Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28115857›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2017

Costs of adverse events associated with erlotinib or afatinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

Dolores Isla, Javier De Castro, Oscar Juan, Santiago Grau, Javier Orofino, Rocío Gordo, Carlos Rubio-Terrés, Darío Rubio-Rodríguez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in patients 60 years and older with Clostridium difficile infection: cost-effectiveness analysis in Spain.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019
    Article
  9. Clinical Utility of RapidJCO precision oncology · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dolores IslaMedical Oncology Department, Clinical Universitary Hospital Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza.
Javier De CastroMedical Oncology Department, Universitary Hospital La Paz, Madrid.
Oscar JuanMedical Oncology Department, Universitary and Polytechnic Hospital La Fe, Valencia.
Santiago GrauPharmacy Department, Del Mar Hospital, Barcelona.
Javier OrofinoRoche Farma, S.A., Health Economics.
Rocío GordoRoche Farma, S.A., Health Economics.
Carlos Rubio-TerrésHealth Value, Health Economics, Madrid, Spain.
Darío Rubio-RodríguezHealth Value, Health Economics, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEpidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are an established treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation. According to published meta-analyses, no significant efficacy differences have been demonstrated between erlotinib and afatinib. However, the incidence of EGFR-TKI-related adverse events (AEs) was lower with erlotinib. This study compares the cost of management of the AEs associated with these two drugs from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

methodsThe frequency of AEs was established from a recently published meta-analysis. In Spain, the daily cost of both drugs can be considered similar; as a result, only the costs of management of the AEs were considered. Costs and resource utilization in the management of the AEs were estimated by a panel of Spanish oncologists and from studies previously carried out in Spain. A probabilistic analysis was performed based on a Monte Carlo simulation.

resultsThe model generated 1,000 simulations. The total cost per patient treated with erlotinib and afatinib was €657.44 and €1,272.15, respectively. With erlotinib, the cost per patient and per AE of grades ≤2 and ≥3 was €550.86 and €106.58, respectively, whereas the cost with afatinib was €980.63 and €291.52, respectively. The reduction in the number of AEs with erlotinib could avoid a mean cost for the NHS of €614.71 (95% CI: €342.57-881.29) per patient.

conclusionIn advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients, first-line treatment with erlotinib could reduce health care costs for the NHS, due to a decrease in the AE rate compared with afatinib. In long-term treatments, the avoidance of complications and the lowering of costs associated with the management of AEs are relevant factors that contribute to the sustainability of the health system.

Indexed as

adverse eventafatinibcost analysiserlotinibnon-small cell lung cancer

Identifiers

PMID28115857
PMCPMC5221482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.