Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for renal cancer in the United States

An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from an Italian National Health Service perspective, considering the evolving Italian landscape in terms of new reimbursement agreements trend.

METHODS

This analysis is an update of the previously published cost-effectiveness analysis to incorporate recent 2019 costs and additional changes regarding drug discounting. A partitioned-survival analysis model with three different health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was utilized. Outcomes included progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs calculated for both treatments. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit (NMB) of pazopanib versus sunitinib. In the base case analysis, a time horizon of 5 years was used and future costs and QALYs were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. An impact of methodological and parameter uncertainly on base case results was evaluated using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, pazopanib had higher QALYs (+0.060) at lower costs (-€5,857) versus sunitinib, hence it dominated sunitinib. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the NMB with pazopanib were €7,647 and €8,841 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 97.5% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 95.4% at a threshold of €30,000, and 90.2% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions as demonstrated by deterministic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic RCC in Italy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the U.S

BACKGROUND

The data from the phase III clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 indicated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib could generate clinical benefits in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Given the incremental clinical benefits, we examined the potential cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in the first-line setting for patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cost and health outcomes were estimated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters, and additional subgroup analyses were performed as well.

RESULTS

Upon our analyses, the total treatment costs in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib and sunitinib groups were $522,796 and $348,424 and the QALYs gained 2.90 and 1.72, respectively. In the base-case analysis, compared with receiving sunitinib, patients with advanced RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib gained 1.18 more QALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,676/QALY. The results of subgroup analyses demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was most cost-effective for patients who had one organ with metastasis.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib, compared with sunitinib, is a cost-effective strategy when the value of WTP is from $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY in patients with advanced RCC. For patients with one-organ metastasis and those in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium poor risk group, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is more cost-effective than others.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This was the first study to examine the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study found that first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is a cost-effective strategy when the value of willingness-to-pay is from $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Pembrolizumab/axitinib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and increased objective response rate versus sunitinib in the phase III trial KEYNOTE-426 among previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab/axitinib versus other first-line treatments of advanced RCC from a US public healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three states (progression-free, progressed, death) evaluated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for pembrolizumab/axitinib and other first-line regimens: sunitinib, pazopanib and avelumab/axitinib in the overall population; and sunitinib, cabozantinib and nivolumab/ipilimumab in the subgroup with intermediate/poor prognostic risk. Costs of treatments, adverse events and medical resources were estimated. OS, PFS and treatment duration were extrapolated using parametric models fitted to KEYNOTE-426 data and hazard ratios from network meta-analyses. Utilities were derived through mixed-effects regressions of KEYNOTE-426 EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels data.

RESULTS

In the overall population, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $95,725/QALY versus sunitinib and $128,210/QALY versus pazopanib, and was dominant (lower cost, higher effectiveness) versus avelumab/axitinib, with incremental QALY gains of 2.73, 2.40 and 1.80 versus these therapies, respectively. In the intermediate/poor-risk subgroup, base-case ICERs for pembrolizumab/axitinib were $101,030/QALY versus sunitinib, $6989/QALY versus cabozantinib, and $130,934/QALY versus nivolumab/ipilimumab, with incremental QALY gains of 2.62, 1.78 and 1.06 versus these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this economic evaluation, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with higher life expectancy and QALYs and, based on typical willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000-$180,000/QALY, was found cost-effective versus other first-line treatments for advanced RCC in the US.

First-line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Recently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

Pazopanib has equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower Total costs than Sunitinib for treating metastatic or advanced renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Background

Sunitinib and pazopanib are extensively used as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We performed this meta-analysis to assess the anti-tumor effectiveness, toxicity, and total costs of the two drugs among patients with mRCC/advanced RCC (aRCC).

Materials and Methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to obtain eligible articles. The endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs.

