Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Spain

• DOI: 10.2147/ceor.s415711
• Publication Date: 2023-09-07T04:00:29Z
• Authors: María Presa; David Vicente; Antonio Calles; Laura Salinas-Ortega; Jaesh Naik; Luis F García; Javier Soto
• Keywords: ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research; Medicine (General); R5-920; advanced non-small cell lung cancer; lorlatinib; cost-effectiveness analysis; cost-utility analysis; Therapeutics. Pharmacology; RM1-950; alk+; 3. Good health; Original Research

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of lorlatinib compared to alectinib and brigatinib for the treatment of adult patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously not treated, in Spain.A partitioned survival model comprised progression free, non-intracranial progression, intracranial progression, and death health states was constructed to estimate the total costs, life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accumulated in a lifetime horizon. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for lorlatinib were obtained from the CROWN study. For alectinib and brigatinib, a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted to estimate OS and PFS hazard ratios versus crizotinib. Utilities were estimated based on EQ-5D-5L data derived from the CROWN (lorlatinib), ALEX (alectinib) and ALTA-1L (brigatinib) studies. According to the Spanish National Health Service perspective the total costs (expressed in euros using a 2021 cost year) included drug acquisition and the administration's subsequent treatment, ALK+ advanced NSCLC management and adverse-event management, and palliative care. Unitary costs were obtained from local cost databases and literature. Costs, LYGs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the model's robustness.Lorlatinib provided higher health outcomes (+0.70 LYG/patient, +1.42 QALYs/patient) and lower costs (-€9239/patient) than alectinib. Lorlatinib yielded higher LYG (+1.74) and QALYs (+2.30) versus brigatinib but higher costs/patient (+€36,627), resulting in an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of €15,912/QALY gained.The results of this study suggest that lorlatinib may be a dominant treatment option versus alectinib. Considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000/QALY, lorlatinib may be an efficient option compared to brigatinib.