A comparison of the estimated costs of erlotinib,docetaxel and pemetrexed for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer from the German healthcare perspective

Summary

The estimated costs of second-line therapy with erlotinib versus docetaxel or pemetrexed were analysed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) assuming the survival benefits delivered by these three drugs are comparable. Direct total costs to the German statutory health insurance system per patient per quarter were compared, including the impact of grade 3/4 side effects. Resource utilisation data came from clinical studies and/or were supplemented on the basis of guidelines/prescribing information. Basic costs per patient per quarter were: erlotinib €8,172; docetaxel €8,055; and pemetrexed €15,870. Including the cost of managing side effects, the total cost per patient per quarter with erlotinib was €8,376 compared with €9,976 for docetaxel and €16,596 for pemetrexed. The main influence on the cost analysis was the management of haematological side effects associated with docetaxel and to a lesser extent pemetrexed. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Based on its favourable side-effect profile, erlotinib offers health economic advantages over docetaxel and pemetrexed in relapsed advanced NSCLC in Germany.     

Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness in Canada of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel or nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy.

Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed. Clinical inputs were obtained from the phase III OAK trial comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric models. A cure model assuming a 1% cure fraction was fitted to the OS data for atezolizumab. Outcomes for nivolumab were informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) vs atezolizumab. Resource use and costs were informed by clinical expert opinion and published Canadian sources. Utility values were obtained from the OAK trial. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Canadian publicly-funded healthcare system. The base case time horizon was 10?years, and the discount rate was 1.5% annually for both costs and effects. Scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results and all analyses were performed probabilistically.

Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.60 compared with docetaxel at an incremental cost of $85,073, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $142,074/QALY. Atezolizumab dominated nivolumab (regardless of dosing regimen), based on modest differences in both QALYs and costs. Docetaxel was most likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below $125,000/QALY gained, while atezolizumab was most likely to be cost effective beyond this WTP threshold. In most scenario analyses, the results remained robust to changes in parameters. A reduced time horizon and alternative approaches to the NMA had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results.

Conclusion: Atezolizumab represents a cost-effective therapeutic option in Canada for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC who progress after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy.     

Targeted erlotinib for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a budget impact analysis

Objectives:

A recent phase III trial showed that patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors harbor specific EGFR mutations significantly benefit from first-line treatment with erlotinib compared to chemotherapy. This study sought to estimate the budget impact if coverage for EGFR testing and erlotinib as first-line therapy were provided in a hypothetical 500,000-member managed care plan.

Methods:

The budget impact model was developed from a US health plan perspective to evaluate administration of the EGFR test and treatment with erlotinib for EGFR-positive patients, compared to non-targeted treatment with chemotherapy. The eligible patient population was estimated from age-stratified SEER incidence data. Clinical data were derived from key randomized controlled trials. Costs related to drug, administration, and adverse events were included. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

In a plan of 500,000 members, it was estimated there would be 91 newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC patients annually; 11 are expected to be EGFR-positive. Based on the testing and treatment assumptions, it was estimated that 3 patients in Scenario 1 and 6 patients in Scenario 2 receive erlotinib. Overall health plan expenditures would increase by $0.013 per member per month (PMPM). This increase is largely attributable to erlotinib drug costs, in part due to lengthened progression-free survival and treatment periods experienced in erlotinib-treated patients. EGFR testing contributes slightly, whereas adverse event costs mitigate the budget impact. The budget impact did not exceed $0.019 PMPM in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Coverage for targeted first-line erlotinib therapy in NSCLC likely results in a small budget impact for US health plans. The estimated impact may vary by plan, or if second-line or maintenance therapy, dose changes/interruptions, or impact on patients’ quality-of-life were included.     

The economic advantages of response in the treatment of advanced breast cancer

Summary

The introduction of a new class of drugs, the taxoids, has dramatically improved the outlook for patients with advanced, metastatic breast cancer. Second-line monotherapy with the most effective taxoid, docetaxel, in patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer, shows an overall response rate up to 55% in this patient population. Increased response rate is associated with improved quality of life for these patients.

