ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022
Evaluation of osimertinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastases: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-utility analysis in China and the United States.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Osimertinib in Patients With Treatment-Naive EGFR-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Overall Survival, Post-progression Management and Budget Impact Analysis in Real-World.The oncologist · 2024Observational
- Kinetic Characteristics of Curcumin and Germacrone in Rat and Human Liver Microsomes: Involvement of CYP Enzymes.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Few regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with leptomeningeal metastases (LM) patients exist up to date, most with low efficacy. A retrospective analysis showed that osimertinib significantly improved the overall survival of LM patients by 11.5 months (17.0 vs. 5.5) as compared to no osimertinib treatment. Until now, no pharmacoeconomic evaluation of osimertinib has been performed to determine its feasibility for widespread use in LM patients. Aim This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in LM of NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. Methods Based on a retrospective analysis from the Samsung Medical Center, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the lifetime benefits and costs for LM patients who were treated with osimertinib. The main outcomes were cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of model. A budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the annual incremental cost of osimertinib treatment. Results Compared with patients who were not treated with osimertinib, the survival time of patients treated with osimertinib was higher by 0.69 (1.24 vs. 0.55) QALYs. The incremental cost was $11,877 ($29,232 vs. $17,355) and the ICER was $17,214/QALY, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,867/QALY. Osimertinib treatment will increase national cancer spending by $220 million in the first year and increase to $474 million in the fifth year. Conclusions Osimertinib treatment is deemed to be cost-effective for NSCLC with LM patients, however, its use would significantly increase annual cancer spending.
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.