ArticleOncology and therapy2025
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Brigatinib versus Alectinib in First‑Line Treatment of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase‑Positive Advanced Non‑Small‑Cell Lung Cancer in China.
Article in Oncology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBrigatinib and alectinib are anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs) approved in China in 2022 and 2018, respectively, for the treatment of patients with ALK-positive, advanced non‑small‑cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study is to conduct a comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of first-line drugs, brigatinib and alectinib, in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
methodsA partitioned survival model with three health states was used to simulate the health outcomes and costs of brigatinib and alectinib with a 30-year time horizon. Indirect treatment comparisons (ITC) data were used to obtain the comparative efficacy of brigatinib and alectinib, owing to lack of head-to-head trials. As the health benefits were comparable between brigatinib and alectinib on the basis of the ITCs, cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was conducted. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) were also conducted as scenario analyses using the different point estimates from the ITCs. Health state utilities and costs were obtained from public sources or clinical expert opinion. Direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the CMA.
resultsThe CMA showed that, over 30 years, brigatinib (63,539 USD) was associated with cost savings of 14,203 USD compared with alectinib (77,742 USD). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that drug costs were the most influential parameter but brigatinib remained cost-saving in all the analyses. In the CEAs, the total cost of brigatinib was lower in all scenarios and also resulted in higher QALYs in 60% of the CEA scenarios.
conclusionsBrigatinib was a cost-saving (14,203 USD) treatment compared with alectinib in the CMA analysis for the first-line treatment of patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in China.
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.