We carried out a cost analysis to determine the economic benefits of being in a response state compared with the other health states associated with advanced breast cancer: stable, progressive or terminal disease.

We found that the cost of care for responders is 40% of that for early progressive disease and just over a third of that for late progressive disease. The costs associated with stable disease are only a little less than those for progressive disease, and are more than double the costs for patients who have responded to chemotherapy. The costs during terminal disease are the highest, and are more than nine times those associated with caring for responders.

Our findings confirm other studies which demonstrate that the cost of chemotherapy can be offset against the reduction in costs incurred for patients who remain in healthier states for longer. The key parameter determining the economic efficiency of treatments for advanced breast cancer is response rate.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia

Aim:

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for sequential treatments of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) after failure of 1st line imatinib, from a commercial payer perspective in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate lifetime treatment costs and health outcomes for TKI sequences for treatment of patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib. Five health states were included, chronic phase 2nd-line TKI, chronic phase 3rd-line TKI, chronic phase post-TKI, advanced phases, and death. Efficacy (response achievement, loss of response, transformation, death) and safety (adverse events incidence, discontinuation) data are based on clinical trials. Resource utilization, costs, and utilities were based on product labels and publically available data. Uncertainty analyses were conducted for key inputs.

Results:

In patients failing imatinib, dasatinib-initiating treatment sequences provide the most survival (ΔLYs?=?0.2–2.0), QALYs (ΔQALYs?=?0.2–1.9), and accrue highest CML-related costs (ΔCosts?=?$64,000–$222,000). The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs imatinib-initiating sequences is $100,000 for an imatinib-resistant population. The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs nilotinib-initiating sequences is $170,000 for an imatinib-resistant population, and $160,000 for an imatinib-intolerant population.

Conclusions:

This analysis suggests that dasatinib is associated with increased survival and quality of life compared to high dose imatinib and to a smaller extent with nilotinib, among patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib, primarily based on higher cytogenetic response rates observed in clinical studies of dasatinib. Head-to-head studies of sequential use of dasatinib and nilotinib are needed to validate the model findings of improved survival (LYs) with better quality-of-life (QALYs) for patients initiating dasatinib in 2nd-line. However, the model findings (in light of higher cytogenetic response rates with dasatinib) are supported by other studies showing improved quality-of-life for responders, and improved survival for patients achieving cytogenetic response.     

Financial consequences of a payment-by-results scheme in Catalonia: gefitinib in advanced EGFR-mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer

Background: In 2011 the first payment-by-results (PbR) scheme in Catalonia was signed between the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), the Catalan Health Service, and AstraZeneca (AZ) for the introduction of gefitinib in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer. The PbR scheme includes two evaluation points: at week 8, responses, stabilization and progression were evaluated, and at week 16 stabilization was confirmed. AZ was to reimburse the total treatment cost of patients that failed treatment, defined as progression at weeks 8 or 16.

Objective: To estimate the financial consequences of this PbR reimbursement model and determine the perception of the stakeholders involved in the agreement.

Methods: Differential drug costs between two scenarios, with and without the PbR, were calculated. A qualitative investigation of the organizational elements was performed by interviewing the parties involved in the agreement.

Results: Forty-one patients were included from June 2011 to October 2013 and assessed at two evaluation points. Clinical results were comparable to those observed in the pivotal studies of gefitinib. The difference in the cost of gefitinib using the PbR compared to the traditional purchasing scenario was 6.17% less at 8 weeks, 11.18% at 16 weeks and 4.15% less for the overall treatment. The PbR resulted in total savings of around €36,000 (€880 per patient). From an operational and organizational perspective, the availability of adequate data systems to measure outcomes and monitor accountability and the involvement of healthcare professionals were acknowledged as crucial.

Conclusions: Tangible and intangible benefits were identified with respect to the interests of the parties involved. This has led to the incorporation of innovation for patients under acceptable conditions.     

