David Tamoschus1, Katja Draexler1, Jane Chang2, Christopher Ngai2, Matthew Madin-Warburton3, Ashley Pitcher4. 1. Bayer HealthCare Germany, Leverkusen, Germany. 2. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, NJ, USA. 3. QuintilesIMS, 210 Pentonville Road, Kings Cross, London, N1 9JY, UK. 4. QuintilesIMS, 210 Pentonville Road, Kings Cross, London, N1 9JY, UK. ashley.pitcher@quintilesims.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No study has compared the cost-effectiveness of active treatment options for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours in patients who progressed on or are intolerant to prior treatment with imatinib and sunitinib. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to imatinib rechallenge in this setting in Germany. METHODS: Hazard ratios for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge were estimated by indirect comparison. A state distribution model was used to simulate progression, mortality and treatment costs over a lifetime horizon. Drug acquisition costs and utilities were derived from clinical trial data and published literature; non-drug costs were not included. The outcomes measured were treatment costs, life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The indirect comparison suggested that median PFS and OS were longer with regorafenib compared to imatinib but results were not statistically significant. Regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge was estimated to have hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI 0.31-1.11) for PFS and 0.77 (95% CI 0.34-1.77) for OS, with substantial uncertainty due to the rarity of the disease and small number of patients within the trials. Regorafenib treatment per patient over a lifetime horizon provided an additional 0.61 LYs and 0.42 QALYs over imatinib rechallenge, with additional direct drug costs of €8,773. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €21,127 per QALY gained. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €50,000 per QALY, regorafenib had a 67% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available clinical data, this analysis suggests that regorafenib is cost-effective compared with imatinib rechallenge in Germany.
BACKGROUND: No study has compared the cost-effectiveness of active treatment options for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours in patients who progressed on or are intolerant to prior treatment with imatinib and sunitinib. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to imatinib rechallenge in this setting in Germany. METHODS: Hazard ratios for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge were estimated by indirect comparison. A state distribution model was used to simulate progression, mortality and treatment costs over a lifetime horizon. Drug acquisition costs and utilities were derived from clinical trial data and published literature; non-drug costs were not included. The outcomes measured were treatment costs, life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The indirect comparison suggested that median PFS and OS were longer with regorafenib compared to imatinib but results were not statistically significant. Regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge was estimated to have hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI 0.31-1.11) for PFS and 0.77 (95% CI 0.34-1.77) for OS, with substantial uncertainty due to the rarity of the disease and small number of patients within the trials. Regorafenib treatment per patient over a lifetime horizon provided an additional 0.61 LYs and 0.42 QALYs over imatinib rechallenge, with additional direct drug costs of €8,773. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €21,127 per QALY gained. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €50,000 per QALY, regorafenib had a 67% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available clinical data, this analysis suggests that regorafenib is cost-effective compared with imatinib rechallenge in Germany.
Authors: George D Demetri; Margaret von Mehren; Cristina R Antonescu; Ronald P DeMatteo; Kristen N Ganjoo; Robert G Maki; Peter W T Pisters; Chandrajit P Raut; Richard F Riedel; Scott Schuetze; Hema M Sundar; Jonathan C Trent; Jeffrey D Wayne Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: George D Demetri; Allan T van Oosterom; Christopher R Garrett; Martin E Blackstein; Manisha H Shah; Jaap Verweij; Grant McArthur; Ian R Judson; Michael C Heinrich; Jeffrey A Morgan; Jayesh Desai; Christopher D Fletcher; Suzanne George; Carlo L Bello; Xin Huang; Charles M Baum; Paolo G Casali Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-10-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter Reichardt; Yoon-Koo Kang; Piotr Rutkowski; Jochen Schuette; Lee S Rosen; Beatrice Seddon; Suayib Yalcin; Hans Gelderblom; Charles C Williams; Elena Fumagalli; Guido Biasco; Herbert I Hurwitz; Pamela E Kaiser; Kolette Fly; Ewa Matczak; Liang Chen; Maria José Lechuga; George D Demetri Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael C Heinrich; Christopher L Corless; Charles D Blanke; George D Demetri; Heikki Joensuu; Peter J Roberts; Burton L Eisenberg; Margaret von Mehren; Christopher D M Fletcher; Katrin Sandau; Karen McDougall; Wen-bin Ou; Chang-Jie Chen; Jonathan A Fletcher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-09-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Hirota; K Isozaki; Y Moriyama; K Hashimoto; T Nishida; S Ishiguro; K Kawano; M Hanada; A Kurata; M Takeda; G Muhammad Tunio; Y Matsuzawa; Y Kanakura; Y Shinomura; Y Kitamura Journal: Science Date: 1998-01-23 Impact factor: 47.728