FIRST-YEAR COST COMPARISON OF FLAURA2 VERSUS IV MARIPOSA IN EGFR-MUTATED ADVANCED NSCLC IN ARGENTINA
Author(s)
Marina F. Tabares, MASc.
Astrazeneca South Cone, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Astrazeneca South Cone, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
OBJECTIVES: First-line combination regimens have demonstrated improved efficacy for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, a comprehensive evaluation of their costs in Argentina has not been conducted. This study compared first-year direct medical costs associated with osimertinib plus chemotherapy (FLAURA2) versus intravenous (IV) amivantamab plus lazertinib (MARIPOSA) in patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC from the perspective of the Argentine private healthcare subsystem.
METHODS: A cost comparison model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate first-year per-patient direct medical costs for both regimens, including treatment acquisition, administration, disease management, and adverse event (AE) management. Treatment acquisition costs were obtained from Argentine pharmaceutical price databases (PSL, May 2026 values) and estimated using average patient characteristics reported in the literature. Treatment dosing, administration schedules, disease management, and AE frequencies were informed by pivotal clinical trials and published literature. As both regimens are approved first-line treatment options for EGFRm advanced NSCLC, the analysis focused exclusively on differences in direct medical costs. Costs were expressed in May 2026 USD.
RESULTS: Total first-year direct medical costs were USD 156,999 for FLAURA2 and USD 272,079 for IV MARIPOSA, resulting in savings of USD 115,080 per patient (42% lower with FLAURA2). The largest cost savings were observed in treatment acquisition, with first-year acquisition costs substantially lower for FLAURA2 than for IV MARIPOSA (USD 149,880 vs. USD 263,363). Lower costs were also observed for treatment administration, disease management, and AE management.
CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib plus chemotherapy (FLAURA2) was associated with substantially lower first-year direct medical costs compared with IV amivantamab plus lazertinib (MARIPOSA) from the perspective of the Argentine private healthcare subsystem. The greatest difference in costs was observed in treatment acquisition. These findings may inform healthcare decision-making and resource allocation when evaluating first-line combination treatment options for patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC.
METHODS: A cost comparison model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate first-year per-patient direct medical costs for both regimens, including treatment acquisition, administration, disease management, and adverse event (AE) management. Treatment acquisition costs were obtained from Argentine pharmaceutical price databases (PSL, May 2026 values) and estimated using average patient characteristics reported in the literature. Treatment dosing, administration schedules, disease management, and AE frequencies were informed by pivotal clinical trials and published literature. As both regimens are approved first-line treatment options for EGFRm advanced NSCLC, the analysis focused exclusively on differences in direct medical costs. Costs were expressed in May 2026 USD.
RESULTS: Total first-year direct medical costs were USD 156,999 for FLAURA2 and USD 272,079 for IV MARIPOSA, resulting in savings of USD 115,080 per patient (42% lower with FLAURA2). The largest cost savings were observed in treatment acquisition, with first-year acquisition costs substantially lower for FLAURA2 than for IV MARIPOSA (USD 149,880 vs. USD 263,363). Lower costs were also observed for treatment administration, disease management, and AE management.
CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib plus chemotherapy (FLAURA2) was associated with substantially lower first-year direct medical costs compared with IV amivantamab plus lazertinib (MARIPOSA) from the perspective of the Argentine private healthcare subsystem. The greatest difference in costs was observed in treatment acquisition. These findings may inform healthcare decision-making and resource allocation when evaluating first-line combination treatment options for patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE229
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment, Organizational Practices
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology