Utility values associated with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: data needs for economic modeling

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Cost-effectiveness analyses often inform healthcare reimbursement decisions. The preferred measure of effectiveness is the quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, where the quality of life adjustment is measured in terms of utility.

Areas covered: We assessed the availability and variation of utility values for health states associated with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to identify values appropriate for cost-effectiveness models assessing alternative treatments. Our systematic search of six electronic databases (January 2000 to August 2015) found the current literature to be sparse in terms of utility values associated with NSCLC, identifying 27 studies. Utility values were most frequently reported over time and by treatment type, and less frequently by disease response, stage of disease, adverse events or disease comorbidities.

Expert commentary: In response to rising healthcare costs, payers increasingly consider the cost-effectiveness of novel treatments in reimbursement decisions, especially in oncology. As the number of therapies available to treat NSCLC increases, cost-effectiveness analyses will play a key role in reimbursement decisions in this area. Quantifying the relationship between health and quality of life for NSCLC patients via utility values is an important component of assessing the cost effectiveness of novel treatments.

KEYWORDS:

• Non-small cell lung cancer
• NSCLC
• Cost-effectiveness analysis
• Utility
• Health state
• Health-related quality of life

Declaration of interest

J Brown is employed by EliLilly and Company and holds equity in the company. K Cook and K Adamski are employed by Analysis Group, and Analysis Group received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct the research of this paper. J Lau was formerly employed by Analysis Group, and Analysis Group received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct the research of this paper. D Bargo and S Breen were formerly employed by Eli Lilly and company. A Chawla is employed by Analysis Group, and Analysis Group received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct the research of this paper. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. Publications listed on ClinicaTrials.gov for the following trials were reviewed for inclusion on 16 September 2015: NCT00095199, NCT00102804, NCT00762034, NCT00556322, NCT00312377, NCT00148798, NCT01040780, NCT01017874, NCT00556712, NCT00048997, NCT00449033, NCT00322452.

Additional information

Funding

The research was funded by Eli Lilly and company.