TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative effectiveness and costeffectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors
T2 - Analysis of real-world data in a tertiary hospital in Taiwan
AU - Yang, Szu Chun
AU - Lai, Wu Wei
AU - Hsu, Jason C.
AU - Su, Wu Chou
AU - Wang, Jung Der
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - Introduction Comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) would improve patients' clinical benefits and save costs. Using realworld data, this study attempted to directly compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib. Methods During May 2011-December 2017, all patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) visiting a tertiary center were invited to fill out the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires and World Health Organization Quality of Life, brief version (WHOQOL-BREF), and received follow-ups for survival and direct medical costs. A total of 379 patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC under first-line TKIs were enrolled for analysis. After propensity score matching for the patients receiving afatinib (n = 48), erlotinib (n = 48), and gefitinib (n = 96), we conducted the study from the payers' perspective with a lifelong time horizon. Results Patients receiving afatinib had the worst lifetime psychometric scores, whereas the differences in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) were modest. Considering 3 treatments together, afatinib was dominated by erlotinib. Erlotinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness of US$17,960/life year and US$12,782/QALY compared with gefitinib. Acceptability curves showed that erlotinib had 58.6% and 78.9% probabilities of being cost-effective given a threshold of 1 Taiwanese per capita GDP per life year and QALY, respectively. Conclusion Erlotinib appeared to be cost-effective. Lifetime psychometric scores may provide additional information for effectiveness evaluation.
AB - Introduction Comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) would improve patients' clinical benefits and save costs. Using realworld data, this study attempted to directly compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib. Methods During May 2011-December 2017, all patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) visiting a tertiary center were invited to fill out the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires and World Health Organization Quality of Life, brief version (WHOQOL-BREF), and received follow-ups for survival and direct medical costs. A total of 379 patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC under first-line TKIs were enrolled for analysis. After propensity score matching for the patients receiving afatinib (n = 48), erlotinib (n = 48), and gefitinib (n = 96), we conducted the study from the payers' perspective with a lifelong time horizon. Results Patients receiving afatinib had the worst lifetime psychometric scores, whereas the differences in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) were modest. Considering 3 treatments together, afatinib was dominated by erlotinib. Erlotinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness of US$17,960/life year and US$12,782/QALY compared with gefitinib. Acceptability curves showed that erlotinib had 58.6% and 78.9% probabilities of being cost-effective given a threshold of 1 Taiwanese per capita GDP per life year and QALY, respectively. Conclusion Erlotinib appeared to be cost-effective. Lifetime psychometric scores may provide additional information for effectiveness evaluation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85083228205&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85083228205&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0231413
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0231413
M3 - Article
C2 - 32267879
AN - SCOPUS:85083228205
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 15
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 4
M1 - e0231413
ER -