Results

We included 14 medium- to high-quality studies. Both drugs were valid for mRCC/aRCC, with equivalent PFS (hazard ratio (HR) =1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98–1.15, P = 0.13), OS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.79–1.07, P = 0.29), objective response rate (ORR, risk ratio (RR) =1.03, 95% CI: 0.93–1.13, p = 0.58), and disease control rate (DCR, RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94–1.22, P = 0.54). Sunitinib had more dosage reductions and higher PPPM (weighted mean difference = − 1.50 thousand US dollars, 95% CI: − 2.27 to − 0.72, P = 0.0002). Furthermore, more incidences of severe fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were recorded for sunitinib, but pazopanib had more liver toxicity. In subgroup analysis, studies from the US reported longer OS (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77–0.95, P = 0.004) and higher ORR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03–1.51, P = 0.03).

Conclusions

Pazopanib provides equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower PPPM as compared with sunitinib for mRCC/aRCC. Great care should be given to pazopanib-treated patients with abnormal liver function. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5704-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Economic evaluation of sunitinib versus pazopanib and best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Chile: cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed treatment comparison

Background: Sunitinib and Pazopanib are two metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) treatment alternatives, however the health system in Chile does not consider coverage for any. The cost-effectiveness versus relevant comparator was assessed to support evidence-based decision making. Methods: A four health states Markov model was built: first, second line treatments, BSC and death. Benefits were measured in QALYs, and efficacy estimates were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison. A 10-year time horizon and a 3% undifferentiated discount rate were considered. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The costs of treating MRCC with Sunitinib were higher than Pazopanib and BSC. When comparing Sunitinib versus Pazopanib, the incremental benefit is small favoring Sunitinib (0.03 QALYs). The base case scenario shows an average ICER of PA versus BSC of US$62,327.11/QALY and of US$85,885/QALY for Sunitinib versus Pazopanib. The ICER was most sensitive to the OS relative to BSC, where evidence was associated to important bias. Conclusions: Sunitinib or Pazopanib can be considered cost-effective if a 3 GDP per-capita threshold is assumed. The decision between SU or PA is highly sensitive to the price of the drugs, rather than the outcomes. Therefore, the decision might be made based on cost-minimization exercise.

Cost-utility of Sunitinib Versus Pazopanib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Canada using Real-world Evidence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The development of new targeted therapies in kidney cancer has shaped disease management in the metastatic phase. Our study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of sunitinib versus pazopanib in first-line setting in Canada for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients using real-world data.

METHODS

A Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of patients treated in first-line with sunitinib versus pazopanib. Transition probabilities were estimated using observational data from a Canadian database where real-life clinical practice was captured. The costs of therapies, disease progression, and management of adverse events were included in the model in Canadian dollars ($Can). Utility and disutility values were included for each health state. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for a time horizon of 5 years, from the Canadian Healthcare System perspective.

RESULTS

The cost difference was $36,303 and the difference in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.54 in favour of sunitinib with an ICUR of $67,227/QALY for sunitinib versus pazopanib. The major cost component (56%) is related to best supportive care (BSC) where patients tend to stay for a longer period of time compared to other states. The difference in life years gained (LYG) between sunitinib and pazopanib was 1.21 LYG (33.51 vs 19.03 months) and the ICER was $30,002/LYG. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model with a high probability of sunitinib being a cost-effective option when compared to pazopanib.

CONCLUSION

When using real-world evidence, sunitinib is found to be a cost-effective treatment compared to pazopanib in mRCC patients in Canada.

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.

Do current approaches to assessing therapy related adverse events align with the needs of long-term cancer patients and survivors?

The increasing efficacy of cancer therapeutics means that the timespan of cancer therapy administration is undergoing a transition to increasingly long-term settings. Unfortunately, chronic therapy-related adverse health events are an unintended, but not infrequent, outcome of these life-saving therapies. Historically, the cardio-oncology field has evolved as retrospective effort to understand the scope, mechanisms, and impact of treatment-related toxicities that were already impacting patients. This review explores whether current systemic approaches to detecting, reporting, tracking, and communicating AEs are better positioned to provide more proactive or concurrent information to mitigate the impact of AE's on patient health and quality of life. Because the existing tools and frameworks for capturing these effects are not specific to cardiology, this study looks broadly at the landscape of approaches and assumptions. This review finds evidence of increasing focus on the provision of actionable information to support long-term health and quality of life for survivors and those on chronic therapy. However, the current means to assess and support the impact of this burden on patients and the healthcare system are often of limited relevance for an increasingly long-lived survivor and patient population.

