An economic analysis of erlotinib, docetaxel, pemetrexed and best supportive care as second or third line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

• Published in: Revista portuguesa de pneumologia (English ed.) Vol. 14; no. 6; pp. 803 - 827
• Main Authors: Araújo, A, Parente, B, Sotto-Mayor, R, Teixeira, E, Almodôvar, T, Barata, F, Queiroga, H, Pereira, C, Pereira, H, Negreiro, F, Silva, C
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier España 01.11.2008
• Subjects: Cancro do pulmão de não pequenas células; cost-effectiveness; custo-efectividade; economics; económico; Internal Medicine; Non-small cell lung cancer; Portugal; Pulmonary/Respiratory; utilidade; utility; cost-effectiveness; economics; Cancro do pulmão de não pequenas células; Non-small cell lung cancer; custo-efectividade; utility; utilidade; Portugal; económico
• ISSN: 2173-5115; 2173-5115
• DOI: 10.1016/S2173-5115(08)70309-9

Abstract Aim Evaluate costs and benefits of erlotinib as 2nd or 3rd line treatment of advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus docetaxel, pemetrexed and best supportive care. Materials and methods Cost-minimisation and cost-utility analysis were performed. Time horizon of two years. Portuguese National Health System (NHS) perspective was applied. Survival and time to progression were obtained from three clinical trials. Base-case analysis: 2nd or 3rd line patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were obtained from a UK study. Resource consumption was estimated by a Portuguese panel of experts. Costs were calculated according to official Portuguese databases (updated to 2008). Only direct health costs were applied. Annual discount rate: 5%. Sensitivity analysis included different subpopulations, a three year time horizon and a probabilistic analysis. Results The cost per patient was lower with erlotinib (€26 478) than docetaxel (€29 262) or pemetrexed (€32 762) and higher than best supportive care (€16 112). QALYs per patient were higher with erlotinib (0.250) than docetaxel (0.225), pemetrexed (0.241) or best supportive care (0.186). Erlotinib was dominant in the cost-utility analysis, with a lower cost and a higher efficacy than docetaxel and pemetrexed. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base-case analysis results. Conclusions The use of erlotinib instead of docetaxel or pemetrexed could contribute to annual savings for the NHS (substitution rates: 5%–65%) ranging from €135 046-€1 755 602 (docetaxel replacement) and €291 801-€3 793 409 (pemetrexed replacement), with a gain in terms of QALYs.