Costs of managing adverse events in the treatment of first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma: bevacizumab in combination with interferon-alpha2a compared with sunitinib

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab+axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in the Netherlands

Background

The phase 3 clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 suggested a higher efficacy regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pembrolizumab+axitinib compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this analysis, the potential cost-effectiveness of this combination treatment versus sunitinib for patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC) was examined from the societal perspective in the Netherlands.

Methods

For this analysis, a partitioned survival model was constructed. Clinical data were obtained from the published KEYNOTE-426 trial reports; data on costs and (dis-)utilities were derived from published literature. Costs outside of the healthcare sector included treatment-related travel, informal care and productivity loss. Next to a probabilistic scenario analysis, various scenario analyses were performed that aimed at survival extrapolation, different utility values, treatment duration and drug pricing, as well as restricting the cohort to patients with an intermediate or poor prognosis. Further, a budget impact analysis over three years was conducted, in which a sensitivity analysis concerning ranges in costs and the number of patients was applied. Moreover, a scenario concerning increasing market penetration of pembrolizumab+axitinib up to a market share of 80% in the third year was analyzed.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab+axitinib was estimated at €368,396/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, with an incremental QALY gain of 0.55 over sunitinib. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY was estimated at 0%, a 50% probability was estimated at €340,000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved in any of the applied scenarios. The budget impact over three years amounted to €417.3 million upon instantaneous and full replacement of sunitinib, and to €214.9 million with increasing market penetration.

Conclusion

Pembrolizumab+axitinib was not estimated to be cost-effective compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with accRCC in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. In none of the analyzed scenarios, cost-effectiveness was achieved. However, price reductions and shorter treatment durations might lead to a more favorable ICER.

Valutazione economica di treosulfan in pazienti sottoposti a trapianto allogenico di cellule staminali ematopoietiche

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness and economic sustainability of treosulfan plus fludarabine compared with busulfan plus fludarabine as a conditioning treatment for malignant disease prior to allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) in adult patients in Italy.

Method:

The two theoretical cohorts of patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were pooled and followed over time using a partitioned survival model with cycles of 28 days. Patients can transition between a post-HSCT recovery/remission state (Event-Free Survival state, EFS state), a relapsed/progressed disease state, and a death state. A lifetime horizon for cost-effectiveness analysis and a 5-years’ time horizon for budget impact analysis were used. The perspective of the Italian National Health Service was adopted. Utility values were obtained from published sources. Costs included: drug acquisition, HSCT procedure, management and treatment of adverse reactions, graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and health states, end of life treatment. Discounting of 3% per year was applied for both costs and outcomes according to Italian guidelines. Sensitivity was tested through both one-way and probabilistic analyses.

Results:

Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treosulfan is both more effective and less expensive compared with busulfan (+1.08 life-years, +0.95 quality-adjusted life-years per patient and –€ 41,388 per patient). On the side of economic sustainability, the introduction of treosulfan in the market could generate a cumulative decrement of the expense incurred by NHS of about –€ 212,063 over five years.

Conclusion:

Treosulfan could represent a cost-effective and sustainable treatment alternative from the perspective of the NHS.

Cost-Effectiveness of Avelumab Maintenance Therapy Plus Best Supportive Care vs. Best Supportive Care Alone for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Objective

Avelumab (MSB0010718C) is a fully human anti-programmed cell death ligand 1(PD-L1) antibody against PD-L1 interactions and enhances immune activation against tumor cells in the meantime. Avelumab has been approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) after disease progression in several countries. We therefore conducted this study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of avelumab maintenance therapy for advanced or mUC from the perspective of the United States (US) and China payer.

Methods

A Markov simulation model was performed based on clinical trial JAVELIN Bladder 100. Utilities and costs adopted in this analysis were derived from published literature and clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the avelumab maintenance therapy group (AVE group) and the best supportive care group (CON group).

Results

The ICER of the AVE group compared with the CON group were $38,369.50 and $16,150.29 per QALYs in the overall population and in the PD-L1–positive population, respectively. While the ICER of AVE group compared with CON group were $241,610.25 and $100,528.29 per QALYs in the overall population and in the PD-L1–positive population, respectively.

Conclusion

Avelumab maintenance therapy was a cost-effective first-line treatment compared with BSC in patients with mUC which were not progressed with platinum-based chemotherapy not only in the PD-L1–positive population but also in the overall population based on the current willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 in the US. It was not cost-effective both in the overall population and in the PD-L1 positive population at the WTP threshold of $30,447.09 in China.

Cost-effectiveness of enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Antibody-drug conjugates have recently been introduced as a treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. The EV-301 study demonstrated that enfortumab vedotin (EV) improved overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy. To assess the cost-effectiveness of EV for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) from a payer perspective in middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed to assess the efficacy and economic viability of EV as a subsequent-line treatment following disease progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma already treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Clinical and utility values were obtained from the published literature and available databases. Cost data were obtained from payer perspectives in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to measure health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) used to evaluate cost-effectiveness in comparison to willingness-to-pay in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, EV increased the benefit by 0.16-0.17 QALYs, resulting in ICERs of $2,168,746.71, $2,164,494.38, and $1,775,576.56 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the largest effect on outcome was the utility value for progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of EV being cost-effective was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

EV provides an additional health benefit over chemotherapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma but is not cost-effective from a payer perspective in the United States, United Kingdom, or China.

Cost-Utility of Acromegaly Pharmacological Treatments in a French Context

Objective

Efficacy of pharmacological treatments for acromegaly has been assessed in many clinical or real-world studies but no study was interested in economics evaluation of these treatments in France. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-utility of second-line pharmacological treatments in acromegaly patients.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to follow a cohort of 1,000 patients for a lifetime horizon. First-generation somatostatin analogues (FGSA), pegvisomant, pasireotide and pegvisomant combined with FGSA (off label) were compared. Efficacy was defined as the normalization of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentration and was obtained from pivotal trials and adjusted by a network meta-analysis. Costs data were obtained from French databases and literature. Utilities from the literature were used to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

Results

The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of treatments compared to FGSA were estimated to be 562,463 € per QALY gained for pasireotide, 171,332 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant, and 186,242 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant + FGSA. Pasireotide seems to be the least cost-efficient treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results.

Conclusion

FGSA, pegvisomant and pegvisomant + FGSA were on the cost-effective frontier, therefore, depending on the willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY, they are the most cost-effective treatments. This medico-economic analysis highlighted the consistency of the efficiency results with the efficacy results assessed in the pivotal trials. However, most recent treatment guidelines recommend an individualized treatment strategy based on the patient and disease profile.

Fatigue and its management in cancer patients undergoing VEGFR-TKI therapy

INTRODUCTION

Fatigue is the most common side effect of cancer and cancer treatment and is often called cancer fatigue or cancer-related fatigue. For cancer patients, cancer-related fatigue has a negative impact on participation in work and social activities, mood, and daily activities, significantly impairing quality of life. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) sometimes cause fatigue, and early detection and appropriate management of fatigue in cancer patients treated with a VEGFR-TKI prevent fatigue from becoming more severe, thus maximizing the benefits of the treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This paper focuses on fatigue and discusses its frequency, assessment, risk factors, and management methods.

EXPERT OPINION

The drugs currently available for treating cancer-related fatigue are not effective enough, and their mechanisms of action are not fully understood. Some agents have demonstrated efficacy as treatments for fatigue due to pharmacotherapy, and further elucidation of their mechanisms is expected, together with the development of new drugs. Since fatigue has a range of causes, its treatment requires not only medication, but also exercise, nutrition, and other therapeutic approaches. The successful treatment of fatigue will therefore need multidisciplinary therapy involving the establishment of systems of cooperation across various specialties.