Current and Emerging Therapeutic Targets for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has evolved dramatically over recent years. In this review, we will summarize current and emerging therapies based on molecular targets and provide insight into treatment strategy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

RECENT FINDINGS

We have witnessed a paradigm shift in the therapeutic landscape as treatment was formerly reliant on cytokine-based agents which have now been replaced with therapies targeting angiogenesis, mammalian target of rapamycin pathways, and immune responses. These dramatic changes are primarily due to our improved understanding of the underlying mutations and molecular mechanisms leading to tumorigenesis and progression. We now have targeted agents in the form of small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and mTOR inhibitors. Moreover, immunotherapy-targeting checkpoints of T-lymphocyte activity has provided increased overall survival and a new class of agents with potential to radically change the treatment options. With these agents and their combination, durable responses are increasingly seen even though treatment resistance remains a huge challenge. New treatment strategies are rapidly developing and the therapeutic landscape is expected for further evolution.

Cost and cost-effectiveness studies in urologic oncology using large administrative databases

OBJECTIVE

Urologic cancers are not only among the most common types of cancers, but also among the most expensive cancers to treat in the United States. This study aimed to review the use of CEAs and other cost analyses in urologic oncology using large databases to better understand the value of management strategies of these cancers.

METHODS

A literature review on CEAs and other cost analyses in urologic oncology using large databases.

RESULTS

The options for and costs of diagnosing, treating, and following patients with urologic cancers can be expected to rise in the coming years. There are numerous opportunities in each urologic cancer to use CEAs to both lower costs and provide high-quality services. Improved cancer care must balance the integration of novelty with ensuring reasonable costs to patients and the health care system.

CONCLUSION

With the increasing focus cost containment, appreciating the value of competing strategies in caring for our patients is pivotal. Leveraging methods such as CEAs and harnessing large databases may help evaluate the merit of established or emerging strategies.

Pazopanib for renal cell carcinoma leads to elevated mean arterial pressures in a murine model

BACKGROUND

In the setting of metastatic RCC (mRCC), pazopanib is approved as first line therapy. Unfortunately treatment may lead to cardiotoxicity such as hypertension, heart failure, and myocardial ischemia.

OBJECTIVE

Define the in vivo role of pazopanib in the development of cardiotoxicity.

METHODS

Wild type mice were dosed for 42 days via oral gavage, and separated into control and treatment (pazopanib) groups. Baseline ECG's, echocardiograms, and blood pressures were recorded. At the conclusion of the study functional parameters were again recorded, and animals were used for pathological, histological, and protein analysis.

RESULTS

After 2 weeks of dosing with pazopanib, the treatment group exhibited a statistically significant increase in mean arterial pressure compared to control mice (119 ± 11.7 mmHg versus 108 ± 8.2 mmHg, p = 0.049). Treatment with pazopanib led to a significant reduction in the cardiac output of mice.

CONCLUSION

Our findings in mice clearly demonstrate that treatment with pazopanib leads to a significant elevation in blood pressure after 2 weeks of dosing and this persists for the duration of dosing. The continued development of the cardio-oncology field will be paramount in providing optimal oncologic care while simultaneously improving cardiac outcomes through further investigation into the mechanisms of CV toxicity.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Elderly Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Starting Pazopanib or Sunitinib Treatment: A Retrospective Medicare Claims Analysis

Introduction

Studies indicate similar survival and toxicity between pazopanib and sunitinib, but few have examined real-world outcomes among elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The purpose of this retrospective claims analysis was to assess real-world overall survival (OS), healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and healthcare costs (both all-cause and associated with RCC diagnosis) among elderly advanced RCC patients starting pazopanib or sunitinib treatment.