Budget impact of erlotinib for maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

Objective:

Assess the budgetary impact of adding erlotinib for maintenance therapy (MTx) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US health plan perspective.

Methods:

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the costs (drug, administration, adverse events) associated with adding erlotinib MTx to a hypothetical 500,000 member US health plan. Treatment durations and dosing were derived from randomized controlled trials, FDA labeling, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Treatment patterns and assumptions were based on market research data, the SEER registry, and published literature. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payment rates and a drug pricing database. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

Overall health plan expenditures increased by $0.010 per member per month (PMPM). The main driver of additional cost was the erlotinib drug cost (～$66,000) with the administration ($464) and side-effect ($47) costs being relatively modest. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the proportion of members receiving MTx; however, the PMPM did not exceed $0.013.

Conclusions:

The overall budget impact to a health plan of expanding the use of erlotinib from the 2nd/3rd-line advanced NSCLC setting to include the maintenance setting was relatively small. This was primarily due to the proportion of patients who would receive erlotinib MTx, the low cost of side-effects and minimal cost of drug administration. Additional research may be warranted to estimate the relative clinical and economic impacts of erlotinib MTx versus alternative MTx treatments.     

Healthcare costs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and disease progression during targeted therapy: a real-world observational study

Aims: To assess healthcare costs during treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and following disease progression in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A retrospective analysis of medical records of US community oncology practices was conducted. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB/IV) diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2015, initiated treatment with erlotinib or afatinib (first-line or second-line), and had disease progression. Monthly Medicare-paid costs were evaluated during the TKI therapy period and following progression.

Results: The study included 364 patients. The total mean monthly cost during TKI therapy was $20,106 (95% confidence interval [CI]?=?$16,836–$23,376), of which 47.0% and 42.4% represented hospitalization costs and anti-cancer therapy costs, respectively. Following progression on TKI therapy (data available for 316 patients), total mean monthly cost was $19,274 (95% CI?=?$15,329–$23,218), and was higher in the 76.3% of patients who received anti-cancer therapy following progression than in the 23.7% of those who did not ($20,490 vs $15,364; p?<?.001). Among patients who received it, anti-cancer therapy ($11,198; 95% CI?=?$7,102–$15,295) represented 54.7% of total mean monthly cost. Among patients who did not receive anti-cancer therapy, hospitalization ($13,829; 95% CI?=?$4,922–$22,736) represented 90.0% of total mean monthly cost. Impaired performance status and brain metastases were significant predictors of increased cost during TKI therapy.

Limitations: The study design may limit the generalizability of findings.

Conclusions: Healthcare costs during TKI treatment and following progression appeared to be similar and were largely attributed to hospitalization and anti-cancer therapy. Notably, almost one-quarter of patients did not receive anti-cancer therapy following progression, potentially indicating an unmet need; hospitalization was the largest cost contributor for these patients. Additional effective targeted therapies are needed that could prolong progression-free survival, leading to fewer hospitalizations for EGFR mutation-positive patients.     

Cost-effectiveness implications of increased survival with anastrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer

Summary

Anastrozole (Arimidex*) has a survival benefit compared with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who have failed on tamoxifen. It was felt appropriate that such a clinical finding should be subjected to economic evaluation.

A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the viewpoint of a third-party payer, of the data from a combined analysis of two clinical studies. The outcome measures were duration of drug treatment and life years gained. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anastrozole was £1,608 per life year gained based on UK NHS drug prices in April 1998. Sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER could vary between £5 and £1,643, depending on relative drug costs in a number of countries, between £1,056 and £1,761, depending on the method used to calculate duration of treatment and survival, and could increase to £3,730, based on treatment provided during the extra period of survival.

Anastrozole is a highly cost-effective alternative to megestrol acetate for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in patients previously treated with crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer in Canada

Background: To assess the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib vs alternatives in patients who discontinue treatment with crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a Canadian public healthcare perspective.

Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable, progressive, and death) was developed. Comparators were chosen based on reported utilization from a retrospective Canadian chart study; comparators were pemetrexed, best supportive care (BSC), and historical control (HC). HC comprised of all treatment alternatives reported. Progression-free survival and overall survival for ceritinib were estimated using data reported from single-arm clinical trials (ASCEND-1 [NCT01283516] and ASCEND-2 [NCT01685060]). Survival data for comparators were obtained from published clinical trials in a NSCLC population and from a Canadian retrospective chart study. Parametric models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the trial period. Drug acquisition, administration, resource use, and adverse event (AE) costs were obtained from databases. Utilities for health states and disutilities for AEs based on EQ-5D were derived from literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were estimated. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Over 4 years, ceritinib was associated with 0.86 QALYs and total direct costs of $89,740 for the post-ALK population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $149,117 comparing ceritinib vs BSC, $80,100 vs pemetrexed, and $104,436 vs HC. Additional scenarios included comparison to docetaxel with an ICER of $149,780 and using utility scores reported from PROFILE 1007, with a reported ICER ranging from $67,311 vs pemetrexed to $119,926 vs BSC. Due to limitations in clinical efficacy input, extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out whereby results remained consistent with the base-case findings.

Conclusion: Based on the willingness-to-pay threshold for end-of-life cancer drugs, ceritinib may be considered as a cost-effective option compared with other alternatives in patients who have progressed or are intolerant to crizotinib in Canada.     

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer

Aim: This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy.

Methods and materials: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed. Direct costs included disease management, treatment-related (acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events), and T790M testing costs. Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison was applied to reduce the potential bias in the non-randomized comparison. Parametric functions were utilized to extrapolate survival beyond the observed period. Health state utility values were calculated from EQ-5D data collected in the trials and valued using UK tariffs. Resource use and costs were based on published sources.

Results: Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained). Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000.

Limitations: The analysis is subject to some level of uncertainty inherent to phase 2 single-arm data and the immaturity of the currently available survival data for osimertinib.

Conclusions: Osimertinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PDC in the second-line setting in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive NSCLC from a UK payer perspective. Further data from the ongoing AURA clinical trial program will reduce the inherent uncertainty in the analysis.     

Treatment cost of non-small cell lung cancer in three European countries: comparisons across France,Germany, and England using administrative databases

Abstract

Introduction:

Lung cancer is a highly prevalent condition with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), representing ～ 80%. Given its high prevalence and poor survival rates, it is important to understand costs associated with NSCLC treatment.     

Budget impact analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Aims: Broad molecular profiling of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is strongly advised to optimize genomic matching with available targeted treatment options or investigational agents. Unlike conventional molecular diagnostic testing, or smaller hotspot panels, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) identifies genomic alterations across hundreds of clinically relevant cancer genes from a single tissue specimen. The present study sought to estimate the budget impact of increased use of CGP using a 324-gene panel (FoundationOne) vs non-CGP (represented by a mix of conventional molecular diagnostic testing and smaller NGS hotspot panels) and the number needed to test with CGP to gain 1 life year.

Materials and methods: A decision analytic model was developed to assess the budget impact of increased CGP in advanced NSCLC from a US private payer perspective. Model inputs were based on published literature (epidemiology and treatment outcomes), real-world data (testing and rates, medical service costs), list prices for CGP and anti-cancer drugs, and assumptions for clinical trial participation.

Results: Among 2 million covered lives, 532 had advanced NSCLC; 266 underwent molecular diagnostic testing. An increase in CGP among those tested, from 2% to 10%, was associated with $0.02 per member per month budget impact, of which $0.013 was attributable to costs of prolonged drug treatment and survival and $0.005 to testing cost. Approximately 12 patients would need to be tested with CGP to add 1 life year.

Limitations: The model incorporated certain assumptions to account for inputs with a limited evidence profile and simplify the possible post-CGP treatments.

Conclusions: An increase in CGP utilization from 2% to 10% among patients with advanced NSCLC undergoing molecular diagnostic testing was associated with a modest budget impact, most of which was attributable to increased use of more effective treatments and prolonged survival.     