Obinutuzumab Plus Chemotherapy Compared with Rituximab Plus Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated Italian Patients with Advanced Follicular Lymphoma at Intermediate-High Risk: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab (O-chemo) in comparison to rituximab (R-chemo) in patients with untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) at intermediate or high risk from an Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Methods

A previously developed four-state Markov model was adapted to estimate lifetime clinical outcomes and costs of Italian patients with advanced FL and an FL international predictive index score ≥2 in treatment with O-chemo and R-chemo. Life expectancy was derived from the GALLIUM and PRIMA clinical trials. Progression-free survival (PFS), early progressive disease (PD), and treatment duration were extrapolated by fitting parametric distributions to empirical data in GALLIUM and late PD to data in PRIMA. Expected survival was weighed by published utilities. Costs updated to 2020 Euros and health gains occurring after the first year were discounted at an annual 3% rate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was carried out.

Results

O-chemo was associated with an incremental survival increase (0.97 life-years [LYs]), even when weighted for quality (0.88 quality-adjusted LYs [QALYs]), and incremental costs (around €15,000), driven by longer treatment during PFS state relative to R-chemo. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-utility ratio are both widely accepted by the Italian NHS (around €15,500/LY and €17,000/QALY gained, respectively). PSA simulations confirmed the robustness of results given sensible variations in assumptions.

Conclusion

O-chemo has superior clinical efficacy compared to rituximab, and should be considered a cost-effective option in first-line treatment of patients with advanced FL at intermediate or high risk in Italy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are below the threshold considered affordable by developed countries.

Direct costs associated with the management of mucositis: A systematic review

Mucositis is one of the more frequent and costly adverse events following cancer treatment. To evaluate and report the direct economic outcomes associated with the management of mucositis across several cancer treatments we conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase were searched electronically and a total of 37 relevant studies were included. The costs attributable to mucositis in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation setting ranged from 1124,47 US dollars (USD) to 299 214,14 USD per patient. The radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy plus molecular targeted therapy accounted for mucositis costs that ranged from 51,23 USD to 33 560,58 USD per patient. Costs for mucositis in the chemotherapy setting ranged from 4,18 USD to 31 963,64 USD per patient. When the cancer treatment was not specified, costs of mucositis ranged from 565,85 USD to as high as 20 279, 12 USD per patient. Mucositis costs from multimodal therapy ranged from 12,42 USD to 5670,46 USD per patient. The molecular targeted therapy setting included only one study and depending on the healthcare providers' perspective of each country evaluated, mucositis' costs ranged from 45,78 USD to 3484,91 USD per patient. Mucositis is associated with increased resource use, consultations, hospitalizations and extended hospitalizations, leading to a substantial incremental cost that exacerbates the economic burden on the patient, health plan and health system across several cancer treatments and diagnosis. More studies with a prospective evaluation of the economic costs associated with mucositis management are needed.

Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of Cemiplimab in Patients with Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Italy

Purpose

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is a common cancer that in most cases is curable with surgery. About 3-5% of patients develop advanced CSCC (aCSCC) and are no longer responsive to surgery or radiation therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of cemiplimab, the first systemic therapy approved in Italy for patients with aCSCC, vs platinum-based chemotherapy from the Italian National Health Service (SSN) perspective.

Methods

A partitioned survival model, which included three mutually exclusive health states, was developed to estimate costs and outcomes for patients with aCSCC, over a 30-year time horizon (lifetime). No direct evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of cemiplimab versus other therapies currently exists. Therefore, a simulated treatment comparison (STC) was conducted to estimate the comparative efficacy of cemiplimab versus chemotherapy. Individual patient data for cemiplimab were collected from the EMPOWER-CSCC 1 trial whereas chemotherapy data were derived from a retrospective study. In the STC a regression model was used to predict outcomes for cemiplimab in the population observed in the comparator study. Costs of drug acquisition/administration and management of adverse events were included. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were calculated; sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results.

Results

In the base-case, treatment with cemiplimab was associated with a gain of 4.89 LYs and 3.99 QALYs, compared with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, resulting in an estimated ICER of 27,821 €/LY gained and an ICUR of 34,110 €/QALY gained. Both ICER and ICUR were below the commonly used Italian SSN willingness to pay thresholds.

Conclusion

The use of cemiplimab, compared with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, can be considered a cost-effective option for the treatment of aCSCC patients in Italy.

Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland

Background

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a heterogenous group of tumors. Findings from the phase III NETTER-1 trial showed that treatment of unresectable/metastatic progressive gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) with high dose octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) 60 mg. A health economic analysis was performed using input data from clinical studies and data derived from an indirect comparison to determine the cost-effectiveness of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate in the treatment of GI-NETs and pancreatic NETs (P-NETs) in Scotland.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the payer perspective using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate was compared with BSC in gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs using clinical data from the NETTER-1 trial. A secondary analysis comparing ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate with BSC, everolimus or sunitinib in patients with P-NETs was also performed using hazard ratios inferred from indirect comparisons. The base case analysis was performed over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 3.5% for both costs and clinical outcomes.

Results

For unresectable/metastatic progressive GI-NETs treatment with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate led to a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with BSC due to extended PFS and OS. Mean total lifetime costs were GBP 35,701 higher with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 26,830 per QALY gained.

In analyses in patients with P-NETs ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate was associated with ICERs below GBP 30,000 per QALY gained in comparisons with BSC, sunitinib and everolimus.

Conclusions

Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that, in Scotland, from the payer perspective, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate at the set acquisition cost is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive GI-NETs or P-NETs.

Estimation of total costs in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving tisagenlecleucel from a US hospital's perspective

Aims: This study estimated the total costs associated with tisagenlecleucel treatment in adult patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) based on the JULIET trial from a United States hospital's perspective.Methods: An economic model was developed to assess the total costs associated with tisagenlecleucel treatment (from leukapheresis to two months post-infusion) in adults (aged ≥18 years) with r/r DLBCL using a fee-for-service approach. Costs were considered during the pre-treatment, tisagenlecleucel infusion, and follow-up periods, and were estimated based on the health resource utilization and safety data from the JULIET trial. Cost components included leukapheresis, lymphodepleting chemotherapy, tisagenlecleucel infusion/administration, inpatient and intensive care unit (ICU) admission, medical professional visits, lab tests/procedures, and management of adverse events (AEs). The base-case model estimated the total costs using observed hospitalization, ICU, and AE data from JULIET, while scenario analyses varied key assumptions related to AEs and hospitalization.Results: The estimated overall cost associated with tisagenlecleucel treatment from leukapheresis to two months post-infusion was $437,927/patient, of which $64,784 (14.8%) was additional to tisagenlecleucel's list price ($373,000) and the associated administration cost ($143). The top three key drivers of the additional cost were AE management ($30,594; 47.2%), inpatient/ICU not attributed to AEs ($24,285; 37.5%), and lab tests/procedures ($5,443; 8.4%). In the scenario analyses, total costs ranged from $382,702 (no AEs, no hospitalization) to $469,006 (cytokine release syndrome and B-cell aplasia, hospitalization).Limitations: This analysis was limited to two months of follow-up after tisagenlecleucel infusion, which cannot capture long-term safety outcomes associated with the treatment and may underestimate AE costs.Conclusions: The total cost of tisagenlecleucel administration from leukapheresis to two months was estimated at $437,927. In addition to tisagenlecleucel's price, the main drivers were AE management costs and inpatient/ICU costs. Future studies based on real-world, long-term use of tisagenlecleucel are warranted.

Budget impact of sequential treatment with first-line afatinib versus first-line osimertinib in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with common EGFR mutations

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that have common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations has changed radically in the last decade. The availability of these treatment options has an economic impact, therefore a budget impact analysis was performed.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients receiving first-line afatinib (Gilotrif^®) versus first-line osimertinib (Tagrisso^®), followed by subsequent treatments. A decision analysis model was constructed in Excel. Scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analysis were used to test the models' robustness.