Methods

Advanced RCC patients aged 65 years or older who started first-line treatment with pazopanib or sunitinib (index drug; the initiation date was the index date) were identified from the 100% Medicare database plus Part D linkage (January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014). Patients were stratified by index drug and matched 1:1 with use of propensity scores based on baseline characteristics. OS was assessed from the index date to death and compared by Kaplan–Meier analyses and univariable Cox models; patients were censored at the end of eligibility/data. Monthly HRU and costs from an intent-to-treat perspective were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Results

Baseline characteristics were balanced after matching (both N = 522). Treatment with pazopanib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared with treatment with sunitinib (18.2 months vs 14.6 months, respectively; log-rank p = 0.015). Pazopanib was associated with significantly lower monthly all-cause costs compared with sunitinib ($8845 vs $10,416, respectively), as well as lower inpatient costs associated with RCC diagnosis ($1542 vs $2522), fewer monthly inpatient admissions (0.179 vs 0.262), and shorter length of inpatient stay (1.375 days vs 1.883 days; all p ≤ 0.004).

Conclusions

Among elderly Medicare patients with advanced RCC, first-line pazopanib tretament was associated with significantly longer OS, as well as lower healthcare costs and HRU, compared with first-line sunitinib treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0628-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Application of the American society of clinical oncology frameworks to compare tyrosine kinase inhibitors used in first line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: had we solved the mystery?

INTRODUCTION

The approval of multiple biological therapies as a first line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the last decade have made the selection of the best treatment between these drugs, especially tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), a great challenge to oncologists and patients. The four TKIs recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in this setting have a relatively similar mechanism of action and analogical adverse events. Areas covered: In this article, the two published American Society of Clinical Oncology frameworks are applied to calculate the net health benefits of the four TKIs used as the first line in mRCC and this was balanced against their monthly cost. The available clinical data that is present for each drug has been displayed and compared to the use of the ASCO frameworks. Expert commentary: There is an urgent need to develop a comprehensive model incorporating all relevant aspects of each drug together. Oncologists should consider all data available for the drugs in order to give the patients an informed opportunity to select the best drug fitting for them.

Assessment of pazopanib-related hypertension, cardiac dysfunction and identification of clinical risk factors for their development

BACKGROUND

Antineoplastic therapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been associated with hypertension (HTN), cardiomyopathy, and cardiac dysrhythmias. We therefore assessed the cardiovascular (CV) risk with pazopanib in a clinical setting.

METHODS

Medical records of 35 antineoplastic-naïve mRCC patients newly started on pazopanib were retrospectively reviewed at a single academic medical center. Assessment of the hypertensive response and adverse cardiac events associated with pazopanib was the primary objective. Outcomes were defined using the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. Potential clinical risk factors were investigated with univariate and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Pazopanib-induced HTN was observed in 57% of patients. Median maximal systolic blood pressure (SBP) during pazopanib treatment was 167.5 mmHg with median time to event of 24.5 days. New-onset HTN occurred in 6/14 (43%) patients. Baseline SBP > 130 mmHg (odds ratio [OR]: 5.32; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-29.99; p = 0.058) and ACEi/ARB use (OR: 4.88; 95% CI: 1.05 22.84; p = 0.044) were risk factors for pazopanib-induced HTN. When HTN was excluded, 34% of patients developed a CV adverse event. Age ≥ 60 years (OR: 8.72; 95% CI: 0.74-513.26; p = 0.105) trended towards being a predictor for a non-HTN CV adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that pazopanib has a broad CV toxicity profile in treatment-naïve mRCC patients headlined by a rapid and striking hypertensive response. More intensive BP control prior to starting pazopanib and standardization of CV surveillance particularly in older patients may optimize oncologic care while minimizing CV risk.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom

Background

Sunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources.

Methods

A partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan–Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results.

Results

In the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: −0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (−£1,061, 95% CrI: −£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.

