Sandjar Djalalov, Jaclyn Beca, and Jeffrey S. Hoch, Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital and Cancer Care Ontario; Sandjar Djalalov, Jaclyn Beca, Jeffrey S. Hoch, Murray Krahn, and Natasha B. Leighl, Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control; Murray Krahn, Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative; Ming-Sound Tsao and Natasha B. Leighl, Ontario Cancer Institute and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto; and Jean-Claude Cutz, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
ALK-targeted therapy with crizotinib offers significant improvement in clinical outcomes for the treatment of EML4-ALK fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We estimated the cost effectiveness of EML4-ALK fusion testing in combination with targeted first-line crizotinib treatment in Ontario.
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from the Canadian Public health (Ontario) perspective and a lifetime horizon in patients with stage IV NSCLC with nonsquamous histology. Transition probabilities and mortality rates were calculated from the Ontario Cancer Registry and Cancer Care Ontario New Drug Funding Program (CCO NDFP). Costs were obtained from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, CCO NDFP, University Health Network, and literature.
Molecular testing with first-line targeted crizotinib treatment in the population with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC resulted in a gain of 0.011 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with standard care. The incremental cost was Canadian $2,725 per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $255,970 per QALY gained. Among patients with known EML4-ALK-positive advanced NSCLC, first-line crizotinib therapy provided 0.379 additional QALYs, cost an additional $95,043 compared with standard care, and produced an ICER of $250,632 per QALY gained. The major driver of cost effectiveness was drug price.
EML4-ALK fusion testing in stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC with crizotinib treatment for ALK-positive patients is not cost effective in the setting of high drug costs and a low biomarker frequency in the population.
To evaluate the cost effectiveness of genetic screening for the apolipoprotein (APOE) e4 allele in combination with preventive donepezil treatment in comparison with the standard of care for amnestic mild cognitive impairment (AMCI) patients in Canada.
We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a societal perspective and a time horizon of 30 years. For each strategy, we calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using utilities from the literature. Costs were also based on the literature and, when appropriate, Ontario sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analysis was conducted to explore the value of future research.
The base case results in our exploratory study suggest that the combination of genetic testing and preventive donepezil treatment resulted in a gain of 0.027 QALYs and an incremental cost of $1,015 (in 2009 Canadian dollars [Can$]), compared with the standard of care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the base case was Can$38,016 per QALY. The ICER was sensitive to the effectiveness of donepezil in slowing the rate of progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD), utility in AMCI patients, and AD and donepezil treatment costs. EVPI analysis showed that additional information on these parameters would be of value.
Using presently available clinical evidence, this exploratory study illustrates that genetic testing combined with preventive donepezil treatment for AMCI patients may be economically attractive. Since our results were based on a secondary post hoc analysis, our study alone is insufficient to warrant recommending APOE genotyping in AMCI patients. Future research on the effectiveness of preventive donepezil as a targeted therapy is recommended.
Westminster International University in Tashkent, Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Tashkent Pharmaceutical Institute, Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: email@example.com.
There is an increasing number of Russian economic evaluation studies in oncology, the scope and quality of which are unknown.
This study aimed to assess the scope and quality of economic evaluations in oncology, with the goal of elucidating implications for improving their use in Russia.
Online databases were searched for oncologic economic evaluations written in Russian. Data were extracted and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. In addition, the QHES was modified to overcome double-barreled items in a single criterion.
Of 29 articles identified, 15 met study criteria and were included in the review. Most studies analyzed cost-effectiveness of first- and second-line therapies for lung and kidney cancer. The others analyzed prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers and lymphoma. The QHES mean quality score for the reviewed studies was 74 (and 69 with the modified tool). Comparison of the quality of different study types revealed that cost utility studies and studies that used decision trees and Markov models had the highest mean quality score. Clear statements regarding bias, study limitations, uncertainty, study perspectives, and funding source were commonly absent in the reviewed studies.
Our review indicates that oncologic economic evaluations published in Russian are limited in scope and number. In addition, they demonstrate opportunities for improvement in several important technical areas.