RESULTS

Sequential treatment with afatinib versus first-line treatment with osimertinib showed mean total time on treatment (ToT) of 29.1 months versus 24.7 months, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) of 20.2 versus 17.4 with mean cost of €108,166 per patient versus €143,251 per patient, respectively. The 5-year total budget impact was €110.4 million for the afatinib sequence versus €158.6 million for the osimertinib sequence, leading to total incremental cost savings of €48.15 million.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line afatinib treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC had a lower financial impact on the Dutch healthcare budget with a higher mean ToT and QALM compared to osimertinib sequential treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab compared to pembrolizumab in the treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

Pembrolizumab and nivolumab are anti-PD-1 immunotherapy agents approved for the treatment of metastatic or recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with demonstrated benefit as shown by the CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE-040 clinical trials. Increasing costs of anticancer drugs in particular may influence the choice of treatment. There are limited data and mixed results on the cost-effectiveness of these immunotherapy agents when used in the setting of recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab and nivolumab in this setting. Data published from the CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE-040 studies were used to generate a model estimating treatment costs and overall survival benefit. Cost of treatment of toxicity-related events were obtained from previous literature and incorporated into calculated costs. Data from both experimental arms and both standard of care arms in the two studies were used for cost estimation in the model. An adjusted standard of care arm was derived from existing data as a common comparator for nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The initial incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab was $409,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The initial ICER for pembrolizumab was $1,137,595/QALY. Comparison to adjusted standard of care arm resulted in ICERs of $484,000/QALY and $856,173/QALY, for nivolumab and pembrolizumab, respectively. Nivolumab appears to have a lower cost per QALY and may be more cost-effective than pembrolizumab. Neither drug would be considered a cost-effective treatment option at a threshold of $100,000/QALY for patients in this setting. Outcomes of improved long-term survival have yet to be reported as these agents are relatively new; incorporation of this future data would likely improve the cost-effectiveness of these drugs.

A cost analysis of SIR-Spheres yttrium-90 resin microspheres versus tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in France, Italy, Spain and the UK

Background and aims: A wide range of treatment options are available for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including systemic treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as sorafenib and lenvatinib, immunotherapies, locoregional therapies such as selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) and treatments with curative intent such as resection, radiofrequency ablation and liver transplantation. Given the substantial economic burden associated with HCC treatment, the aim of the present analysis was to establish the cost of using SIRT with SIR-Spheres yttrium-90 (Y-90) resin microspheres versus TKIs from healthcare payer perspectives in France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK).Methods: A cost model was developed to capture the costs of initial systemic treatment with sorafenib (95%) or lenvatinib (5%) versus SIRT in patients with HCC in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages B and C. A nested Markov model was utilized to model transitions between progression-free survival (PFS), progression and death, in addition to transitions between subsequent treatment lines. Cost and resource use data were identified from published sources in each of the four countries.Results: Relative to TKIs, SIRT with SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres were found to be cost saving in all four country settings, with the additional costs of the microspheres and the SIRT procedure being more than offset by reductions in drug and drug administration costs, and treatment of adverse events. Across the four country settings, total cost savings with SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres fell within the range 5.4-24.9% and SIRT resulted in more patients ultimately receiving treatments with curative intent (4.6 vs. 1.4% of eligible patients).Conclusion: SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres resulted in cost savings relative to TKIs in the treatment of unresectable HCC in all four country settings, while increasing the proportion of patients who become eligible for treatments with curative intent.

Model-Based Biomarker Selection for Dose Individualization of Tyrosine-Kinase Inhibitors

Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) demonstrate high inter-individual variability with respect to safety and efficacy and would therefore benefit from dose or schedule adjustments. This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and economical aspects of alternative dosing options for sunitinib in gastro-intestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Dose individualization based on drug concentration, adverse effects, and sVEGFR-3 was explored using a modeling framework connecting pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models, as well as overall survival. Model-based simulations were performed to investigate four different scenarios: (I) the predicted value of high-dose pulsatile schedules to improve clinical outcomes as compared to regular daily dosing, (II) the potential of biomarkers for dose individualizations, such as drug concentrations, toxicity measurements, and the biomarker sVEGFR-3, (III) the cost-effectiveness of biomarker-guided dose-individualizations, and (IV) model-based dosing approaches versus standard sample-based methods to guide dose adjustments in clinical practice. Simulations from the axitinib and sunitinib frameworks suggest that weekly or once every two weeks high-dosing result in lower overall survival in patients with mRCC and GIST, compared to continuous daily dosing. Moreover, sVEGFR-3 appears a safe and cost-effective biomarker to guide dose adjustments and improve overall survival (€36 784.- per QALY). Model-based estimations were for biomarkers in general found to correctly predict dose adjustments similar to or more accurately than single clinical measurements and might therefore guide dose adjustments. A simulation framework represents a rapid and resource saving method to explore various propositions for dose and schedule adjustments of TKIs, while accounting for complicating factors such as circulating biomarker dynamics and inter-or intra-individual variability.

Optimizing the dose in patients treated with imatinib as first line treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumours: A cost-effectiveness study

Aims

Patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are treated in first line with the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, imatinib, until progressive disease. With this fixed dosing regimen, only approximately 40% of patients reach adequate plasma levels within the therapeutic index. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a solution to reach plasma levels within the therapeutic index. However, introducing TDM will also increase costs, due to prolonged imatinib use and laboratory costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of TDM in patients with metastatic/unresectable GIST treated with imatinib as a first line treatment, compared with fixed dosing.

Methods

A survival model was created to simulate progression, mortality and treatment costs over a 5‐year time horizon, comparing fixed dosing vs TDM‐guided dosing. The outcomes measured were treatments costs, life‐years and quality‐adjusted life‐years.

Results

Total costs over the 5‐year time horizon were estimated to be €106 994.85 and €150 477.08 for fixed dosing vs TDM‐guided dosing, respectively. A quality‐adjusted life year gain of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.66–0.90) was estimated with TDM‐guided dosing compared to fixed dosing. An average incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of €58 785.70 per quality‐adjusted life year gained was found, mainly caused by longer use and higher dosages of imatinib.

Conclusion

Based on the currently available data, this analysis suggests that TDM‐guided dosing may be a cost‐effective intervention for patients with metastatic/unresectable GIST treated with imatinib which will be improved when imatinib losses its patency.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialist oncology centers in France

Background

Evidence from clinical trials suggests that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer improves progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS). However, a retrospective analysis of real-world data from the French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (FCCC) through the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) Research Program, suggested that in this setting, the addition of bevacizumab may confer a significant benefit in terms of both PFS and OS. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer at specialist oncology centers in France.

Methods

The analysis was performed using a three-state Markov model and clinical input data from N = 3426 HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone. The analysis was performed from a third party payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon; future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum.

Results

In the overall population, the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel led to incremental gain of 0.72 life years and 0.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to paclitaxel alone. The incremental lifetime cost of the addition of bevacizumab was EUR 27,390, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 56,721 per QALY gained for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone. In a subgroup of triple negative patients the ICER was EUR 66,874 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

The analysis indicated that the combination of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is likely to be cost-effective compared with paclitaxel alone for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialized oncology centers in France.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy in advanced renal-cell carcinoma

Background

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab improves overall survival and is associated with less toxicity compared with sunitinib in the first-line setting of advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). The current study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for first-line treatment of advanced RCC from the payer perspectives high- and middle-income regions.

Methods

A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes of first-line sunitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment associated with advanced RCC. The clinical and utility data were obtained from published reports. The cost data were acquired for the payer perspectives of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and China. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the uncertainties of the results. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used.

Results

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab gained 0.70–0.76 QALYs compared with sunitinib. Our analysis determined the following ICERs for nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in first-line advanced RCC treatment: US $ 85,506 /QALY; UK $ 126,499/QALY; and China $ 4682/QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the model outputs to be most affected for body weight and for the prices of nivolumab, sunitinib and ipilimumab.

Conclusions

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits for advanced RCC in comparison with standard sunitinib, which is considered to be cost-effective in the US and China but not in the UK.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-018-0440-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Burden of Oral Mucositis: A Systematic Review and Implications for Future Research

BACKGROUND

Surprisingly little is known about the burden of oral mucositis (OM). We provide a systematic review of studies on the burden of OM (incidence, economic impact, health-related quality of life (HRQoL)).

METHODS

Systematic literature searches were made in BIOSIS, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Inclusion criteria were studies on OM in hematology/oncology patients of ≥ 18 years, journal articles, English language, and published between 2000 and 2016; OM treatment studies were excluded. Quality assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We screened 4,996 hits, and identified 68 studies of which 13 were without transparency on OM grading. The evidence level of 65 studies was rated 'low' or 'very low' in 58.5%, 'moderate' in 20% and 'high' in 21.5%. Mean value of incidence (7 studies) was 83.5% for all grades of OM with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. OM incidence for all grades in head and neck cancer patients was 59.4-100%. Considering the economic impact, 16 studies showed highly variable numbers. HRQoL was measured in 16 studies using 13 different instruments. Statistically significant changes in HRQoL scores were demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

OM is common, burdensome, costly and imposes major reductions in HRQoL. However, from a quality standpoint, the level of current evidence in OM is disappointing. The field needs continued attention to address methodological challenges.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line induction and maintenance treatment sequences in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in France

Background

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for induction–maintenance (I–M) sequences for the treatment of patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC) are limited because of a lack of direct evidence. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of I–M pemetrexed with those of other I–M regimens used for the treatment of patients with advanced nsqNSCLC in the French health-care setting.

Materials and methods

A previously developed global partitioned survival model was adapted to the France-only setting by restricting treatment sequences to include 12 I–M regimens most relevant to France, and incorporating French costs and resource-use data. Following a systematic literature review, network meta-analyses were performed to obtain hazard ratios for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) relative to gemcitabine + cisplatin (induction sequences) or best supportive care (BSC) (maintenance sequences). Modeled health-care benefits were expressed as life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) (estimated using French EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire tariffs). The study was conducted from the payer perspective (National Health Insurance). Cost- and benefit-model inputs were discounted at an annual rate of 4%.

Results

Base-case results showed pemetrexed + cisplatin induction followed by (→) pemetrexed maintenance had the longest mean OS and PFS and highest LYs and QALYs. Costs ranged from €12,762 for paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC to €35,617 for pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed (2015 values). Gemcitabine + cisplatin → BSC, pemetrexed + cisplatin → BSC, and pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed were associated with fully incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €16,593, €80,656, and €102,179, respectively, per QALY gained versus paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC. All other treatment sequences were either dominated (ie, another sequence had lower costs and better/equivalent outcomes) or extendedly dominated (ie, the comparator had a higher ICER than a more effective comparator) in the model. Sensitivity analyses showed the model to be relatively insensitive to plausible changes in the main assumptions, with none increasing or decreasing the ICER by more than ~€20,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

In the absence of direct comparative trial evidence, this cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that of a large number of I–M sequences used for the treatment of patients with nsqNSCLC in France, pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed achieved the best clinical outcomes (0.28 incremental QALYs gained) versus paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC.

Dalteparin or vitamin K antagonists to prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a patient-level economic analysis for France and Austria

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend extended duration secondary prophylaxis in cancer patients who develop primary venous thromboembolism (VTE). Agent selection is guided in part by one large randomized trial (i.e., CLOT; Lee et al., N Engl J Med 349:146-53, 2003) which demonstrated that dalteparin reduced the relative risk of recurrence by 52% compared with oral vitamin K antagonists (VKA; HR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.77). In a subgroup analysis from that same trial, patients with renal impairment also derived benefit with dalteparin (VTE rates = 3% vs. 17%; p = 0.011). To measure the economic value of secondary VTE prophylaxis with dalteparin, a patient-level pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted from the Austrian and French healthcare system perspectives.

METHODS

Chapter 1 Healthcare resource use collected during the CLOT trial was extracted and converted into direct cost estimates. Incremental cost differences between the dalteparin and VKA groups were then combined with health state utilities to measure the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

The dalteparin group had significantly higher costs than the VKA group in both countries (Austria: dalteparin = €2687 vs. VKA = €2012; France: dalteparin = €2053 vs. VKA = €1352: p < 0.001). However, when the incremental costs were combined with the utility gain, dalteparin had a cost of €6600 and €4900 per QALY gained in Austria and France, respectively. The analyses in patients with renal impairment suggested an even better economic profile, with the cost per QALY gained being less than €4000 in both countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary prophylaxis with dalteparin is a cost-effective alternative to VKA for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer.

Dalteparin versus vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer and renal impairment: a Canadian pharmacoeconomic analysis

Background

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the risk is further elevated after a primary VTE. To reduce the risk of recurrent events, extended prophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is available for use. However, in a large randomized trial (Comparison of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin versus Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer [CLOT]; Lee et al), extended duration dalteparin reduced the relative risk of recurrent VTE by 52% compared to VKA (p=0.002). A recent subgroup analysis of patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment also revealed lower absolute VTE rates with dalteparin (3% vs. 17%; p=0.011). To measure the economic value of dalteparin as an alternative to VKA, a patient-level cost utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian perspective.

Methods

Resource use data captured during the CLOT trial were extracted and linked to 2015 Canadian unit cost estimates. Health state utilities were then measured using the Time-Trade-Off technique in 24 randomly selected members of the general Canadian public to estimate the gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results

For the entire CLOT trial population (n=676), the dalteparin group had significantly higher mean costs compared to the VKA group ($Can5,771 vs. $Can2,569; p<0.001). However, the utility assessment revealed that 21 of 24 respondents (88%) selected dalteparin over VKA, with an associated gain of 0.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10–0.18) QALYs. When the incremental cost of dalteparin was combined with the QALY gain, dalteparin had a cost of $Can23,100 (95% CI: $Can19,200–$Can25,800) per QALY gained. The analysis in patients with renal impairment suggested even better economic value with the cost per QALY gained being <$14,000.

Conclusion

Extended duration dalteparin is a cost-effective alternative to VKA for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer, especially in those with renal impairment.

Cost and economic burden of adverse events associated with metastatic melanoma treatments in five countries

OBJECTIVE

To estimate per-event cost and economic burden associated with managing the most common and/or severe metastatic melanoma (MM) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK.

METHODS

AEs associated with chemotherapy (dacarbazine, paclitaxel, fotemustine), immunotherapy (ipilimumab), and targeted therapy (vemurafenib) were identified by literature review. Medical resource use data associated with managing AEs were collected through two blinded Delphi panel cycles in each of the five countries. Published costs were used to estimate per-event costs and combined with AEs incidence, treatment usage, and MM prevalence to estimate the economic burden for each country.

RESULTS

The costliest AEs were grade 3/4 events due to immunotherapy (Australia/France: colitis; UK: diarrhea) and chemotherapy (Germany/Italy: neutropenia/leukopenia). Treatment of AEs specific to chemotherapy (Australia/Germany/Italy/France: neutropenia/leukopenia) and targeted therapy (UK: squamous cell carcinoma) contributed heavily to country-specific economic burden.

LIMITATIONS

Economic burden was estimated assuming that each patient experienced an AE only once. In addition, the context of settings was heterogeneous and the number of Delphi panel experts was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Management costs for MM treatment-associated AEs can be substantial. Results could be incorporated in economic models that support reimbursement dossiers. With the availability of newer treatments, establishment of a baseline measure of the economic burden of AEs will be crucial for assessing their impact on patients and regional healthcare systems.

Economic Analysis Comparing Dalteparin to Vitamin K Antagonists to Prevent Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer Having Renal Impairment

BACKGROUND

In a randomized trial (ie, Comparison of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin versus Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer [CLOT]) that evaluated secondary prophylaxis of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer, dalteparin reduced the relative risk by 52% compared to oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; hazard ratio = 0.48, P = .002). A recent subgroup analysis in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment also revealed lower absolute VTE rates with dalteparin (3% vs 17%; P = .011). To measure the economic value of dalteparin in these populations, a pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted from the Dutch health-care system perspective.

METHODS

Resource utilization data contained within the CLOT trial database were extracted and converted into direct cost estimates. Univariate analysis was then conducted to compare the total cost of therapy between patients randomized to dalteparin or VKA therapy. Health state utilities were then measured in 24 members of the general public using the time trade-off technique.

RESULTS

When all of the cost components were combined for the entire population (n = 676), the dalteparin group had significantly higher overall costs than the VKA control group (dalteparin = €2375 vs VKA = €1724; P < .001). However, dalteparin was associated with a gain of 0.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.18) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over VKA. When the incremental cost was combined with the utility gain, dalteparin had a cost of €4,697 (95% CI: €3824-€4951) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Secondary prophylaxis with dalteparin is a cost-effective alternative to VKA for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer.

Ongoing Screening and Treatment to Potentially Reduce Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Related Fatigue in Renal Cell Carcinoma

CONTEXT

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents 1% to 4% of adult malignancies, and approximately 33% of patients with RCC present with metastatic disease and have a poor prognosis. Better understanding of RCC tumor biology has led to the development of several molecularly targeted agents, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), to manage advanced disease. Although evolving data suggest these drugs may be beneficial in RCC, they are associated with significant toxicities. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common toxicities associated with the TKIs used in RCC.

OBJECTIVES

To review the incidence, pathophysiology, and management of CRF in patients with RCC who are undergoing targeted therapy with TKIs.

METHODS

A comprehensive database search was performed using PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and MEDLINE. References of all cited articles also were reviewed. Data from articles published between 1975 and June 2014 were considered. A narrative review regarding the incidence, pathophysiology, and management of CRF in patients with RCC undergoing targeted therapy with TKIs was performed.

RESULTS

CRF is one of the most common TKI toxicities in patients with metastatic RCC and often is the dose-limiting toxicity. Management of TKI-related CRF can be difficult and may necessitate various nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions.

CONCLUSION

TKI-related CRF in patients with RCC is a highly distressing complication of cancer therapy. CRF can substantially influence drug compliance, the ability to maximally treat, and quality of life. It is important to recognize this common, yet frequently underdiagnosed complication and initiate appropriate management strategies, to increase the likelihood for optimal outcomes.

Lifetime cost of everolimus vs axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who failed prior sunitinib therapy in the US

OBJECTIVE

Everolimus and axitinib are approved in the US to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after failure on sunitinib or sorafenib, and one prior systemic therapy (e.g., sunitinib), respectively. Two indirect comparisons performed to evaluate progression-free survival in patients treated with everolimus vs axitinib suggested similar efficacy between the two treatments. Therefore, this analysis compares the lifetime costs of these two therapies among sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients from a US payer perspective.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients and estimate the cost of treating patients with everolimus vs axitinib. The following health states were included: stable disease without adverse events (AEs), stable disease with AEs, disease progression (PD), and death. The model included the following resources: active treatments, post-progression treatments, adverse events, physician and nurse visits, scans and tests, and palliative care. Resource utilization inputs were derived from a US claims database analysis. Additionally, a 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs, and the robustness of the model results was tested by conducting sensitivity analyses, including those on dosing scheme and post-progression treatment costs.

RESULTS

Base case results demonstrated that patients treated with everolimus cost an average of $12,985 (11%) less over their lifetimes than patients treated with axitinib. The primary difference in costs was related to active treatment, which was largely driven by axitinib's higher dose intensity. RESULTS remained consistent across sensitivity analyses for AE and PD treatment costs, as well as dose intensity and discount rates.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that everolimus likely leads to lower lifetime costs than axitinib for sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients in the US.

Economic burden associated with adverse events in patients with metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

There are currently many approved agents for the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM), the most aggressive form of skin cancer. Treatments may include systemic therapies such as ipilimumab, dacarbazine, temozolomide, high-dose interleukin 2, interferon α, dacarbazine- or temozolomide-based combination chemotherapy/biochemotherapy, paclitaxel, paclitaxel/cisplatin, and paclitaxel/carboplatin, as well as the targeted therapies vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib for patients with BRAF V600 mutation. However, all treatment options are associated with different adverse events (AEs) and, in some instances, considerable toxicity. The occurrence of such treatment-related AEs can lead to higher health care resource utilization and increasing treatment and patient management costs. An understanding of the economic burden of these AEs will therefore enable better management of health care expenditures, not just for existing therapies, but also for new and novel treatments in development.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incremental health care costs of specific AEs among patients with MM treated with paclitaxel, vemurafenib, ipilimumab, dacarbazine, temozolomide, high-dose interleukin 2, or interferon α, along with AEs known to be associated with dabrafenib and trametinib.

METHODS

This cohort study employed a retrospective administrative claims-based analysis of MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases from July 1, 2004, to April 30, 2012. Patients included those aged ≥ 18 years who had diagnosed melanoma (ICD-9-CM code 172.xx)with ≥ 1 diagnosis of metastasis and ≥ 1 claim for any of the 7 study treatments. Health care encounters for AEs of interest were based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis/procedure codes. Incremental cost per AE was determined by comparing the 30-day expenditures in patients with the event to patients without the event based on a shadow event date. Multivariate generalized linear models (GLMs) with a log-link function and gamma distribution were utilized to control for baseline differences between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 2,621 patients with MM were included. Mean age was 56.0 years (SD ± 13.0); 64% were male; and 24% had a diagnosis of primary or secondary brain cancer at the time of MM diagnosis. GLM-based estimate of 30-day incremental costs by AE category were metabolic, $9,135 (95% CI = $6,404-$12,392); hematologic/lymphatic, $8,450 (95% CI = $6,528-$10,633); cardiovascular, $6,476 (95% CI = $4,667-$8,541); gastrointestinal, $6,338 (95% CI = $4,740-$8,122); skin/subcutaneous, -$900 (95% CI = -$1,899-$237); central nervous system/psychiatric, $5,903 (95% CI = $3,842-$8,313); and pain, $5,078 (95% CI = $3,392-$7,012).

CONCLUSIONS

Incremental costs associated with many MM treatment-related AEs are substantial. New approaches to prevent and/or better manage these events may reduce overall health care costs.

Health care costs among renal cancer patients using pazopanib and sunitinib

BACKGROUND

Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib in progression-free survival in a phase III, open-label, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of the 2 drugs for treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A secondary analysis of this trial conducted on patient-reported health care resource utilization (HCRU) endpoints revealed significantly fewer monthly telephone consultations and emergency department visits among patients treated with pazopanib over the first 6 months of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) compare total costs of HCRU and adverse events (AEs) in patients with advanced RCC receiving first-line pazopanib or sunitinib from the phase III clinical trial and (b) perform a post hoc economic analysis that applied direct medical care and pharmacy unit costs, obtained from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases, to HCRU and AE rates.

