, and this sequence should be made available for all patients.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Mama/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansina , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/economia , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias da Mama/epidemiologia , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Docetaxel , Feminino , Humanos , Maitansina/análogos & derivados , Maitansina/economia , Maitansina/uso terapêutico , México , Receptor ErbB-2/genética , Taxoides/economia , Taxoides/uso terapêutico , Trastuzumab/economia , Trastuzumab/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recent studies with nivolumab (a monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death 1 [PD-1] receptor) have shown promise non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. METHODS: To review available clinical trials data in order to assess nivolumab efficacy and the role of tumoral PDL-1 expression as a biomarker. RESULTS: Nine eligible studies included 2102 patients. In the second line setting, nivolumab achieved a 1-year survival rate of 41%; and in the first line, a 1-year survival rate of 76%. For those with PD-L1 expression <1%, nivolumab showed a trend for improved survival compared with docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: The available data reinforce nivolumab activity against NSCLC in first-line or subsequent lines. Although PD-L1 expression is related to greater response, PD-L1 negative patients had also some benefit.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Antígeno B7-H1/metabolismo , Biomarcadores Tumorais/metabolismo , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/diagnóstico , Antígeno B7-H1/genética , Biomarcadores Tumorais/genética , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/mortalidade , Docetaxel , Humanos , Nivolumabe , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Análise de Sobrevida , Taxoides/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Tumor programmed death ligand one (PD-L1) expression has been studied in several trials in non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We assessed the potential role of PD-L1 expression according to Cochrane Collaboration's Guidelines. RESULTS: 13 studies with 1979 patients were included. Among 915 PD-L1 negative patients this rate was 13% (RR 2.08; 95% CI: 1.49-2.91; p < 0.01). The response rate has increased concurrent to the PD-L1 expression (Pearson's correlation, r = 0.43). PD-L1 expression was also related to better 24-weeks progression-free rate (RR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71-0.89) and a trend toward better 1-year overall survival rate (RR 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87-1.06). CONCLUSION: Taking this data in account, PD-L1 overexpression could not be currently considered a robust biomarker to tailor the immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment.