Maintenance erlotinib in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: cost-effectiveness in EGFR wild-type across Europe.

BACKGROUND: First-line maintenance erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has demonstrated significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits compared with best supportive care plus placebo, irrespective of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status (SATURN trial). The cost-effectiveness of first-line maintenance erlotinib in the overall SATURN population has been assessed and published recently, but analyses according to EGFR mutation status have not been performed yet, which was the rationale for assessing the cost-effectiveness of first-line maintenance erlotinib specifically in EGFR wild-type metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: The incremental cost per life-year gained of first-line maintenance erlotinib compared with best supportive care in patients with EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC was assessed for five European countries (the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy) with an area-under-the-curve model consisting of three health states (progression-free survival, progressive disease, death). Log-logistic survival functions were fitted to Phase III patient-level data (SATURN) to model progression-free survival and overall survival. The first-line maintenance erlotinib therapy cost (modeled for time to treatment cessation), medication cost in later lines, and cost for the treatment of adverse events were included. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation (1000 iterations) were performed. RESULTS: According to the model simulations, first-line maintenance erlotinib compared with best supportive care in EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC resulted in 4.57 months of life gained (17.82 months for erlotinib versus 13.24 months for best supportive care) and 1.14 months of life without progression gained (erlotinib 4.29 versus best supportive care 3.15), and incremental total costs of erlotinib from €7897 (UK) to €9580 (Germany). The corresponding mean incremental cost per life-year gained of erlotinib ranged between €20,711 (UK) and €25,124 (Germany). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSION: First-line erlotinib maintenance treatment is cost-effective compared with best supportive care in EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC, irrespective of the country setting.

Health-economic comparison of paricalcitol, calcitriol and alfacalcidol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism during haemodialysis.

This study evaluated the health-economic consequences of use of intravenous paricalcitol (Zemplar), oral calcitriol or oral and intravenous alfacalcidol for the treatment of patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism, focusing on a third-party payer perspective through inclusion of medication and hospital costs, survival rates and utilities. Cost values were based on German treatment recommendations and prices. Reference values for survival rates and utilities were based on the results of a MEDLINE search. The analysis showed a clear advantage for intravenous paricalcitol with respect to costs, effectiveness and utilities compared with treatment with oral calcitriol or intravenous alfacalcidol. Since the results were very cost sensitive with respect to selected diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) for kidney disease with dialysis, a sensitivity analysis was performed. This demonstrated first-order dominance of intravenous paricalcitol for a wide range of hospitalisation costs. In conclusion, this analysis suggested a clear benefit from the perspective of a third-party payer for intravenous paricalcitol compared with oral calcitriol and intravenous alfacalcidol in the treatment of patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism.

International variation in resource utilisation and treatment costs for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review.

Recent years have witnessed substantial progress in understanding the cost implications of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To assess the divergent methodologies and their impact on the resulting cost analyses in RA, we conducted a systematic literature review to summarise the scientific evidence of RA-induced costs. Sixty-five reviews, models or cost analyses on the burden of illness and general costs associated with RA were identified. They covered the US, Canada, Sweden, the UK, The Netherlands, Germany and Finland. Twenty-four cost analyses provided appropriate data about direct and/or indirect costs. Each study was summarised separately. Costs were discounted to 2003 and converted to US dollars. The costs per RA-year ranged from USD 1503 to USD 16,514. However, each study has to be interpreted individually, with consideration given to the study population, indication, age of the study, database used, type of therapy, setting, level of cost differentiation and data derivation. Health technology assessment reports offer sufficient space to adequately describe the composite parts and restrictive elements of different methodological approaches and analyses.