Cost-effectiveness analysis of lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2024.2421389

YuQi Shang, Hao Guo

{"title":"Cost-effectiveness analysis of lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer.","authors":"YuQi Shang, Hao Guo","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2421389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To assess the economic value of lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer at medical insurance negotiation prices from the viewpoint of China's health system.Methods: Based on data from the phase III clinical trial, a three-state partitioned survival model was established. In combination with parameters such as treatment costs, utility values, incidence of adverse reactions, and discount rates, the total incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was simulated.Results: The results of the fundamental analysis indicated that the patients in the lorlatinib group expended 709,671 yuan more than did the patients in the crizotinib group did but gained 3.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The ICER value was 229,782.6 yuan/QALY, which was lower than three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China.Conclusions: Compared with crizotinib, lorlatinib may be a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in China.","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2421389","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the economic value of lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer at medical insurance negotiation prices from the viewpoint of China's health system.

Methods: Based on data from the phase III clinical trial, a three-state partitioned survival model was established. In combination with parameters such as treatment costs, utility values, incidence of adverse reactions, and discount rates, the total incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was simulated.

Results: The results of the fundamental analysis indicated that the patients in the lorlatinib group expended 709,671 yuan more than did the patients in the crizotinib group did but gained 3.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The ICER value was 229,782.6 yuan/QALY, which was lower than three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China.

Conclusions: Compared with crizotinib, lorlatinib may be a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in China.

查看原文本刊更多论文

罗拉替尼和克唑替尼一线治疗无性淋巴瘤激酶阳性非小细胞肺癌的成本效益分析。

目的从中国卫生系统的角度，评估洛拉替尼和克唑替尼以医保谈判价格一线治疗无细胞淋巴瘤激酶阳性非小细胞肺癌的经济价值：方法：基于III期临床试验数据，建立了三态分区生存模型。结合治疗费用、效用值、不良反应发生率、贴现率等参数，模拟总增量成本效益比（ICER）：基本分析结果显示，洛拉替尼组患者比克唑替尼组患者多花费 709671 元，但获得了 3.09 个质量调整生命年（QALYs）。ICER值为229782.6元/QALY，低于中国人均国内生产总值（GDP）的三倍：结论：与克唑替尼相比，罗拉替尼可能是中国治疗晚期ALK阳性NSCLC的一种经济有效的一线治疗选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

4.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.