The Budget Impact of Monoclonal Antibodies Used to Treat Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Minas Gerais, Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: Biological medicines have increased the cost of cancer treatments, which also raises concerns about sustainability. In Brazil, three monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)-bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab-are indicated for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but not currently funded by the Unified Health System (SUS). However, successful litigation has led to funding in some cases. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the budgetary impact of including the mAbs bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab in standard chemotherapy for the treatment of mCRC within the SUS of Minas Gerais (MG), Brazil. METHOD: A budget impact analysis of incorporating mAbs as first-line treatment of mCRC in MG was explored. The perspective taken was that of the Brazilian SUS, and a 5-year time horizon was applied. Data were collected from lawsuits undertaken between January 2009 and December 2016, and the model was populated with data from national databases and published sources. Costs are expressed in $US. RESULTS: In total, 351 lawsuits resulted in funding for first-line treatment with mAbs for mCRC. The three alternative scenarios analyzed resulted in cost increases of 348-395% compared with the reference scenario. The use of panitumumab had a budgetary impact of $US103,360,980 compared with the reference scenario over a 5-year time horizon, and bevacizumab and cetuximab had budgetary impacts of $US111,334,890 and 113,772,870, respectively. The use of the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAbs (cetuximab and panitumumab) is restricted to the approximately 41% of patients with KRAS mutations, so the best cost alternative for incorporation would be the combination of panitumumab and bevacizumab, with a cost of approximately $US106 million. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the appreciable costs for incorporating bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab into the SUS. Appreciable discounts are likely to be necessary before incorporation of these mAbs is approved.

Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Panitumumab Plus FOLFIRI for the Second-Line Treatment of Patients with Wild-Type Ras Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The NCT00339183 trial demonstrated that adding panitumumab to fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second-line therapy of wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) increases the median progression-free survival (PFS). Nevertheless, panitumumab is not yet approved in China, and the costs and outcomes of the therapy are still unclear. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of this intervention from the perspective of Chinese health care systems by constructing two pricing scenarios for panitumumab. Scenario 1: Pricing is based on the price of a similar product (cetuximab) in China. Scenario 2: We estimated the value-based price. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was created based on the results of the NCT00339183 trial, which evaluated panitumumab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI. The model simulated the disease progression. We calculated medical costs from the perspectives of the Chinese health care systems. The primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In scenario 1, compared with FOLFIRI alone, FOLFIRI with panitumumab arm had an ICER of ¥1,539,988/QALY. The most influential factors were the mean overall survival (OS), utility before progression and cost of panitumumab. The probability of panitumumab plus FOLFIRI being cost-effective in China was 0% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was ¥193,932/QALY. In scenario 2, when the cost of panitumumab was assumed to be ¥4032.61 or ¥5218.96 per cycle, the ICERs approximated the WTP thresholds of ¥193,932/QALY or ¥420,633/QALY, respectively. In this value-based pricing scenario, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI is estimated to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: We construct two pricing scenarios in China. In scenario 1, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI as a second-line therapy of mCRC provided an incremental benefit, but simultaneously increased costs (at the current price) even further. In scenario 2, when the value-based price was adopted, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI was estimated to be cost-effective. Our study establishes a pricing framework for new anticancer drugs to reflect the economics of drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00339183.

The Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Cetuximab and Panitumumab in the 1st Line Treatment of mCRC in Real Clinical Practice in the Czech Republic.