METHODS

Total HCRU costs included components for provider contacts, diagnostics, hospitalizations, procedures, and study/nonstudy drugs. Patients were stratified by the presence or absence of an AE in order to estimate costs attributable to AEs. Costs were adjusted to 2013 U.S. dollars. The highest 1% of cost outliers were equally excluded from each group. Univariate (t-test and Kaplan-Meier sample average [KMSA]) and multivariate (using treatment group and region as covariates) analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 906 patients (pazopanib, n = 454; sunitinib, n = 452) reported HCRU; higher rates were observed for sunitinib. In unadjusted cost analyses, the mean total costs for pazopanib-treated patients were 8.0% lower than those treated with sunitinib ($80,464 vs. $86,886; P = 0.20). The difference in KMSA-estimated costs was significantly higher for sunitinib versus pazopanib ($156,128 vs. $143,585; P = 0.003). Adjusted cost differences between arms consistently suggested higher costs for sunitinib. Among patients who experienced greater than or equal to 1 AE, costs were $8,118 higher for pazopanib-treated patients and $14,343 for sunitinib-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that health care costs were lower among patients with advanced RCC treated first-line with pazopanib versus sunitinib.

Cost of adverse events during treatment with everolimus plus exemestane or single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer in Western Europe

OBJECTIVE

Treatment options for recurrent or progressive hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer include chemotherapy and everolimus plus exemestane (EVE + EXE). This study estimates the costs of managing adverse events (AEs) during EVE + EXE therapy and single-agent chemotherapy in Western Europe.

METHODS

An economic model was developed to estimate the per patient cost of managing grade 3/4 AEs for patients who were treated with EVE + EXE or chemotherapies. AE rates for patients receiving EVE + EXE were collected from the phase III BOLERO-2 trial. AE rates for single-agent chemotherapy, capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin were collected from published clinical trial data. AEs with at least 2% prevalence for any of the treatments were included in the model. A literature search was conducted to obtain costs of managing each AE, which were then averaged across Western European countries (when available). Per patient costs for managing AEs among patients receiving different therapies were reported in 2012 euros (€).

RESULTS

The EVE + EXE combination had the lowest average per patient cost of managing AEs (€730) compared to all chemotherapies during the first year of treatment (doxorubicin: €1230; capecitabine: €1721; docetaxel: €2390). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with EVE + EXE was anemia (on average €152 per patient). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin was lymphocytopenia (€861 per patient), neutropenia (€821 per patient), and leukopenia (€382 per patient), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The current model estimates that AE management during the treatment of HR+ advanced breast cancer will cost one-half to one-third less for EVE + EXE patients than for chemotherapy patients. The consideration of AE costs could have important implications in the context of healthcare spending for advanced breast cancer treatment.

First-Line and Sequential Use of Pazopanib Followed by Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Inhibitor Therapy Among Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in a US Community Oncology Setting

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have demonstrated that pazopanib prolongs progression-free survival (PFS), with an acceptable safety profile, for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The efficacy of second-line mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in pazopanib-treated patients has also been evaluated in clinical trials; however, few studies have evaluated first-line pazopanib or second-line mTOR inhibitors in real-world settings. The present study evaluated the outcomes of first-line pazopanib, and pazopanib followed by mTOR inhibitors, in a community oncology setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The present study was a retrospective analysis of eligible patients in US Oncology's iKnowMed electronic health records database who had been treated for aRCC from November 1, 2009 to August 31, 2012. The patients received first-line therapy with pazopanib (cohort 1), followed by second-line therapy with either everolimus or temsirolimus (cohort 2). The key outcomes included overall survival (OS), PFS, adverse events (AEs), treatment patterns, and healthcare resource use.

RESULTS

The median OS in cohort 1 (n = 177) was 22 months, and the median PFS was 8.5 months. The most common AEs were fatigue (56%), diarrhea (52%), vomiting (44%), and nausea (40%). The median persistence was 151 days with pazopanib. The median OS in cohort 2 (n = 35) was 16 months; the median PFS was 5.7 months. The most common AEs were fatigue (51%) and nausea (34%). The median persistence was 93 days with everolimus and 49 days with temsirolimus.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes for the patients treated with first-line pazopanib in the community setting were consistent with those reported by previous prospective and retrospective studies. Although the second-line cohort was small, the results of mTOR inhibitors after pazopanib were also consistent with those of previous observations.

Costs associated with adverse events in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To estimate adverse event (AE) costs in patients receiving targeted therapies for the first line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

Retrospective study based on healthcare claims data for patients with mRCC, aged ≥18 years, receiving first-line treatment with targeted therapies. AEs of interest comprised of abdominal pain, back pain, diarrhea, dyspnea, extremity pain, fatigue/asthenia, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, lymphopenia, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia, proteinuria, and thrombocytopenia. Healthcare encounters for AEs were based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis/procedure codes on healthcare claims. AE costs were examined over a 30-day period, beginning with the date of first mention of AE, and were estimated based on the difference in total costs between patients with and without events. Drug costs of targeted agents were excluded from the analysis. Multivariate generalized linear models with a log-link function and gamma response probability distribution were utilized to control for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without evidence of AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 533 patients were included in this analysis: 418 patients with AE and 115 patients without AE. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between patients in the two groups. The GLM-based estimate of incremental 30-day post-event costs among patients with evidence of any adverse events was $9807 (95% CI = $4386-$22,947). For all types of adverse events examined, the estimated difference in costs between evented and non-evented patients was positive; the 95% CI did not include zero for all of the adverse events considered, except hypertension and proteinurea. Study limitations include errors of commission/omission, especially as they may affect case-finding methods that rely on ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes, as was the case in the current study.

CONCLUSION

Costs associated with AEs of first-line targeted therapies are substantial in patients with mRCC. Efforts to prevent and/or better manage these events may reduce overall healthcare costs.

Risk of incremental toxicities and associated costs of new anticancer drugs: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

There are increasing reports of rare but serious toxicities caused by new anticancer drugs, and there are costs associated with their management.

METHODS

We identified anticancer drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 2000 to 2011 and pivotal trials supporting their registration. Twelve frequent grade 3 to 4 adverse event (AEs) were weighted and pooled in a meta-analysis. Estimates of incremental drug prices and incremental costs for management of AEs were calculated according to type of new agent based on target specificity.

RESULTS

We identified 41 studies comprising 27,539 patients and evaluating 19 experimental drugs. Agents directed against a specific molecular target on cancer cells had a lower incidence of grade 3 to 4 toxicities compared with controls (median risk ratio [RR], 0.67; P = .22), whereas less-specific targeted agents, including angiogenesis inhibitors (median RR, 3.39; P < .001) and chemotherapeutic agents (median RR, 1.73; P < .001), were more toxic. Risk was increased regardless of whether the control arm contained active treatment (RR, 2.11; P < .001) or not (RR, 3.02; P < .001). Median incremental drug price for experimental agents was $6,000 per patient per month. Median cost of managing toxicity was low compared with drug costs but higher than controls for treatment with less-specific targeted agents and chemotherapies.

CONCLUSION

Newly approved anticancer drugs are associated with increased toxicity, except for agents with a specific molecular target on cancer cells. Management of toxicity leads to a small increase in overall cost of treatment. Frequency of toxicity and associated costs are likely higher in less-selected patients treated in general oncologic practice. Development of biomarker-driven agents should be encouraged.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

DESIGN

A semi-Markov model was constructed from a French health collective perspective, with health states related to first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, resection of metastases, disease-free after successful resection and death.

METHODS

Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression-free and overall survival data from the only head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab and bevacizumab (PEAK) were performed to estimate transitions to disease progression and death. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and French public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second- and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was applied. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Based on a head-to-head clinical trial that demonstrates better efficacy outcomes for patients with wild-type RAS mCRC who receive panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, the incremental cost per life-year gained was estimated to be €26,918, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was estimated to be €36,577. Sensitivity analyses indicate the model is robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental cost per QALY gained indicates that panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 represents good value for money in comparison to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 and, with a willingness-to-pay ranging from €40,000 to €60,000, can be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC.

