Kimura M, Yasue F, Usami E, Kawachi S, Iwai M, Go M, Ikeda Y, Yoshimura T
Department of Pharmacy, Ogaki Municipal Hospital, Ogaki-shi, Gifu 503-8502, Japan.
Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kinjo Gakuin University, Nagoya-shi, Aichi 463-8521, Japan.
Mol Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug;9(2):201-206. doi: 10.3892/mco.2018.1640. Epub 2018 May 30.
Epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), including gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib are standard first-line treatments for EGFR gene mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The present study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of using erlotinib, afatinib or gefitinib. The safety of EGFR-TKIs was also investigated. Expected costs were calculated based on data from patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer who were treated with gefitinib, erlotinib or afatinib. Literature was collected to obtain the necessary clinical information for calculating the probability and the validity of each chemotherapy. Median survival time (MST) was used to evaluate the therapeutic effect of the regimens. The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated using expected costs and MSTs for the three regimens. The cost-effectiveness ratio per month was JPY 386,859.4/MST for afatinib, JPY 264,788.7/MST for gefitinib and JPY 397,039.9/MST for erlotinib. Significant differences were observed between the three groups (p<0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of gefitinib compared with afatinib per month was JPY 122,070.7/MST. The ICER of gefitinib compared with erlotinib was JPY -69,605.9/MST. Adverse effects of Grade 3 and higher, including diarrhoea (28.6%) and paronychia (14.3%) were observed in the afatinib treatment group. Paronychia (23.1%) was observed in the erlotinib treatment group, while none were observed in the gefitinib treatment group. These findings demonstrate that gefitinib is more cost effective in comparison with the afatinib and erlotinib regimens, although the afatinib and erlotinib regimens were well-tolerated and produce sufficient effects.
表皮生长因子受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(EGFR-TKIs),包括吉非替尼、厄洛替尼和阿法替尼,是表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)基因突变阳性的非小细胞肺癌的标准一线治疗药物。本研究旨在比较使用厄洛替尼、阿法替尼或吉非替尼的成本效益。同时还对EGFR-TKIs的安全性进行了调查。根据接受吉非替尼、厄洛替尼或阿法替尼治疗的晚期EGFR突变阳性非小细胞肺癌患者的数据计算预期成本。收集文献以获取计算每种化疗的概率和有效性所需的临床信息。采用中位生存时间(MST)评估治疗方案的疗效。使用三种治疗方案的预期成本和MST计算成本效益比。阿法替尼每月的成本效益比为386,859.4日元/MST,吉非替尼为264,788.7日元/MST,厄洛替尼为397,039.9日元/MST。三组之间观察到显著差异(p<0.001)。吉非替尼与阿法替尼相比每月的增量成本效益比(ICER)为122,070.7日元/MST。吉非替尼与厄洛替尼相比的ICER为-69,605.9日元/MST。阿法替尼治疗组观察到3级及以上不良反应,包括腹泻(28.6%)和甲沟炎(14.3%)。厄洛替尼治疗组观察到甲沟炎(23.1%),而吉非替尼治疗组未观察到。这些结果表明,与阿法替尼和厄洛替尼治疗方案相比,吉非替尼具有更高的成本效益,尽管阿法替尼和厄洛替尼治疗方案耐受性良好且疗效充分。