Cost comparison of osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed versus amivantamab plus lazertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES: Novel first-line (1L) combination regimens offer improved efficacy for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm) locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus the standard of care, but their costs have not been comprehensively evaluated. Total and differential costs of 1L osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed, intravenous (IV) amivantamab plus lazertinib, and subcutaneous (SC) amivantamab plus lazertinib were estimated from a United States (US) payer perspective. METHODS: A cost of care model was developed to assess treatment acquisition, administration, disease management, and adverse event (AE) management costs for osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed versus IV and SC amivantamab plus lazertinib for patients with EGFRm NSCLC. A one-year time horizon was chosen to allow for direct treatment comparison; a one-year treatment duration was assumed for treat-to-progression regimen components. RESULTS: The total first-year cost per-patient for osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed (all-payer perspective: $172,600; private perspective: $253,529; Medicare perspective: $84,926) was over twofold lower than for IV amivantamab plus lazertinib (all-payer perspective: $418,176; private perspective: $618,240; Medicare perspective: $201,441) and for SC amivantamab plus lazertinib (all-payer perspective: $419,718; private perspective: $621,166; Medicare perspective: $201,482). This translated to per-patient cost savings of $245,577; $364,711; and $116,514 for osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed versus IV amivantamab plus lazertinib and $247,118; $367,637; and $116,555 versus SC amivantamab plus lazertinib for the all-payer, private, and Medicare perspectives, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Limited data availability necessitated cost conversions across payer perspectives and assumptions for select inputs, including specific concomitant medication durations. Additionally, as any payer-negotiated discounts for treatment are confidential, model treatment acquisition costs reflected list prices. These data limitations contributed to uncertainty surrounding model inputs. CONCLUSIONS: From a US payer perspective, osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed was associated with substantially lower overall costs compared with IV and SC amivantamab plus lazertinib for the 1L treatment of patients with EGFRm locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.