Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33292314›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2020

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib vs. crizotinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Hong Kong.

Herbert H Loong, Carlos K H Wong, Linda K S Leung, Catherine P K Chan, Andrea Chang, Zheng-Yi Zhou, Jipan Xie, Meaghan Gibbs

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Herbert H LoongDepartment of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. h_loong@clo.cuhk.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6607-1106
Carlos K H WongDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Linda K S LeungDepartment of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Catherine P K ChanNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Hong Kong, China.
Andrea ChangNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Hong Kong, China.
Zheng-Yi ZhouAnalysis Group, Inc, London, UK.
Jipan XieAnalysis Group, Inc, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Meaghan GibbsNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HKNovartis (China) · CNAnalysis Group (United States) · USInstitute of Group Analysis · GBUniversity of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLower-dose ceritinib (450 mg) once-daily with food was approved in 2018 in Hong Kong (HK) for first-line treatment of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK +) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study examined the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib vs. crizotinib in the first-line treatment of ALK + NSCLC from a HK healthcare service provider's or government's perspective.

methodsCosts and effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs. crizotinib over a 20-year time horizon was evaluated using a partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressed disease, and death). The efficacy data for ceritinib were obtained from a phase 3 trial comparing ceritinib with chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4) and extrapolated using parametric survival models. Long-term survival associated with crizotinib were estimated using hazard ratio of crizotinib vs. ceritinib obtained from matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014 trials. Drug acquisition, administration, adverse events costs, and medical costs associated with each health state were obtained from public sources and converted to 2018 US Dollars. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY) gained were estimated for ceritinib vs. crizotinib.

resultsThe base case results showed that ceritinib was associated with 3.22 QALYs, 4.51 LYs, and total costs of $157,581 over 20 years. Patients receiving crizotinib had 2.68 QALYs, 3.85 LYs, and $150,424 total costs over the same time horizon. The incremental cost per QALY gained for ceritinib vs crizotinib was $13,343. Results were robust to deterministic sensitivity analyses in most scenarios.

conclusionCeritinib offers a cost-effective option compared to crizotinib for previously untreated ALK + advanced NCSLC in HK.

Indexed as

Advanced non-small cell lung cancerAnaplastic lymphoma kinase-positiveCeritinib; cost-effectivenessHong kong

Identifiers

PMID33292314
PMCPMC7648263
OpenAlexW3105923358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.