A Chua1, A Perrin1, J F Ricci2, M P Neary3, M Thabane4. 1. Analytica Laser, New York, NY, U.S.A. 2. Wellmera AG, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, U.S.A. 4. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Dorval, QC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2016, everolimus was approved by Health Canada for the treatment of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, well-differentiated, non-functional, neuroendocrine tumours (NET) of gastrointestinal (GI) or lung origin in adult patients with progressive disease. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of everolimus in this setting from a Canadian societal perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost per life-year (LY) gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of everolimus plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced or metastatic NET of GI or lung origin. Model health states included stable disease, disease progression, and death. Efficacy inputs were based on the RADIANT-4 trial and utilities were mapped from quality-of-life data retrieved from RADIANT-4. Resource utilization inputs were derived from a Canadian physician survey, while cost inputs were obtained from official reimbursement lists from Ontario and other published sources. Costs and efficacy outcomes were discounted 5% annually over a 10-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the base case results. RESULTS: Everolimus had an incremental gain of 0.616 QALYs (0.823 LYs) and CA$89,795 resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$145,670 per QALY gained (CA$109,166 per LY gained). The probability of cost-effectiveness was 52.1% at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of CA$150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicate that everolimus has a 52.1% probability of being cost-effective at a WTP threshold of CA$150,000 per QALY gained in Canada.
BACKGROUND: In 2016, everolimus was approved by Health Canada for the treatment of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, well-differentiated, non-functional, neuroendocrine tumours (NET) of gastrointestinal (GI) or lung origin in adult patients with progressive disease. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of everolimus in this setting from a Canadian societal perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost per life-year (LY) gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of everolimus plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced or metastatic NET of GI or lung origin. Model health states included stable disease, disease progression, and death. Efficacy inputs were based on the RADIANT-4 trial and utilities were mapped from quality-of-life data retrieved from RADIANT-4. Resource utilization inputs were derived from a Canadian physician survey, while cost inputs were obtained from official reimbursement lists from Ontario and other published sources. Costs and efficacy outcomes were discounted 5% annually over a 10-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the base case results. RESULTS: Everolimus had an incremental gain of 0.616 QALYs (0.823 LYs) and CA$89,795 resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$145,670 per QALY gained (CA$109,166 per LY gained). The probability of cost-effectiveness was 52.1% at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of CA$150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicate that everolimus has a 52.1% probability of being cost-effective at a WTP threshold of CA$150,000 per QALY gained in Canada.
Entities:
Keywords:
Canada; Neuroendocrine tumours; cost-effectiveness; everolimus; gastrointestinal; health economics; health technology assessment; lung
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Simron Singh; Sylvia L Asa; Chris Dey; Hagen Kennecke; David Laidley; Calvin Law; Timothy Asmis; David Chan; Shereen Ezzat; Rachel Goodwin; Ozgur Mete; Janice Pasieka; Juan Rivera; Ralph Wong; Eva Segelov; Daniel Rayson Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: W Kocha; J Maroun; H Kennecke; C Law; P Metrakos; J F Ouellet; R Reid; C Rowsell; A Shah; S Singh; S Van Uum; R Wong Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Pamela L Kunz; Diane Reidy-Lagunes; Lowell B Anthony; Erin M Bertino; Kari Brendtro; Jennifer A Chan; Herbert Chen; Robert T Jensen; Michelle Kang Kim; David S Klimstra; Matthew H Kulke; Eric H Liu; David C Metz; Alexandria T Phan; Rebecca S Sippel; Jonathan R Strosberg; James C Yao Journal: Pancreas Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: James C Yao; Nicola Fazio; Simron Singh; Roberto Buzzoni; Carlo Carnaghi; Edward Wolin; Jiri Tomasek; Markus Raderer; Harald Lahner; Maurizio Voi; Lida Bubuteishvili Pacaud; Nicolas Rouyrre; Carolin Sachs; Juan W Valle; Gianfranco Delle Fave; Eric Van Cutsem; Margot Tesselaar; Yasuhiro Shimada; Do-Youn Oh; Jonathan Strosberg; Matthew H Kulke; Marianne E Pavel Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321