Cited by 124Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib in the First-Line Treatment of Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Open access
Aguiar, Pedro N., Haaland, Benjamin, Park, Wungki, San Tan, Pui, del Giglio, Auro, de Lima Lopes, Gilberto·2018·JAMA Oncology

Abstract

Importance: The survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations has improved substantially in the last decade with the development of targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients who develop EGFR T790M mutations, has recently shown improved clinical outcomes compared with gefitinib and erlotinib for treatment-naive patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we extracted individual patient data from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial and used findings of our earlier meta-analysis to develop a decision-analytic model and determine the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib (AZD9291) compared with first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs over a 10-year time horizon. All direct costs were based on US and Brazilian payer perspectives. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by using osimertinib compared with first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs in previously untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Results: In the base case using the data as reported in the FLAURA trial, the incremental QALY for osimertinib was 0.594 compared with the first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs. In the United States, the osimertinib ICERs were $226 527 vs erlotinib, $231 123 vs gefitinib, and $219 874 vs afatinib. In Brazil, the ICERs were $162 329, $180 804, and $175 432, respectively. The overall survival (95% CI) reported in the FLAURA trial (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88) had the strongest association with the ICER (ranging from $84 342 to $859 771). Osimertinib price adjustments to the FLAURA trial data improved cost-effectiveness. For example, a discount of 10% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 20% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER, and a discount of 20% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 40% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER. Conclusions and Relevance: At current costs, by World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold criteria, osimertinib is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC in either the United States or Brazil.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1395

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent analysis suggested that osimertinib is not a cost-effective first-line therapy compared with first- or second-generation TKIs in EGFRm+ NSCLC.

    “a recent analysis of the cost-effectiveness of first-line EGFR TKIs in patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC suggested that osimertinib is not a cost-effective first-line therapy compared with first- or second-generation TKIs.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aguiar, P. N., Haaland, B., Park, W., San Tan, P., del Giglio, A., & de Lima Lopes, G.
Affiliations
  • Faculdade de Medicina do ABC (BR)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
  • Centro de Estudos e Pesquisa de Hematologia e Oncologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Santo André, Brazil
  • Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, Miami, Florida
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Published
2018-08-01
Volume
4
Issue
8
Pages
1080
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2805264144
Cited by
124
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7
FWCI
26.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Keywords
osimertinib, EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, first-line therapy, cost-effectiveness, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, FLAURA trial, quality-adjusted life years, decision-analytic model, payer perspective, Brazil, United States, overall survival, treatment-naive patients
MeSH terms
Erlotinib Hydrochloride, Gefitinib, Afatinib, Acrylamides, Aniline Compounds, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Brazil, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Indoles, Lung Neoplasms, Mutation, Prognosis, Pyrimidines, United States, ErbB Receptors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review