Cost-effectiveness of ensartinib, crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib and lorlatinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Six anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs), including one domestic (ensartinib) and five imported ALK-TKIs (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), have been recommended as first-line treatments for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in China. This study sought to examine the cost-effectiveness of these six novel therapies in Chinese patients. We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of the six ALK-TKIs as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were estimated by synthesizing data from the PROFILE 1,029 trial and a network meta-analysis. Health state utilities and costs were sourced from published literature, publicly available national databases, and local general hospitals. The robustness of model was assessed via deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with crizotinib, ensartinib achieved additional 0.12 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) with marginal costs of $3,249, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,553/ QALY. When compared with ceritinib and brigatinib, ensartinib achieved additional 0.06 and 0.03 QALYs with substantially reduced costs. When compared with lorlatinib and alectinib, ensartinib was associated with a lower QALY and decreased total costs; the ICERs for lorlatinib and alectinib were $934,101/ QALY and $164,888/ QALY, respectively. For Chinese patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, ensartinib was a cost-effective option compared with crizotinib, and was a dominant alternative to ceritinib and brigatinib. Although lorlatinib and alectinib were associated with prolonged survival compared with ensartinib, they were less cost-effective than ensartinib due to the overwhelming total costs.

Luo X ，Zhou Z ，Zeng X ，Peng L ，Liu Q ... -  《Frontiers in Public Health》

The likelihood of being helped or harmed as a patient-centred tool to assess ALK-Inhibitors clinical impact and safety in ALK-addicted non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and sensitivity-analysis.

Mastrantoni L ，Giordano G ，Vita E ，Horn G ，Russo J ，Orlandi A ，Daniele G ，Giannarelli D ，Tortora G ，Bria E ... -  《-》

The cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients in China.

Iruplinalkib is a second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which is independently developed by a Chinese pharmaceutical company. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in the Chinese healthcare setting. A partitioned survival model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes. Efficacy was derived using unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature and experts' opinions. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to evaluate the model's robustness. Treatment with iruplinalkib versus alectinib resulted in a gain of 0.843 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $20,493.27, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24,313.95/QALY. Parameters related to relative efficacy and drug costs were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the PSA, iruplinalkib had a 90% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,863.56/QALY. Compared to alectinib, iruplinalkib is a cost-effective therapy for patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced NSCLC.

Dai Z ，Xu J ，Chang F ，Zhou W ，Ren T ，Qiu J ，Lu Y ，Lu Y ... -  《Frontiers in Public Health》

ALK Inhibitor Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Real-World Patients with ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Randomized trials have demonstrated that anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) can be safe and efficacious treatments for patients with ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, their safety, tolerability, effectiveness, and patterns of use in real-world patients remain understudied. We sought to assess the overall treatment pattern characteristics, safety, and effectiveness outcomes of real-world patients with ALK-positive aNSCLC receiving ALK TKIs. This retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data included adult patients with ALK-positive aNSCLC receiving ALK TKIs between January 2012 and November 2021 at a large tertiary medical center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), with alectinib or crizotinib as the initial ALK TKI therapy. Our primary endpoints included the incidence of treatment changes (treatment dose adjustments, interruptions, and discontinuations) during the initial ALK TKI treatment, the count and type of subsequent treatments, rates of serious adverse events (sAEs), and major adverse events (mAEs) leading to any ALK TKI treatment changes. Secondary endpoints included the hazard ratios (HRs) for median mAE-free survival (mAEFS), real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and overall survival (OS) when comparing alectinib with crizotinib. The cohort consisted of 117 adult patients (70 alectinib and 47 crizotinib) with ALK-positive aNSCLC, with 24.8%, 17.9%, and 6.0% experiencing treatment dose adjustments, interruptions, and discontinuation, respectively. Of the 73 patients whose ALK TKI treatments were discontinued, 68 received subsequent treatments including newer generations of ALK TKIs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and chemotherapies. The most common mAEs were rash (9.9%) and bradycardia (7.0%) for alectinib and liver toxicity (19.1%) for crizotinib. The most common sAEs were pericardial effusion (5.6%) and pleural effusion (5.6%) for alectinib and pulmonary embolism (6.4%) for crizotinib. Patients receiving alectinib versus crizotinib as their first ALK TKI treatment experienced significantly prolonged median rwPFS (29.3 versus 10.4 months) with an HR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.21-0.67), while prolonged median mAEFS (not reached versus 91.3 months) and OS (54.1 versus 45.8 months) were observed in patients receiving alectinib versus crizotinib but did not reach statistical significance. Yet, it is worth noting that there was a high degree of cross-over post-progression, which could significantly confound the overall survival measures. We found that ALK TKIs were highly tolerable, and alectinib was associated with favorable survival outcomes with longer time to adverse events (AE) requiring medical interventions, disease progression, and death, in the context of real-world use. Proactive monitoring for adverse events such as rash, bradycardia, and hepatotoxicity may help further promote the safe and optimal use of ALK TKIs in the treatment of patients with aNSCLC.

Wang M ，Slatter S ，Sussell J ，Lin CW ，Ogale S ，Datta D ，Butte AJ ，Bazhenova L ，Rudrapatna VA ... -  《-》

Cost‑Effectiveness of Lorlatinib in First-Line Treatment of Adult Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)‑Positive Non‑Small‑Cell Lung Cancer in Sweden.

We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of lorlatinib, a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), used first-line in Sweden to treat patients with ALK-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In January 2022, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) extended its approval of lorlatinib to include adult patients with ALK+ NSCLC not previously treated with an ALK inhibitor. Extended first-line approval was based on results from CROWN, a phase III randomized trial that enlisted 296 patients randomized 1:1 to receive lorlatinib or crizotinib. Our analysis compared lorlatinib against the first-generation ALK-TKI crizotinib, and second-generation ALK TKIs alectinib and brigatinib. A partitioned survival model with four health states [pre-progression, non-intracranial (non-central nervous system [CNS]) progression, CNS progression, and death] was constructed. The progressed disease state (which is typically modelled in cost-effectiveness analyses of oncology treatments) was explicitly separated into non-CNS and CNS progression as brain metastases, which are common in NSCLC, and can have a large impact on patient prognosis and health-related quality of life. Treatment effectiveness estimates in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms of the model were derived from CROWN data, while indirect relative effectiveness estimates for alectinib and brigatinib were informed using network meta-analysis (NMA). Utility data were derived from the CROWN study in the base case, and cost-effectiveness results were compared when applying UK and Swedish value sets. Costs were obtained from Swedish national data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model robustness. Fully incremental analysis identified crizotinib as the least costly and least effective treatment. Brigatinib was extendedly dominated by alectinib and, subsequently, alectinib was extendedly dominated by lorlatinib. Lorlatinib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Swedish Krona (SEK) 613,032 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with crizotinib. Probabilistic results were generally consistent with deterministic results, and one-way sensitivity identified NMA HRs, alectinib and brigatinib treatment duration, and the CNS-progressed utility multiplier as key model drivers. The ICER of SEK613,032 for lorlatinib versus crizotinib falls below the typical willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained for high-severity diseases in Sweden (approximately SEK1,000,000). Furthermore, as brigatinib and alectinib were extendedly dominated in the incremental analysis, the results of our study indicate that lorlatinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for first-line patients with ALK+ NSCLC in Sweden when compared with crizotinib, alectinib, and brigatinib. Longer-term follow-up data for endpoints informing treatment effectiveness for all first-line treatments would help to reduce uncertainty in the findings.

Naik J ，Beavers N ，Nilsson FOL ，Iadeluca L ，Lowry C ... -  《-》