Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 6 Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors as First-Line Treatment for ALK-Positive NSCLC in China

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer ranks first in both cancer incidence and mortality in China. The emergence of novel treatments for ALK-positive NSCLC led to an improvement in survival and quality of life for patients with advanced ALK mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of 6 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)—crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib—as first-line treatments for ALK-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these 6 TKIs. In this model, ALK-positive NSCLC patients were initially simulated to receive 1 of the 6 TKIs as first-line therapy, followed by different TKIs as subsequent treatment and salvage chemotherapy as last-line treatment. Survival data were sourced from the latest published clinical trials. Costs were derived from recent national health insurance negotiations and hospital information systems of selected health care facilities. Utilities for healthy states and adverse events were obtained from the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis as well as scenario analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Results: Compared to ensartinib, crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib demonstrated incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of −1.13, 0.39, −0.58, −0.09, and 0.35, respectively. The corresponding incremental costs were $10 677, $33 501, −$6426, $2672, and $24 358. This resulted in ICERs of –$9449/QALY, $85 900/QALY, $11 079/QALY, $29 689/QALY and $69 594/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: Crizotinib was considered to be absolutely dominated by ensartinib. Under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38 223/QALY, ceritinib and brigatinib were cost-effective compared with ensartinib, while lorlatinib and alectinib were not cost-effective when compared with ensartinib. Overall, brigatinib emerged as the most cost-effective treatment among all the options considered.