Economic evaluation of nivolumab as a second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma from US and Chinese perspectives

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab is a new standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and provides an overall survival benefit of 5.40 months in comparison with everolimus. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the second-line treatment of mRCC from the perspective of US payers and identified the range of drug costs for which the addition of nivolumab to standard therapy could be considered cost-effective from a Chinese perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed to estimate lifetime costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were estimated for the US and Chinese health care systems. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Nivolumab provided an additional 0.29 QALYs at a cost of $151,676/QALY in the United States. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, at the current cost of nivolumab, the chance of nivolumab being cost-effective was 3.10%. For China, when nivolumab cost less than $7.90 or $9.70/mg, there was a nearly 90% likelihood that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab would be less than $22,785 or $48,838/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For the United States, nivolumab is unlikely to be a high-value treatment for mRCC at the current price, and a price reduction appears to be justified. In China, value-based prices for nivolumab are $7.90 and $9.70/mg for the country and Beijing City, respectively. This study could and should inform the multilateral drug-price negotiations in China that may be upcoming for nivolumab. Cancer 2017;123:2634-41. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Cost-effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service Perspective

PURPOSE

A prior randomized controlled trial (COMPARZ [Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib]) found non-inferior progression-free survival for pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was employed. The model time horizon was 5 years. For each treatment strategy, the model generated expected progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. Results were reported as incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact on results of methodological and parameter uncertainty.

FINDINGS

In the base case, pazopanib was associated with higher QALYs and lower costs and dominated sunitinib. Using willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the net monetary benefits with pazopanib were €6508 and €7702 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 85% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 86% at a threshold of €30,000, and 81% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions.

IMPLICATIONS

These results suggest that pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

In Canada and elsewhere, pazopanib and sunitinib-tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). A large randomized noninferiority trial of pazopanib versus sunitinib (comparz) demonstrated that the two drugs have similar efficacy; however, patients randomized to pazopanib experienced better health-related quality of life (hrqol) and nominally lower rates of non-study medical resource utilization.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care system perspective was evaluated using a partitioned-survival model that incorporated data from comparz and other secondary sources. The time horizon of 5 years was based on the maximum duration of follow-up in the final analysis of overall survival from the comparz trial. Analyses were conducted first using list prices for pazopanib and sunitinib and then by assuming that the prices of sunitinib and pazopanib would be equivalent.

RESULTS

Based on list prices, expected costs were CA$10,293 less with pazopanib than with sunitinib. Pazopanib was estimated to yield 0.059 more quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Pazopanib was therefore dominant (more qalys and lower costs) compared with sunitinib in the base case. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in 79% of simulations and was cost-effective in 90%-100% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Assuming equivalent pricing, pazopanib yielded CA$917 in savings in the base case, was dominant in 36% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sunitinib, pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care perspective.

Renal cancer

The diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma have changed remarkably rapidly. Although the incidence of renal cell carcinoma has been increasing, survival has improved substantially. As incidental diagnosis of small indolent cancers has become more frequent, active surveillance, robot-assisted nephron-sparing surgical techniques, and minimally invasive procedures, such as thermal ablation, have gained popularity. Despite progression in cancer control and survival, locally advanced disease and distant metastases are still diagnosed in a notable proportion of patients. An integrated management strategy that includes surgical debulking and systemic treatment with well established targeted biological drugs has improved the care of patients. Nevertheless, uncertainties, controversies, and research questions remain. Further advances are expected from translational and clinical studies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib for Renal Cancer in the United States

We write to comment on a recently published study by Delea et al. in the January 2015 issue of JMCP that evaluated the cost-effectiveness (CE) of sunitinib (SU) versus pazopanib (PAZ) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from a U.S. third-party payer perspective.1 This analysis was based on COMPARZ and PISCES, clinical trials that compared SU and PAZ2,3 and led the authors to conclude that PAZ is cost-effective (in fact, dominant, according to the base-case results) compared with SU. Such assessment of economic value is clearly important for deciding between therapies to ensure fair access; therefore, we welcome a comparative evaluation of SU and PAZ. However, we believe that some of the key assumptions and inputs used in the model by Delea et al. render their results and conclusions invalid.  Best practice requires that results from a health economic model should reflect the most likely outcomes based on sound methodology and robust evidence for its inputs, as recommended by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).4 Here, we focus on 2 key areas (utilities and survival modeling) where, in our view, the analysis by Delea et al. falls short of this standard, and a third area (treatment costs) where the basis for the data derived is unclear.

