International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of rearranged during transfection fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yi Hongbin, Cao Yingdan, Shi Fenghao, Wei Xiaoxia, Han Sheng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although selpercatinib has shown clinical benefits for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), its cost-effectiveness requires further evaluation.
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of RET fusion-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the United States (US) payer.
METHOD: A partitioned survival model was developed based on data from the LIBRETTO-431 trial. Cost and utility values for the health state were obtained from database data or published literature. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the model.
RESULTS: Selpercatinib increased QALYs in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC by 0.90 compared to chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab, with an additional cost of $542,517.45, resulting in an ICER of $603,286.49/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold ($150,000) in the US. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of progressed disease, the utility of progression-free survival, the price of selpercatinib, the discount, the price of pemetrexed, and the price of pembrolizumab had the greatest influence on the cost- effectiveness analysis process. In the PSA, 99.9% of the scatter points were distributed above the US WTP threshold of $150,000.
CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the US payer, selpercatinib is not cost-effective compared to chemotherapy and pembrolizumab for first-line treatment in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC.
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of RET fusion-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the United States (US) payer.
METHOD: A partitioned survival model was developed based on data from the LIBRETTO-431 trial. Cost and utility values for the health state were obtained from database data or published literature. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the model.
RESULTS: Selpercatinib increased QALYs in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC by 0.90 compared to chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab, with an additional cost of $542,517.45, resulting in an ICER of $603,286.49/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold ($150,000) in the US. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of progressed disease, the utility of progression-free survival, the price of selpercatinib, the discount, the price of pemetrexed, and the price of pembrolizumab had the greatest influence on the cost- effectiveness analysis process. In the PSA, 99.9% of the scatter points were distributed above the US WTP threshold of $150,000.
CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the US payer, selpercatinib is not cost-effective compared to chemotherapy and pembrolizumab for first-line treatment in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC.