Cost-effectiveness analysis of tepotinib vs capmatinib as subsequent therapy in MET exon 14-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Tepotinib versus Capmatinib in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations in China. METHODS: An economic evaluation using a 3-state partitioned survival model assessed the cost-effectiveness of Tepotinib versus Capmatinib. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from two clinical trials were digitally extracted. The Exponential model with matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was employed at the end of the trials to extrapolate the long-term survivals. RESULTS: The estimated cost and utility of Tepotinib treatment were higher than those of Capmatinib treatment, respectively (95,392.54 USD vs. 51,003.63 USD; 2.11 QALYs vs 1.38 QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Capmatinib treatment vs. Tepotinib treatment was calculated at 60,977.28 USD/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Tepotinib was not cost-effective compared to Capmatinib as the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutations in China.