Drug wastage and costs to the healthcare system in the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Background: Lung cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the US. This study was designed to evaluate the actual drug wastage and cost to the healthcare system using patient-level retrospective observational electronic medical record (EMR) data from a cohort of lung cancer patients in the US.

Methods: Data from the Flatiron Health advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort was used for this study. Drug administered amount (in mg) was used to determine an optimal set of available vial sizes to minimize waste. Drug wastage was defined as the difference between the drug amount in the optimal set of vials and the administered amount. Wholesale acquisition costs were used to value the cost of drugs, with and without vial sharing assumptions. The amount and cost of waste were quantified over the 2-year study period (January 2015–December 2016).

Results: There were 8,467 eligible patients included in this study, providing data from 103,826 unique drug administrations across multiple lines of therapy. Overall wastage was 4.37% of the total medication used to care for patients. While costs per administration were low, the total cost of wastage for the study population represented $16,630,112 across the 2-year study period. Assuming that vial sharing occurred at the site level slightly reduced waste to 3.74% (reducing costs to $15,953,212 over 2 years).

Conclusions: Drug wastage is an important concern and has implications on healthcare costs in NSCLC. Evaluation of these real-world data suggest that pharmacists and physicians are able to reduce drug wastage by optimizing vial combinations and sharing vials among patients. Even small amounts of reduction in wastage could be useful in reducing healthcare costs in the US; however, caution is needed with drug rounding efforts to ensure patients do not receive a sub-optimal dose of medication.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of secukinumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: a Canadian perspective

Objective: The study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin (IL)-17A, vs currently licensed biologic treatments in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from a Canadian healthcare system perspective.

Methods: A decision analytic semi-Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab 150?mg and 300?mg compared to subcutaneous biologics adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and ustekinumab, and intravenous biologics infliximab and infliximab biosimilar in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients over a lifetime horizon. The response to treatments was evaluated after 12 weeks by PsA Response Criteria (PsARC) response rates. Non-responders or patients discontinuing initial-line of biologic treatment were allowed to switch to subsequent-line biologics. Model input parameters (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI], Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ], withdrawal rates, costs, and resource use) were collected from clinical trials, published literature, and other Canadian sources. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). An annual discount rate of 5% was applied to costs and benefits. The robustness of the study findings were evaluated via sensitivity analyses.

Results: Biologic-naive patients treated with secukinumab achieved the highest number of QALYs (8.54) at the lowest cost (CAD 925,387) over a lifetime horizon vs all comparators. Secukinumab dominated all treatments, except for infliximab and its biosimilar, which achieved minimally more QALYs (8.58). However, infliximab and its biosimilar incurred more costs than secukinumab (infliximab: CAD 1,015,437; infliximab biosimilar: CAD 941,004), resulting in higher cost-effectiveness estimates relative to secukinumab. In the biologic-experienced population, secukinumab dominated all treatments as it generated more QALYs (8.89) at lower costs (CAD 954,692). Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated the results were most sensitive to variation in PsARC response rates, change in HAQ, and utility values in both populations.

Conclusions: Secukinumab is either dominant or cost-effective vs all licensed biologics for the treatment of active PsA in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced populations in Canada.     

Healthcare costs associated with bevacizumab and cetuximab in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the health care costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received second-line treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab) versus Erbitux (cetuximab), from the third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were selected from the PharMetrics claims database if they received second-line therapy containing either bevacizumab (second-line bevacizumab cohort) or cetuximab (second-line cetuximab cohort). Six-month costs following second-line therapy start date and average monthly healthcare costs while on second-line therapy (in 2009 US$) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results:

A total of 2188 patients with mCRC who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis, including 1808 patients receiving bevacizumab and 380 patients receiving cetuximab in second-line treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients’ mean age was 61 years and 56% were males. In second-line treatment, bevacizumab was commonly used with oxaliplatin (43.5%) and irinotecan-based regimens (40.4%), whereas cetuximab was commonly used with irinotecan-based regimens (68.2%). Bevacizumab patients had significantly lower total all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients (adjusted difference: –$10,231, p?=?0.020), and lower medical costs (–$10,796, p?=?0.012) during the 6 months following second-line therapy initiation. Approximately half of the difference in total all-cause healthcare costs was attributable to the lower chemotherapy and targeted therapy costs (–$5635, p?=?0.032) of bevacizumab patients than those of cetuximab patients. While on second-line therapy, bevacizumab patients also had lower average monthly all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients.

