Sebastian Hinde1, David Epstein2, Adrian Cook3, Andrew Embleton3, Timothy Perren4, Mark Sculpher5. 1. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK. Electronic address: Sebastian.hinde@york.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK; Department of Applied Economics, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 3. Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK. 4. St James Institute of Oncology, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK. 5. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Bevacizumab is used extensively in the treatment of cancer, including advanced ovarian cancer, for which results of the International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON) 7 trial have been recently reported. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) recent decision not to recommend bevacizumab for advanced ovarian cancer was not based on evidence related to the unlicensed lower dosage (7.5 mg/kg) of the drug despite its use in the English National Health Service (NHS) and the ICON7 trial. OBJECTIVE: To report on the findings of an analysis that considered whether the lower dose is cost-effective. METHODS:Cost-effectiveness analysis is assessed from the perspective of the English NHS and health outcomes expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The analysis focuses on a clinically predefined high-risk subgroup of the ICON7 trial. The price at which the lower dose of bevacizumab could be considered cost-effective for the English NHS is presented for a range of scenarios to inform decisions about price negotiations by international health systems. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, bevacizumab has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £48,975 per additional QALY, which is above NICE's standard cost-effectiveness threshold (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY). The official price of bevacizumab in 2013 was between £2.31 and £2.63 per milligram. A price reduction of between 46% and 67%, dependent on the NICE threshold, would be required for the product to be cost-effective in the high-risk subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The lower dose of bevacizumab for advanced ovarian cancer is not cost-effective based on the product's list price and using NICE's cost-effectiveness thresholds. Significant price discounts would be needed to make the drug affordable to the NHS.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Bevacizumab is used extensively in the treatment of cancer, including advanced ovarian cancer, for which results of the International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON) 7 trial have been recently reported. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) recent decision not to recommend bevacizumab for advanced ovarian cancer was not based on evidence related to the unlicensed lower dosage (7.5 mg/kg) of the drug despite its use in the English National Health Service (NHS) and the ICON7 trial. OBJECTIVE: To report on the findings of an analysis that considered whether the lower dose is cost-effective. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis is assessed from the perspective of the English NHS and health outcomes expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The analysis focuses on a clinically predefined high-risk subgroup of the ICON7 trial. The price at which the lower dose of bevacizumab could be considered cost-effective for the English NHS is presented for a range of scenarios to inform decisions about price negotiations by international health systems. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, bevacizumab has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £48,975 per additional QALY, which is above NICE's standard cost-effectiveness threshold (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY). The official price of bevacizumab in 2013 was between £2.31 and £2.63 per milligram. A price reduction of between 46% and 67%, dependent on the NICE threshold, would be required for the product to be cost-effective in the high-risk subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The lower dose of bevacizumab for advanced ovarian cancer is not cost-effective based on the product's list price and using NICE's cost-effectiveness thresholds. Significant price discounts would be needed to make the drug affordable to the NHS.
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: Charlotte R Gamble; Ling Chen; Elizabeth Szamreta; Matthew Monberg; Dawn Hershman; Jason Wright Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Michael D Brundage; Norah L Crossnohere; Jennifer O'Donnell; Samantha Cruz Rivera; Roger Wilson; Albert W Wu; David Moher; Derek Kyte; Bryce B Reeve; Alexandra Gilbert; Ronald C Chen; Melanie J Calvert; Claire Snyder Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Alexander J Cortez; Patrycja Tudrej; Katarzyna A Kujawa; Katarzyna M Lisowska Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 3.333