Cost-effectiveness analysis of axitinib through a probabilistic decision model

Development and validation of a nomogram to evaluate the therapeutic effects of second-line axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

The unpredictable biological behavior and tumor heterogeneity of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) cause significant differences in axitinib efficacy. The aim of this study is to establish a predictive model based on clinicopathological features to screen patients with mRCC who can benefit from axitinib treatment. A total of 44 patients with mRCC were enrolled and divided into the training set and validation set. In the training set, variables related with the therapeutic efficacy of second-line treatment with axitinib were screened through univariate Cox proportional hazards regression and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator analyses. A predictive model was subsequently established to assess the therapeutic efficacy of second-line treatment with axitinib. The predictive performance of the model was evaluated by analyzing the concordance index and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic, calibration, and decision curves. The accuracy of the model was similarly verified in the validation set. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) grade, albumin, calcium, and adverse reaction grade were identified as the best predictors of the efficacy of second-line axitinib treatment. Adverse reaction grade was an independent prognostic index that correlated with the therapeutic effects of second-line treatment with axitinib. Concordance index value of the model was 0.84. Area under curve values for the prediction of 3-, 6-, and 12-month progression-free survival after axitinib treatment were 0.975, 0.909, and 0.911, respectively. The calibration curve showed a good fit between the predicted and actual probabilities of progression-free survival at 3, 6, and 12 months. The results were verified in the validation set. Decision curve analysis revealed that the nomogram based on a combination of four clinical parameters (IMDC grade, albumin, calcium, and adverse reaction grade) had more net benefit than adverse reaction grade alone. Our predictive model can be useful for clinicians to identify patients with mRCC who can benefit from second-line treatment with axitinib.

Economic Burden of Renal Cell Carcinoma-Part I: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

The economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) had been reported to be significant in a previous review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform an updated review by synthesizing economic studies related to the treatment of RCC that have been published since the previous review.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering English-language studies published between June 2010 and August 2018. We categorized these articles by type of analyses [cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost analysis, and cost of illness (COI)] and treatment setting (cancer status and treatment), discussed findings from these articles, and synthesized information from each article in summary tables.

RESULTS

We identified 52 studies from 2317 abstracts/titles deemed relevant from the initial search, including 21 CEA, 23 cost analysis, and 8 COI studies. For localized RCC, costs were found to be positively associated with the aggressiveness of the local treatment. For metastatic RCC (mRCC), pazopanib was reported to be cost effective in the first-line setting. We also found that the economic burden of RCC has increased over time.

CONCLUSION

RCC continues to impose a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. Despite the large number of treatment alternatives now available for advanced RCC, the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of many new agents remain unknown and warrant greater attention in future research.

Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China

PURPOSE

Targeted therapies, including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, and everolimus, have recently become the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of sequential treatment regimens for mRCC and associated adverse events (AEs) from the Chinese payers' perspective.

METHODS

Key inputs included in the calculation were patient population, dosing information, incidence rates and associated costs of Grade 3/4 AEs, treatment costs (including drug discount programs), and patients' progression-free survival (PFS) as a proxy for length of treatment. To calculate PFS, this study identified pivotal clinical trials and generated a reconstructed individual patient data set from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The median PFS from the pooled estimates were used in the calculation. In the base-case scenario, sunitinib was used as first line and the other three therapies were used as second line. Sensitivity analyses were conducted where (1) sorafenib was used as first line, or (2) a third-line therapy was added to the base-case scenario.

RESULTS

In the base case, the cost per patient per treatment month (PPPM) cost was the lowest for sunitinib + axitinib among all sequential regimens (¥14,898) and was the highest for sunitinib + sorafenib (¥20,103). If sorafenib is used as first line, everolimus had lower per patient per months (PPPM) cost than axitinib (¥17,046 vs ¥23,337), but also had shorter PFS (13.5 months vs 15 months). Second sensitivity analysis with an additional third-line therapy showed consistent results with the base-case scenario; axitinib as second line was the least costly.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that, for mRCC sequential treatment, sunitinib followed by axitinib generates the highest cost savings from the Chinese payers' perspective. Future studies are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of various mRCC treatment regimens in Chinese populations.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and programmed death-1 inhibitors in metastatic renal cell cancer

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic categories of tyrosine kinase inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and programmed death-1 inhibitors have transformed the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer. Nevertheless, this comes at an increased cost, in tandem with similar fiscal pressures in the broader oncology sector, which may jeopardize the sustainability of health systems.

AREAS COVERED

To this direction, the economic evaluation of these agents is essential for rational and efficient decision-making and resource allocation process. The aim of this study is to glean, assess and present an outline of the available cost-effectiveness studies of these agents in the management of metastatic renal cell cancer.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

We concluded that the results of the economic evaluations are pertinent, apart from the product under evaluation, to the country setting as well.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, nivolumab, sunitinib and best supportive care in previously treated renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta®, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx®, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent®, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals.

REVIEW METHODS

A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values.

RESULTS

Four RCTs (n = 2618) and eight non-RCTs (n = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus.

LIMITATIONS

Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS.

CONCLUSIONS

The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Axitinib: a review in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Axitinib (Inlyta(®)) is a potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1, -2 and -3. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of axitinib in patients with previously-treated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as well as summarizing its pharmacological properties. Axitinib was effective in the second-line treatment of advanced RCC, according to the results of the pivotal, phase III AXIS trial. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with axitinib versus sorafenib (primary endpoint; independent review committee assessment); this PFS benefit was seen in patients who had received prior treatment with cytokines or sunitinib. The objective response rate was also significantly higher with axitinib than with sorafenib, with no significant between-group difference in median overall survival. Axitinib had a manageable tolerability profile in the AXIS trial, with the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events including diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, dysphonia, hand-foot syndrome and hypothyroidism. In conclusion, axitinib is an important option in previously-treated patients with advanced RCC.