Limitations:

Second-line treatment in the current study was defined based on changes in mCRC medications, not based on disease progression due to the limited clinical information available in claims.

Conclusion:

The use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in mCRC patients, compared to the use of cetuximab.     

Brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients on epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: symptom and economic burden

Objective: This study describes the symptom and economic burden associated with brain metastases (BM) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs).

Methods: This retrospective study included adults with ≥2 medical claims, within 90 days, for lung cancer and ≥1 administration of EGFR-TKIs. Based on ICD-9 codes, patients were stratified into cohorts by type of metastases (BM, other metastases [OM], or no metastases [NM]), and by when the metastasis diagnosis occurred (synchronous or asynchronous).

Results: The population (synchronous BM [SBM]?=?24, synchronous OM [SOM]?=?23, asynchronous BM [ASBM]?=?15, asynchronous OM [ASOM]?=?49, NM?=?85) was mostly female (57%), average age 69 years (SD?=?11). SBM patients experienced more fatigue and nausea/vomiting compared with SOM and NM patients and more headaches and loss of appetite than NM patients. ASBM was associated with more fatigue, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain/numbness, altered mental status, and seizures than NM, and more headaches and pain/numbness than ASOM. SBM patients experienced a greater increase in per-member-per-month all-cause total healthcare costs after diagnosis ($20,301) vs SOM ($9,131, p?=?.001) and NM ($2,493, p?=?.001). ASBM’s cost increase between baseline and follow-up ($7,867) did not differ from ASOM’s ($4,947, p?=?.195); both were larger than NM ($2,493, p?=?.001 and p?=?.009, respectively).

Limitations: EGFR mutation status was inferred based on EGFR-TKI treatment, not by molecular testing. Patients were from US commercial insurance plans; results may not be generalizable to other populations.

Conclusions: Among patients with EGFR-TKI-treated NSCLC, patients with BM experienced more symptoms and, when diagnosed synchronously, had significant increases in total medical costs vs patients with OM and NM. Therapeutic options with central nervous system activity may offer advantages in symptomatology and costs in EGFR-mutated patients with BM.     

中医辨证配合化疗治疗晚期肺癌临床分析

目的探究中医辨证配合化疗对晚期肺癌患者的临床治疗效果。方法将我院2011年1月～2012年1月接诊的53例晚期肺癌患者作为研究对象,随机分为研究组与对照组。对照组患者单纯采用化疗治疗,研究组则在对照组的基础上配合中医辨证治疗。对两组病患的治疗效果进行总结与对比。结果研究组治疗前平均分为58.45分,治疗后为71.35分,对照组治疗前平均分为58.13分,治疗后为49.63分;研究组27例患者半年的生存率为81.48%,一年的生存率为48.15%,对照组26例患者半年生存率为46.15%,一年生存率为15.38%;治疗效果上,研究组总有效率为40.74%,对照组总有效率为15.38%。结论对于晚期肺癌患者而言,采用中医辨证配合西医化疗治疗,除了可以提高患者对化疗的耐受性之外,还能明显提高患者的生存质量,当属一种值得临床推广及应用的治疗方法。     

批评性语篇分析之基于系统功能语法透视三维分析模式

阐述了如何应用系统功能语法和三维分析模式进行批评性语篇分析,具体包括对Fairclough的三维分析模式和Halliday的系统功能语法的说明,以及在进行批评性语篇分析时如何采用Halliday的系统功能语法补充和发展Fairclough的三维分析模式。