J Amdahl1, J Diaz2, J Park3, H R Nakhaipour4, T E Delea1. 1. Policy Analysis Inc. ( pai ), Brookline, MA, U.S.A.; 2. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Twickenham, Greater London, U.K.; 3. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, U.S.A.; 4. GlaxoSmith-Kline, Health Outcomes-Oncology, Mississauga, ON.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Camillo Porta; Petri Bono; Thomas Powles; Tim Eisen; Cora N Sternberg; Jürgen E Gschwend; Ugo De Giorgi; Omi Parikh; Robert Hawkins; Emmanuel Sevin; Sylvie Négrier; Sadya Khan; Jose Diaz; Suman Redhu; Faisal Mehmud; David Cella Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lori E Dodd; Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; C Carl Jaffe; Lawrence V Rubinstein; Janet Dancey; Margaret M Mooney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul Swinburn; Andrew Lloyd; Paul Nathan; Toni K Choueiri; David Cella; Maureen P Neary Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: K M Beusterien; S M Szabo; S Kotapati; J Mukherjee; A Hoos; P Hersey; M R Middleton; A R Levy Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Amber Kempton; Cody Justice; Aaron Guo; Matthew Cefalu; Michael Makara; Paul Janssen; Thai H Ho; Sakima A Smith Journal: Clin Exp Hypertens Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 1.749
Authors: Sara Nazha; Simon Tanguay; Anil Kapoor; Michael Jewett; Christian Kollmannsberger; Lori Wood; G A Georg Bjarnason; Daniel Heng; Denis Soulières; Martin Neil Reaume; Naveen Basappa; Eric Lévesque; Alice Dragomir Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: S Nazha; S Tanguay; A Kapoor; M Jewett; C Kollmannsberger; L Wood; G Bjarnason; D Heng; D Soulières; N Reaume; N Basappa; E Lévesque; A Dragomir Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677