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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cost Analysis of Adverse Event Management of Systemic Therapies for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer on Patients with at Least Two Previous Lines of Treatment in Spain.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Chondroitin Sulphate (with or without Glucosamine) Prescription in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis Compared to NSAIDs and COXIBs.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab combined with radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer in Spain.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- Estimating Costs Associated with Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets and dimethyl fumarate in the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
- Analysis of the Health and Budgetary Impact of Chondroitin Sulfate Prescription in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis Compared to NSAIDs and COXIBs.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2020Article
- 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 · 2019Article
- Clinical Utility of RapidJCO precision oncology · 2018Article
- Cost-benefit analysis of ALK diagnosis vs. non-diagnosis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Spain.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.