Emerging antiangiogenics for renal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Antiangiogenic therapy is considered to be the backbone of treatment strategy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). New, more focused, targeted drugs are emerging, while other targeted drugs oriented toward resistance or alternative mechanisms are under development.

AREAS COVERED

Antiangiogenic agents include two types of agents: the monoclonal antibody, targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), bevacizumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Data regarding efficacy and safety of these agents are reported. Differences between the first generation of TKIs, sunitinib, sorafenib, and the new generation, pazopanib, axitinib and tivozanib are also detailed. Most of these agents have been approved in the treatment of kidney cancer in specific settings of the disease.

EXPERT OPINION

The class of antiangiogenic drugs for treatment of mRCC is already relatively full. After 'me-too' drugs, more targeted drugs against VEGFR have been developed but have to demonstrate a benefit in first-line treatment. Another option for the development is to combine a known drug with an antiangiogenic inhibition profile and at least one additional target involved in resistance to an antiangiogenic or in an alternative pathway. The cost of approach with targeted drugs, including antiangiogenics, has led to a tremendous increase in the cost of care in mRCC.

A review of economic impact of targeted oral anticancer medications

There has been a rapid increase in the use of targeted oral anticancer medications (OAMs) in the past decade. As OAMs are often expensive, economic consideration play a significant role in the decision to prescribe, receive or cover them. This paper performs a systematic review of costs or budgetary impact of targeted OAMs to better understand their economic impact on the healthcare system, patients as well as payers. We present our review in a summary table that describes the method and main findings, take into account multiple factors, such as country, analytical approach, cost type, study perspective, timeframe, data sources, study population and care setting when we interpret the results from different papers, and discuss the policy and clinical implications. Our review raises a concern regarding the role of sponsorship on findings of economic analyses as the vast majority of pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported cost advantages toward the sponsor's drugs.

Cost effectiveness of first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in the management of advanced soft tissue sarcoma in Italy, Spain, and sweden

Background. Doxorubicin/ifosfamide is a first-line systemic chemotherapy for the majority of advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS) subtypes. Trabectedin is indicated for the treatment of ASTS after failure of anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide; however it is being increasingly used off-label as a first-line treatment. This study estimated the cost effectiveness of these two treatments in the first-line management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, and Sweden. Methods. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy, defined as the cost per QALY gained, in each country. Results. First-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide resulted in lower two-year healthcare costs and more QALYs than first-line treatment with trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a cost per QALY threshold of €35,000, >90% of a cohort would be cost effectively treated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Conclusion. Within the model's limitations, first-line treatment of patients with ASTS with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded healthcare resources in Italy, Spain, and Sweden and is therefore the preferred treatment in all three countries. These findings support the recommendation that trabectedin should remain a second-line treatment.

Economic burden of selected adverse events in patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the costs of adverse events (AEs) in patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

Retrospective study using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Medicare database. Study subjects consisted of persons in SEER-Medicare, aged ≥65 years, with evidence of newly diagnosed mRCC between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007. Adverse events of interest consisted of Grade 3 or 4 toxicities that have been reported with frequency ≥5% in randomized controlled trials of sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, and pazopanib (i.e., targeted therapies for mRCC), and included abdominal pain, back pain, diarrhea, dyspnea, extremity pain, fatigue/asthenia, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, lymphopenia, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia, proteinuria, and thrombocytopenia. Patients in SEER-Medicare with these events were identified based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes on Medicare claims. For each AE of interest, costs were tallied among evented patients over 30 days, beginning with the date of each patient's first mention of the AE, and were compared with those of non-evented patients over a similar 30-day period beginning with an identical 'shadow' index date. Total costs were compared on an unadjusted basis and with adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics using a generalized linear model.

RESULTS

A total of 881 patients with mRCC met study entry criteria; 60% of these patients had Medicare claims with mention of one or more AEs of interest. Events occurring with frequency >20% included abdominal pain, dyspnea, and fatigue/asthenia; 10-20% of study subjects had encounters for back pain, extremity pain, and nausea/vomiting. Mean (standard deviation) total cost of care over 30 days was substantially higher among patients with AEs ($13,944 [$14,529]) compared with those without mention of these events ($1878 [$5264]). Adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the mean (95% confidence interval) difference in costs between evented and non-evented patients was $12,410 ($9217-$16,522). Study limitations include problems in event ascertainment due to inaccuracies in ICD-9-CM coding on Medicare claims data, and restriction of the study population to patients with metastatic involvement at initial diagnosis of RCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Costs of care are substantially higher in patients aged ≥65 years with mRCC who experience AEs commonly associated with sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, and pazopanib. Efforts to prevent and/or better manage these events potentially can reduce healthcare costs.

Cost comparison of second-line treatment options for late stage non-small-cell lung cancer: cost analysis for Italy

Background:

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide (1.38 million cancer deaths, 18.2% of the total) and of cancer morbidity (1.61 million new cases, 12.7% of all new cancers). Currently only three second-line non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) pharmacotherapies are licensed in the European Union: the chemotherapies pemetrexed and docetaxel and the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib. These therapy alternatives have shown a comparable efficacy (survival benefit). In the past, cost comparisons showed that erlotinib was less costly compared to docetaxel, which in turn is cheaper than pemetrexed. Nowadays erlotinib (and docetaxel) are still less expensive than pemetrexed; but docetaxel lost patent protection (basic compound patent) at the end of 2010, so docetaxel drug costs have decreased rapidly and the question remains whether erlotinib is still the least costly therapy alternative in second-line NSCLC.

Material and methods:

Italy was selected for base case analysis to compare the total therapy costs, estimated by combining country-specific drug costs, administration costs, and adverse event costs of erlotinib and generic docetaxel in second-line NSCLC therapy. Sensitivity analyses on central input parameters have been performed.

Results:

The total costs of treating one patient with erlotinib therapy of €5121 are lower than the docetaxel costs of €6699 for the Italian health care setting. Although the drug costs of erlotinib are higher than generic docetaxel (incremental €3770): the costs of intravenous chemotherapy administration (incremental −€4510), and the costs of adverse event therapy (incremental −€837) lead to higher total therapy costs for docetaxel compared to the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy erlotinib.

Conclusion:

The cost comparison findings for Italy show that erlotinib is still the less costly therapy alternative in second-line NSCLC. These results were robust to changes of central input parameters and robust to further potential price decreases for docetaxel.

A comparison of preferences of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma between the patient group and health care professional group in South Korea

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the preferences of health care professional groups and patient groups with respect to efficacy, adverse events, and administration method for targeted agents of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 485 respondents including cancer patients and health care professionals (medical oncologists, nurses, and pharmacists) were surveyed by using a discrete choice experiment in South Korea. Through a literature review and expert consultation, six attributes--progression-free survival, four adverse events (bone marrow suppression, hand-foot skin reaction, gastrointestinal perforation, and bleeding), and administration--were selected. This study employed the conditional logit regression model.

RESULTS

The six attributes are statistically significant for the patient group and health care professional group. The two groups, however, present differences in progression-free survival, hand-foot skin reaction, gastrointestinal perforation, and administration. The relative importance of adverse events is greater for the patient group, while that of efficacy and administration is greater for the health professional group. For doctors, the relative importance of efficacy is as high as 31%, compared with 7% for the patient group. If progression-free survival is prolonged by 1 month, the acceptable level of bone marrow suppression is 1.3% for the patient group and 9.6% for doctors and that of hand-foot skin reaction is 1.0% and 11.8%, respectively, for the patient group and doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates substantial differences in the preference for a targeted drug between the patient group and the health care professional group. Doctors prefer effective and orally administered drugs while patients show more reluctant attitudes about adverse events than do health care professionals.

