File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib in first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients in Hong Kong

TitleEffectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib in first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients in Hong Kong
Authors
Issue Date2014
PublisherHong Kong Academy of Medicine Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hkmj.org.hk
Citation
Hong Kong Medical Journal, 2014, v. 20 n. 3, p. 178-186 How to Cite?
AbstractOBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients. DESIGN. Indirect treatment comparison and a cost-effectiveness assessment. SETTING: Hong Kong. PATIENTS: Those having epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Erlotinib versus gefitinib use was compared on the basis of four relevant Asian phase-III randomised controlled trials: one for erlotinib (OPTIMAL) and three for gefitinib (IPASS; NEJGSG; WJTOG). The cost-effectiveness assessment model simulates the transition between the health states: progression-free survival, progression, and death over a lifetime horizon. The World Health Organization criterion (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <3 times of gross domestic product/capita:
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/193591
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.887
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.279

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLee, VWYen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchwander, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, VHFen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-01-20T05:06:04Z-
dc.date.available2014-01-20T05:06:04Z-
dc.date.issued2014en_US
dc.identifier.citationHong Kong Medical Journal, 2014, v. 20 n. 3, p. 178-186en_US
dc.identifier.issn1024-2708-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/193591-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients. DESIGN. Indirect treatment comparison and a cost-effectiveness assessment. SETTING: Hong Kong. PATIENTS: Those having epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Erlotinib versus gefitinib use was compared on the basis of four relevant Asian phase-III randomised controlled trials: one for erlotinib (OPTIMAL) and three for gefitinib (IPASS; NEJGSG; WJTOG). The cost-effectiveness assessment model simulates the transition between the health states: progression-free survival, progression, and death over a lifetime horizon. The World Health Organization criterion (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <3 times of gross domestic product/capita: <US$102 582; approximately <HK$798 078) was used to rate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The best fit of study characteristics and prognostic patient characteristics were found between the OPTIMAL and IPASS trials. Comparing progression-free survival hazard ratios of erlotinib versus gefitinib using only these randomised controlled trials in an indirect treatment comparison resulted in a statistically significant progression-free survival difference in favour of erlotinib (indirect treatment comparison hazard ratio=0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.58; P=0.0001). The cost-effectiveness assessment model showed that the cost per progression-free life year gained and per quality-adjusted life year gained was at acceptable values of US$39 431 (approximately HK$306 773) and US$62 419 (approximately HK$485 619) for erlotinib versus gefitinib, respectively. CONCLUSION: The indirect treatment comparison of OPTIMAL versus IPASS shows that erlotinib is significantly more efficacious than gefitinib. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness assessment indicates that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are well within an acceptable range in relation to the survival benefits obtained. In conclusion, erlotinib is cost-effective compared to gefitinib for first-line epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherHong Kong Academy of Medicine Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hkmj.org.hken_US
dc.relation.ispartofHong Kong Medical Journalen_US
dc.rightsHong Kong Medical Journal. Copyright © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine Press.-
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.titleEffectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib in first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients in Hong Kongen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLee, VHF: vhflee@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLee, VHF=rp00264en_US
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.12809/hkmj133986en_US
dc.identifier.pmid24281768-
dc.identifier.hkuros227211en_US
dc.identifier.volume20-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage178-
dc.identifier.epage186-
dc.publisher.placeHong Kongen_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats