Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Do you wish to request the book?
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer
2019
Overview
In the randomized, active-controlled, multicenter Phase III open-label ALEX trial, alectinib showed superior efficacy and lower toxicity compared with crizotinib in the primary treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer (ALK-positive NSCLC). The aim of this economic evaluation was to assess the cost-utility of alectinib versus crizotinib from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (INHS). A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, post-progression, and death) was used. The clinical data (progression-free survival, overall survival and time to progression) was based on the ALEX trial. Utility values were derived from EQ-5D scores evaluated in the ALEX trial and literature. Costs included drug treatments, progression-free, post-progression and supportive care. Direct medical costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) were discounted at a 3.0% annual rate. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Treatment with alectinib versus crizotinib led to a gain of 2.82 life-years, 1.86 QALYs, and incremental costs of €58,276, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of €31,353 per QALY. The deterministic analysis showed that the most critical parameters in the model were the cost of post-progression and utility scores. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, alectinib had a 64.5% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €40,000 per QALY. Compared with crizotinib, alectinib increased the length of the progression-free state and the QALYs. The incremental overall cost increase was reflective of longer treatment durations in the progression-free state. Compared with crizotinib, alectinib can be considered a valid cost-utility option in the treatment of naive patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.
Publisher
AboutScience Srl
Subject