Economic evaluation of first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a health resource-limited setting

Background

To estimate, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, the economic outcomes of five different first-line strategies among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods and Findings

A decision-analytic model was developed to simulate the lifetime disease course associated with renal cell carcinoma. The health and economic outcomes of five first-line strategies (interferon-alfa, interleukin-2, interleukin-2 plus interferon-alfa, sunitinib and bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa) were estimated and assessed by indirect comparison. The clinical and utility data were taken from published studies. The cost data were estimated from local charge data and current Chinese practices. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty regarding the results. The impact of the sunitinib patient assistant program (SPAP) was evaluated via scenario analysis. The base-case analysis showed that the sunitinib strategy yielded the maximum health benefits: 2.71 life years and 1.40 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). The marginal cost-effectiveness (cost per additional QALY) gained via the sunitinib strategy compared with the conventional strategy was $220,384 (without SPAP, interleukin-2 plus interferon-alfa and bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa were dominated) and $16,993 (with SPAP, interferon-alfa, interleukin-2 plus interferon-alfa and bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa were dominated). In general, the results were sensitive to the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the sunitinib strategy with SPAP was the most cost-effective approach when the willingness-to-pay threshold was over $16,000.

Conclusions

Our analysis suggests that traditional cytokine therapy is the cost-effective option in the Chinese healthcare setting. In some relatively developed regions, sunitinib with SPAP may be a favorable cost-effective alternative for mRCC.

Cost-effectiveness of everolimus vs sunitinib in treating patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in the United States

BACKGROUND

Everolimus (Afinitor) and sunitinib (Sutent) were recently approved to treat patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). (Afinitor is a registered trademark of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; Sutent is a registered trademark of Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA.) This analysis examined the projected cost-effectiveness of everolimus vs sunitinib in this setting from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

A semi-Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of patients with advanced, progressive pNET and to estimate the cost per life-year gained (LYG) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when treating with everolimus vs sunitinib. Efficacy data were based on a weight-adjusted indirect comparison of the agents using phase 3 trial data. Model health states included: stable disease with no adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Therapy costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs such as physician visits, tests, hospitalizations, and adverse event costs were obtained from literature and/or primary research. Utility inputs were based on primary research. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model's robustness.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, everolimus was associated with an incremental 0.448 LYG (0.304 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $12,673, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $28,281/LYG ($41,702/QALY gained). The ICER fell within the cost per QALY range for many widely used oncology drugs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that, overall, there is a trend that everolimus is cost-effective compared to sunitinib in this setting.

LIMITATIONS

Results of the indirect analysis were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Assumptions that treatment patterns are the same across therapies may not represent real-world practice.

CONCLUSIONS

While the analysis is limited by its reliance on an indirect comparison of two phase 3 studies, everolimus is expected to be cost-effective relative to sunitinib in advanced, progressive pNET.

Cost-effectiveness of sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Sunitinib is one of the first targeted treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and is currently considered as the standard of care for most of the mRCC patients in the first-line setting. The introduction of targeted treatments has, in the past few years, led to improvements in disease management and survival of these patients, however, with increasing cost. Cost-effectiveness of sunitinib has been assessed on several occasions and a systematic literature search was conducted to find all published research articles as well as all research abstracts presented in various congresses. This article presents an overview of the currently existing cost-effectiveness studies of sunitinib in mRCC, along with the main results and the utilized methodology. In most of the economic evaluations sunitinib has been deemed to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with other treatments.

A cross-market cost comparison of erlotinib versus pemetrexed for first-line maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Erlotinib and pemetrexed were approved by the European Medicines Agency for first-line maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to prolong overall survival after first-line therapy. An adjusted, matched, indirect comparison of erlotinib and pemetrexed suggested that survival benefits were not statistically significantly different between treatments. We conducted a cost-comparison analysis of erlotinib versus pemetrexed in first-line maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic, non-squamous NSCLC in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, performed from the perspective of national health-care decision-makers or purchasers. The analysis was limited to direct costs and comprised drug-acquisition costs, administration costs and costs of treating adverse events (AEs). A one-way sensitivity analysis on administration, acquisition and AE costs was also performed. Total monthly per-patient treatment costs for erlotinib in France, Germany, Italy and Spain were €2140, €2732, €1518 and €2048, respectively, and for pemetrexed €3453, €5534, €2921 and €3164, respectively. AE cost was greater for pemetrexed in all countries, as was administration cost. As an oral treatment, erlotinib is not associated with any administration costs, except in Germany, where the cost is lower than for pemetrexed. The sensitivity analysis showed acquisition costs to be the main driver of total monthly per-patient costs. Erlotinib appears to be a cost-saving treatment alternative to pemetrexed, producing comparable survival benefits, based on an indirect comparison, at a lower cost.

Economic burden of renal cell carcinoma: Part I--an updated review

The economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) came into sharp focus when the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) denied coverage (later reversed) of sunitinib for metastatic RCC. In the first of two articles that provide updated reviews and analyses of the economic burden of RCC, we conducted an updated literature review of RCC-related economic studies. We performed a literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for English-language studies published from 1 January 2000 to 15 June 2010. We also performed a separate search for related studies in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published by the National Institute for Health Research HTA Programme in the UK. Identified articles were classified into three categories: cost studies, cost-effectiveness/cost-utility studies and cost-of-illness studies. All cost estimates were normalized to $US, year 2009 values. We identified 20 articles, including six cost, six cost-utility and eight cost-of-illness studies. In general, the studies found new surgical techniques, such as laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, to be potentially cost saving (in the range of $US181-5842). Targeted agents, such as bevacizumab, sunitinib, sorafenib and temsirolimus, were associated with higher lifetime costs ($US8537-72 254) and were not always considered to be cost effective by authors of the cost-effectiveness studies included in this review (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $US49 959-272 418 per QALY). The literature reported annual estimates of the US economic burden of RCC between $US0.60 billion and $US5.19 billion, with per-patient costs of $US16 488-43 805. RCC is associated with substantial economic burden, although the estimates are wide ranging. Comparisons of the estimates across studies were hindered by variations in study methodology, choice of database and the associated timeframe, and limitations inherent to each database. More research is needed to assess the quality of the economic studies of RCC and to understand why the estimated costs differ across studies.

Indirect treatment comparison of bevacizumab + interferon-α-2a vs tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy

BACKGROUND

The vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab (BEV) given in combination with interferon-α-2a (IFN), and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sunitinib (SUN) and pazopanib (PAZ), have all shown significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) therapy. These targeted therapies are currently competing to be primary choice; hence, in the absence of direct head-to-head comparison, there is a need for valid indirect comparison assessment.

METHODS

Standard indirect comparison methods were applied to independent review PFS data of the pivotal Phase III trials, to determine indirect treatment comparison hazard-ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). As BEV+IFN and SUN have been compared to IFN, indirect comparison was enabled by the common IFN comparator arms. As PAZ was compared to placebo (PLA), a connector trial (IFN vs PLA) was required for the indirect comparison to BEV+IFN. Sensitivity analyses taking into account real-life influence of patient compliance on clinical outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

The indirect efficacy comparison resulted in a statistically nonsignificant PFS difference of BEV+IFN vs SUN (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.78-1.45; P = 0.73) and of BEV+IFN vs PAZ (range based on different connector trials; HR: 0.74-1.03; P = 0.34-0.92). Simulating real-life patient compliance and its effectiveness impact showed an increased tendency towards BEV+IFN without reaching statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no statistically significant PFS difference between BEV+IFN and TKIs in first-line mRCC. These findings imply that additional treatment decision criteria such as tolerability and therapy sequencing need to be considered to guide treatment decisions.