RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Inibidores da Angiogênese/economia , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/economia , Bevacizumab/economia , Neoplasias Colorretais/tratamento farmacológico , Panitumumabe/economia , Inibidores da Angiogênese/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Bevacizumab/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Colorretais/patologia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Fluoruracila , Humanos , Leucovorina , Modelos Econométricos , Metástase Neoplásica , Compostos Organoplatínicos , Panitumumabe/uso terapêutico , Qualidade de Vida , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Análise de Sobrevida , Proteínas ras/genéticaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives. METHODS: The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters. LIMITATIONS: Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. CONCLUSION: Denosumab's efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.
Assuntos
Conservadores da Densidade Óssea/administração & dosagem , Doenças Ósseas/etiologia , Doenças Ósseas/prevenção & controle , Denosumab/administração & dosagem , Difosfonatos/administração & dosagem , Imidazóis/administração & dosagem , Mieloma Múltiplo/complicações , Conservadores da Densidade Óssea/economia , Neoplasias Ósseas/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias Ósseas/secundário , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Análise Custo-Benefício , Denosumab/efeitos adversos , Denosumab/economia , Difosfonatos/efeitos adversos , Difosfonatos/economia , Feminino , Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Imidazóis/efeitos adversos , Imidazóis/economia , Masculino , Modelos Econômicos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Análise de Sobrevida , Estados Unidos , Ácido ZoledrônicoRESUMO
Income and price elasticity of demand quantify the responsiveness of markets to changes in income and in prices, respectively. Under the assumptions of utility maximization and preference independence (additive preferences), mathematical relationships between income elasticity values and the uncompensated own and cross price elasticity of demand are here derived using the differential approach to demand analysis. Key parameters are: the elasticity of the marginal utility of income, and the average budget share. The proposed method can be used to forecast the direct and indirect impact of price changes and of financial instruments of policy using available estimates of the income elasticity of demand.