Darshan A Mehta1, Joel W Hay2. 1. Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, USA. 2. Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Economics & Policy, Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, USA. Electronic address: jhay@usc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy based on outcomes from the GOG-218 and ICON-7 trials. METHODS: A three-state Markov model was used. The time horizon was until the death of 99% of the initial cohort of 1000 individuals. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. All costs were adjusted to 2013 USD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as incremental cost per QALY gained. The robustness of the result was checked with one-way sensitivity analyses and for relevant clinical situations (i.e. varying the drug of choice to treat cancer recurrence). Subgroup analysis was conducted to identify subgroup of population for whom the strategy could be cost-effective. The potential impact of biosimilar bevacizumab was considered, using a 30% price reduction. RESULTS: For the GOG-218 study protocol, widely followed in US, the addition of bevacizumab results in an ICER of $2,420,691/QALY. For the ICON-7 study protocol, the ICER is $225,515/QALY. The results of the model were sensitive to the quality of life (QoL) and the median progression free survival (PFS). Biosimilar bevacizumab didn't reduce cost sufficiently to change conclusions. First-line augmentation is cost-effective, with biosimilar bevacizumab, for stage IV patients ($126,169/QALY), ECOG PS1 patients ($116,575/QALY) and for patients with suboptimal residual disease ($122,822/QALY) as per the ICON-7 protocol. CONCLUSION: Addition of bevacizumab, by in large, is cost-ineffective. It can become cost-effective with the ICON-7 protocol, in patients at high risk of progression using biosimilar bevacizumab.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy based on outcomes from the GOG-218 and ICON-7 trials. METHODS: A three-state Markov model was used. The time horizon was until the death of 99% of the initial cohort of 1000 individuals. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. All costs were adjusted to 2013 USD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as incremental cost per QALY gained. The robustness of the result was checked with one-way sensitivity analyses and for relevant clinical situations (i.e. varying the drug of choice to treat cancer recurrence). Subgroup analysis was conducted to identify subgroup of population for whom the strategy could be cost-effective. The potential impact of biosimilar bevacizumab was considered, using a 30% price reduction. RESULTS: For the GOG-218 study protocol, widely followed in US, the addition of bevacizumab results in an ICER of $2,420,691/QALY. For the ICON-7 study protocol, the ICER is $225,515/QALY. The results of the model were sensitive to the quality of life (QoL) and the median progression free survival (PFS). Biosimilar bevacizumab didn't reduce cost sufficiently to change conclusions. First-line augmentation is cost-effective, with biosimilar bevacizumab, for stage IV patients ($126,169/QALY), ECOG PS1patients ($116,575/QALY) and for patients with suboptimal residual disease ($122,822/QALY) as per the ICON-7 protocol. CONCLUSION: Addition of bevacizumab, by in large, is cost-ineffective. It can become cost-effective with the ICON-7 protocol, in patients at high risk of progression using biosimilar bevacizumab.
Authors: Jason R Brown; Daniel K Chan; Jessica J Shank; Kent A Griffith; Huihui Fan; Robert Szulawski; Kun Yang; R Kevin Reynolds; Carolyn Johnston; Karen McLean; Shitanshu Uppal; J Rebecca Liu; Lourdes Cabrera; Sarah E Taylor; Brian C Orr; Francesmary Modugno; Pooja Mehta; Michael Bregenzer; Geeta Mehta; Hui Shen; Lan G Coffman; Ronald J Buckanovich Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-06-04
Authors: Insiya B Poonawalla; Rohan C Parikh; Xianglin L Du; Helena M VonVille; David R Lairson Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: David E Cohn; Jason C Barnett; Lari Wenzel; Bradley J Monk; Robert A Burger; J Michael Straughn; Evan R Myers; Laura J Havrilesky Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Hye Yon Cho; Sung Ho Park; Young Han Park; Hong Bae Kim; Jung Bae Kang; Seung Hwa Hong; Min Sun Kyung Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 2.153