ZFX is a Strong Predictor of Poor Prognosis in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background

This study was designed to assay the expression of zinc finger protein X-linked (ZFX) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tissues and evaluate the correlation between ZFX expression and prognosis of RCC patients.

Material/Methods

The expressions of ZFX mRNA in 53 RCC tissues and 51 normal tissues were determined by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) technology was used to measure the expression of ZFX protein. Then chi-square test was conducted to verify the association between ZFX expression and clinical parameters. Next, we explored the overall survival rate of RCC patients with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Finally, the correlation between ZFX expression and the prognosis of RCC patients was evaluated by Cox regression analysis.

Results

The qRT-PCR result showed that the ZFX was significantly up-regulated in RCC tissues. As for the IHC consequence, the positive rate of ZFX expression in RCC specimens was 79.2%, while that in the normal control tissues was only 17.6%. Chi-square test showed that ZFX expression shared no close relationship with age, sex, or smoking (P>0.05), but was tightly associated with TNM stage, tumor size, and lymph node metastasis (P<0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients with ZFX positive expression had higher mortality than those with negative expression (P<0.05). Cox regression analysis revealed that ZFX expression had tight correlation with prognosis of RCC patients (HR=4.997, P=0.045, 95%CI=1.033–24.180).

Conclusions

Our findings show that ZFX could be considered as a predictor for prognosis of RCC patients.

Health Care Costs Among Renal Cancer Patients Using Pazopanib and Sunitinib

Publications that aim to assess the economics of different therapies are important because they complement clinical trial data and may aid in decision making. We therefore read with interest the study by Hansen et al. in the January 2015 issue of JMCP. This study compared  costs between pazopanib (PAZ) and sunitinib (SU) in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).1 The authors assessed health care costs through assignment of costs from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases to the self-reported health care resource utilization (HCRU) data from the population studied in the phase III noninferiority clinical trial COMPARZ (Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma).2 We are writing to comment on the conclusions drawn from the results presented, the methodology used, and to request additional information and clarification on data presented.

Comparing two tyrosine kinase inhibitors for treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in Medicare and commercially insured patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare treatment characteristics, survival and costs for sunitinib and pazopanib for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Using claims data, this observational, retrospective cohort study selected individuals aged 19 to 89 years, with commercial or Medicare insurance, advanced RCC, and at least one pharmacy claim for sunitinib or pazopanib between 1 November 2009 and 31 December 2012. Treatment characteristics (treatment interruption, adherence, duration and discontinuation), survival, and costs were measured up to 12 months. Statistical models were adjusted for age, gender, geographic region, race, and RxRisk-V score.

RESULTS

At baseline, pazopanib patients exhibited significantly worse health status indicators (RxRisk-V score, number of pharmacy claims, and pre-index total healthcare costs) than sunitinib patients. There were no differences in treatment characteristics or survival. Index medication costs (mean difference $5580, p = 0.03, adj p = 0.05) and total healthcare costs (mean difference $12,192, p = 0.09, adj p = 0.07) trended higher with sunitinib. Patients non-adherent with sunitinib incurred significantly higher total costs compared to patients non-adherent with pazopanib (mean difference $17,680, p = 0.04, adj p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality data and proxy variables for treatment effectiveness indicate comparable clinical value for both medications. Sunitinib treatment trended towards higher index medication and total healthcare costs despite higher pre-index total costs and worse health status indicators at baseline with pazopanib. Non-adherence with sunitinib was associated with significantly higher total healthcare costs, which may indicate differences in tolerability between the two agents and requires further investigation.