HCRU TIME AND COST ASSOCIATED WITH COMBINATION TREATMENTS IN FIRST-LINE COMMON EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR-MUTATED ADVANCED NSCLC (1L CEGFR NSCLC)
Author(s)
Raffaele Califano, MD1, Guiseppe Lo Russo, PhD2, Hala Ghoz, MSc3, Jefferson Alves, MBA, MA4, Lindsay Dearden, -5, Amy Huang, MBA4, Andy Johnson, PhD4, Irene Luccarini, MA,MS6, Diego Luigi Cortinovis, MD7.
1Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, 2Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, via Giacomo Venezian, Milan, Italy, 3The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Birkenhead, United Kingdom, 4Johnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA, 5Johnson & Johnson, High Wycombe, United Kingdom, 6Johnson & Johnson, Cologno Monzese, Italy, 7SC Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy; Medicine and Surgery Department, University of Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
1Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, 2Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, via Giacomo Venezian, Milan, Italy, 3The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Birkenhead, United Kingdom, 4Johnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA, 5Johnson & Johnson, High Wycombe, United Kingdom, 6Johnson & Johnson, Cologno Monzese, Italy, 7SC Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy; Medicine and Surgery Department, University of Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
OBJECTIVES: Recent approval of first-line (1L) combination regimens for cEGFR-mutant NSCLC have improved clinical outcomes. Beyond efficacy, optimizing healthcare resource use (HCRU) and reducing treatment administration time is important. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a comprehensive comparison of HCRU associated with subcutaneous amivantamab (AMI) administered every 4 weeks (Q4W) + lazertinib (LAZ) versus osimertinib (OSI) + chemotherapy (CT) to inform healthcare decision‑making.
METHODS: A detailed micro-costing approach estimated HCRU, including healthcare professional time and costs for both regimens. Nurse and pharmacy time for pre-medications, preparation (aseptic manufacturing and CT release vs AMI release), administration, and monitoring were included, with unit costs based on UK NHS data. Patient chair time was calculated separately. Material and incidental costs were also considered. Inputs were validated for real-world accuracy, with results focused on the UK (additional analyses for Italy will be included).
RESULTS: Over the first 12 months of treatment, total HCRU time required was 6.4 vs 15.5 h for AMI + LAZ vs OSI + CT, respectively. For individual components of the treatment pathway, pre-dose medication-related time was 63% lower with AMI + LAZ vs OSI + CT (30 vs 80 mins). Time associated with treatment preparation and administration was 72.5% lower for AMI + LAZ than OSI + CT (3.9 vs 14.2 h). Patient chair time was also lower for AMI + LAZ (2.3 vs 7.3 h). HCRU time reductions resulted in a £586.42 (56.7%) lower annual cost per patient for AMI + LAZ than OSI + CT (£447.46 vs £1,033.88).
CONCLUSIONS: Over the first 12 months of treatment, AMI + LAZ was associated with substantially lower HCRU and treatment administration time and costs compared with OSI + CT in 1L cEGFR NSCLC. These efficiencies increase HCP capacity, reduce costs for healthcare systems, and inform treatment decisions in 1L cEGFR NSCLC.
METHODS: A detailed micro-costing approach estimated HCRU, including healthcare professional time and costs for both regimens. Nurse and pharmacy time for pre-medications, preparation (aseptic manufacturing and CT release vs AMI release), administration, and monitoring were included, with unit costs based on UK NHS data. Patient chair time was calculated separately. Material and incidental costs were also considered. Inputs were validated for real-world accuracy, with results focused on the UK (additional analyses for Italy will be included).
RESULTS: Over the first 12 months of treatment, total HCRU time required was 6.4 vs 15.5 h for AMI + LAZ vs OSI + CT, respectively. For individual components of the treatment pathway, pre-dose medication-related time was 63% lower with AMI + LAZ vs OSI + CT (30 vs 80 mins). Time associated with treatment preparation and administration was 72.5% lower for AMI + LAZ than OSI + CT (3.9 vs 14.2 h). Patient chair time was also lower for AMI + LAZ (2.3 vs 7.3 h). HCRU time reductions resulted in a £586.42 (56.7%) lower annual cost per patient for AMI + LAZ than OSI + CT (£447.46 vs £1,033.88).
CONCLUSIONS: Over the first 12 months of treatment, AMI + LAZ was associated with substantially lower HCRU and treatment administration time and costs compared with OSI + CT in 1L cEGFR NSCLC. These efficiencies increase HCP capacity, reduce costs for healthcare systems, and inform treatment decisions in 1L cEGFR NSCLC.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE541
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Service Delivery & Process of Care
Disease
Oncology