BACKGROUND: The anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) drugs cetuximab and panitumumab are currently reimbursed when administered during the first and subsequent lines of treatment of patients in the Czech Republic with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because cetuximab and panitumumab do not show significant differences in efficacy, their choice may be dependent on cost. This retrospective study analyzed the costs of first-line treatment with cetuximab and panitumumab of patients with mCRC and wild type KRAS, as well as evaluated the correlations between costs and effectiveness, as determined by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis included 51 patients with mCRC and confirmed wild type KRAS treated at the comprehensive cancer centre in the Czech Republic between November 2011 and April 2018. Of these 51 patients, 22 were treated with cetuximab and 29 with panitumumab. Direct medical costs (medications, clinical examinations and procedures, and hospitalization) were evaluated from the initiation of treatment with anti-EGFR drug to disease progression and death. Mean follow-up was 21 months in the cetuximab group and 19 months in the panitumumab group. RESULTS: Reimbursement for anti-EGFR drugs until disease progression accounted for 71% (mean, 964,288 CZK per patient) of total costs in the cetuximab group and 77% (mean, 1,003,229 CZK per patient) of total costs in the panitumumab group, with median PFS in these two groups being 10.7 months and 8.1 months, respectively. Reimbursement of expensive center drugs from the start of anti-EGFR treatment to patient death accounted for 55% of total costs in the cetuximab group (mean, 1,752,702 CZK per patient) and 63% of total costs in the panitumumab group (mean, 1,596,919 CZK per patient), with median OS in these two groups being 20.2 months and 19.8 months, respectively. No significant between-group differences in clinical effectiveness and costs of treatment were observed (p > 0.05 each). CONCLUSION: Reimbursement for biological agents is the most expensive item in the first-line treatment of mCRC patients with wild type KRAS, both to disease progression and death. The clinical effectiveness and costs of cetuximab and panitumumab did not differ significantly. Supported by CZECRIN (identification code LM2015090); CZECRIN_4 PACIENTY (No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001826). The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study. The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers. Submitted: 30. 4. 2019 Accepted: 17. 6. 2019.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen the increasing use of biological medicines in combination with chemotherapy containing 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin or irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These combinations have resulted in increased progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mCRC; however, there are remaining concerns over the extent of their effect on overall survival (OS). Published studies to date suggest no major differences between the three currently available monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); however, there are differences in costs. In addition, there is rising litigation in Brazil in order to access these medicines as they are currently not reimbursed. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the comparative effectiveness and safety of three MoAbs (bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab) associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens and compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy alone in patients with mCRC, through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of concurrent or non-concurrent observational cohort studies, to guide authorities and the judiciary. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on cohort studies published in databases up to November 2017. Effectiveness measures included OS, PFS, post-progression survival (PPS), Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), response rate, metastasectomy and safety. The methodological quality of the studies was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 21 observational cohort studies were included. There were statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits in patients treated with bevacizumab versus no bevacizumab mainly around OS, PFS, PPS and the metastasectomy rate, but not for the disease control rates. However, there was an increase in treatment-related toxicities and concerns with the heterogeneity of the studies. CONCLUSION: The results pointed to an advantage in favor of bevacizumab for OS, PFS, PPS, and metastasectomy. Although this advantage may be considered clinically modest, bevacizumab represents a hope for increased survival and a chance of metastasectomy for patients with mCRC. However, there are serious adverse events associated with its use, especially severe hypertension and gastrointestinal perforation, that need to be considered.

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US.

AIMS: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US $135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled. LIMITATIONS: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.

Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Cetuximab or Panitumumab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapies with cetuximab (Erbitux®; Merck Serono UK Ltd) and panitumumab (Vectibix®; Amgen UK Ltd) are shown to be less effective in adults with metastatic colorectal cancer who have mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS oncogenes from the rat sarcoma (RAS) family. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of these drugs in patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type (i.e. non-mutated) metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. METHODS: We constructed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of cetuximab and panitumumab combined with either FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) vs. FOLFOX or FOLFIRI alone. The economic analysis was based on three randomised controlled trials. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3.5% per annum. RESULTS: Based on the evidence available, both drugs fulfil the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's end-of-life criteria. In the analysis, assuming discount prices for the drugs from patient access schemes agreed by the drug manufacturers with the Department of Health, predicted mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cetuximab + FOLFOX, panitumumab + FOLFOX and cetuximab + FOLFIRI compared with chemotherapy alone appeared cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, applicable to end-of-life treatments. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab and panitumumab were recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, for use within the National Health Service in England. Both treatments are available via the UK Cancer Drugs Fund.