Health economic changes as a result of implementation of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: national results from DARENCA study 2.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the economic consequences of implementing targeted therapy (TT) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To analyze health care and productivity costs for TT implementation in a national cohort of patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Costs were measured per patient per year during a 2-yr follow-up during 2002-2005 (immunotherapy only) and 2006-2009 (TT implementation). All Danish patients with a diagnosis code for RCC and a procedure code for TT or immunotherapy were linked to the Danish National Patient Registry (contains information on all contacts with primary and secondary health sector). Health care and productivity costs were retrieved from the Danish case-mix system and Coherent Social Statistics, respectively. Drug costs were calculated separately from procedure codes and retail prices. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Generalized linear models were used to analyze costs adjusted for age, gender, and civil status. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 439 patients were included for 2006-2009 and 192 for 2002-2005. Comparison of the health care cost per patient per year between 2006-2009 and 2002-2005 revealed lower inpatient costs (€11 899 vs €19 944, adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.64), higher outpatient costs (€14 308 vs €6209, RR 2.39), lower radiotherapy costs (€194 vs €633, RR 0.31), higher radiology costs (€676 vs €191, RR 3.73), and higher separately calculated drug costs (€12 040 vs €3103, RR 3.82, all p<0.001) for the former. Total health care costs per patient per year did not significantly differ (€27 676 vs €27 856, RR 1.05, p=0.5) between the two periods. Income from employment did not significantly differ between 2006-2009 and 2002-2005 (RR 1.11, p=0.11) and costs associated with loss of productivity were €7852 and €8265, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A different pattern of health care costs were observed but total health care costs per patient per year did not significantly differ after implementation of TT for patients with mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this nationwide study, we found changes in the pattern of health care costs for patients with metastatic kidney cancer after implementation of targeted therapy compared to an immunotherapy control period; however, total health care costs and income from employment were without significant changes.

Economic evaluation of everolimus versus sorafenib for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: A recent indirect comparison study showed that sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with everolimus are expected to have improved overall survival outcomes compared to patients treated with sorafenib. This analysis examines the likely cost-effectiveness of everolimus versus sorafenib in this setting from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of sunitinib-refractory mRCC patients and to estimate the cost per incremental life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Markov states included are stable disease without adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Transition probabilities were estimated using a subset of the RECORD-1 patient population receiving everolimus after sunitinib, and a comparable population receiving sorafenib in a single-arm phase II study. Costs of antitumor therapies were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Health state costs accounted for physician visits, tests, adverse events, postprogression therapy, and end-of-life care. The model extrapolated beyond the trial time horizon for up to 6 years based on published trial data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The estimated gain over sorafenib treatment was 1.273 LYs (0.916 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $81,643. The deterministic analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $64,155/LYG ($89,160/QALY). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that results were highly consistent across simulations. CONCLUSIONS: As the ICER fell within the cost per QALY range for many other widely used oncology medicines, everolimus is projected to be a cost-effective treatment relative to sorafenib for sunitinib-refractory mRCC.

Everolimus: a new mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To review clinical trials and main characteristics of everolimus, with focus on treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. DATA SOURCES: Pertinent data were identified primarily through a search of MEDLINE and PubMed (1966-November 2010) using the primary search terms everolimus, RAD001, renal cell carcinoma, and mTOR inhibitors. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of everolimus in patients with cancer were evaluated, including Phase 1, 2, and 3 trials. Preference was given to Phase 2 and 3 studies evaluating use of everolimus in patients with renal cell carcinoma. DATA SYNTHESIS: Everolimus is an oral mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor approved for the management of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed on tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Actions of everolimus within the mTOR pathway result in decreased protein synthesis and cell cycle arrest, as well as decreased angiogenesis. A usual starting dose for patients with renal cell carcinoma is 10 mg daily. Everolimus undergoes extensive hepatic metabolism, primarily through the CYP3A4 isoenzyme, which predisposes it to drug interactions with inducers and inhibitors of this enzyme. Most commonly reported adverse events associated with everolimus include anemia, hyperglycemia, hypercholesterolemia, mucositis, fatigue, and rash. Approval of everolimus was based on the results of a Phase 3 trial that demonstrated an increase in median progression-free survival by 2.1 months in patients receiving everolimus therapy as compared to placebo. The drug was recently added to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a treatment option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on tyrosine kinase therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a review of the currently available literature, everolimus provides a safe and efficacious treatment option for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on treatment with sunitinib and/or sorafenib.

Sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus or bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a review of health economic evaluations.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most prevalent kidney cancer and the 5-year overall survival figure in metastatic disease (mRCC) is about 10%. New targeted drugs (sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, temsirolimus) have shown activity in the treatment of mRCC, but they are all associated with a significant burden of cost. To support decision makers in their allocation of resources, costeffectiveness models are constructed to compare the costs and outcomes of anticancer therapy. This survey focuses on studies since 2003 exploring health economics in the treatment of metastatic and/or advanced RCC employing these new drugs. This paper summarizes the results, focuses on the level of evidence of these studies, compares the calculated cost-effectiveness ratios and makes suggestions for future studies. This review reveals costs per life years gained (LYG) or quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in the range of euro 22,648 to euro203,692, depending on whether the setting is first-line or second-line and drug used. When compared to the other agents, sunitinib has the best cost-effectiveness figure. Second-line therapy does not offer valid incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Cost-effectiveness of the Endeavor stent in de novo native coronary artery lesions updated with contemporary data.

AIMS: The Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent has been shown to reduce the restenosis rate compared to bare metal stents and has impacted other clinical measures such as mortality, acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using pooled efficacy data from the Endeavor clinical trial programme, a model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of the Endeavor drug eluting stent (DES) with the Driver bare meal stent (BMS) over a four year time period. Endeavor was more costly but had an improved clinical outcome compared to Driver BMS over four years with a 4% reduction in deaths, 33% reduction in AMI and a 45% reduction in TVR. Late stent thrombosis was the only event showing an increased incidence for Endeavor of 0.2% compared to 0% for Driver. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was pound3,757/quality adjusted life years (QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Although much controversy has surrounded the appropriate way to assess the cost effectiveness of DES technology, a comprehensive analysis is presented and this suggests that by using extended clinical trial data out to four years, the Endeavor DES in particular, but DES technologies in general, are cost-effective approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention.

Cost-effectiveness of temsirolimus for first line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of temsirolimus compared to interferon-alpha for first line treatment of patients with advanced, poor prognosis renal cell carcinoma, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of temsirolimus. The clinical effectiveness of temsirolimus compared with interferon-alpha and the utility values (using EQ-5D tariffs) were taken from a recent phase III randomized clinical trial. Cost data were obtained from published literature and based on current UK practice. The effect of parameter uncertainty on cost-effectiveness was explored through extensive one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared to interferon-alpha, temsirolimus treatment resulted in an incremental cost per QALY gained of pound94,632; based on an estimated mean gain of 0.24 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient, at a mean additional cost of pound22,331 (inflated to 2007/8). The cost per QALY for patient subgroups ranged from pound74,369 to pound154,752. The probability that temsirolimus is cost-effective compared to interferon-alpha at a willingness to pay threshold of pound30,000 per QALY for all patient groups is expected to be close to zero. The cost per QALY was sensitive to the clinical effectiveness parameters, health state utilities, drug costs and the cost of administration of temsirolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Temsirolimus has been shown to be clinically effective compared to interferon-alpha offering additional health benefits, however, with a cost per QALY in excess of pound90,000, it may not be regarded as a cost-effective use of resources in some health care settings.

Do the results of the new trials change the standard treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer?

With the emergence of novel angiogenesis inhibitors, we are moving to a new era for patients with metastasized renal cell carcinoma. Since the results achieved reflect more a modification of the natural course of the disease than a cure, past achievements should not be neglected. Low-risk patients with clear cell histology, especially those with pulmonary metastasis only, should still be offered cytokine therapy. For intermediate-risk patients sunitinib is the treatment of choice. For high-risk patients, temsirolimus has to date provided the most convincing data, its availability is however limited. Data with sorafenib and sunitinib in the high-risk group are still anecdotal. The toxicity profiles of these 2 drugs are different and might particularly relate to patients with known cardiovascular co-morbidity. No sufficient data are available regarding sequential use. After cytokine failure, sorafinib is the treatment of choice. Patients should preferably be treated within clinical trials to answer unaddressed questions. It is well known that the strict entry criteria used within the clinical studies were applied very flexibly when drugs have been approved. These aspects require a careful follow-up to ascertain optimal use and to prevent misuse. Finally, the costs of prolonged treatment will be enormous, and only meaningful survival advantages will convince the health authorities to make these new treatments available for all patients.

High-dose bolus tirofiban and sirolimus eluting stent versus abiciximab and bare metal stent in acute myocardial infarction (STRATEGY) study--protocol design and demography of the first 100 patients.

BACKGROUND: Primary bare metal stenting and abciximab infusion are currently considered the best available reperfusion strategy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Sirolimus eluting stents (SES), compared to bare metal stent (BMS), greatly reduce the incidence of binary restenosis and target vessel revascularisation (TVR), but their use on a routine basis results in a significant increase in medical costs. With current European list prices, the use of tirofiban instead of abciximab would save enough money to absorb the difference between SES and BMS. AIM: To assess whether in patients with STEMI the combination of SES with high dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban results in a similar incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) but in a lower binary restenosis rate after six months compared to BMS and abciximab. METHODS AND RESULTS: 160 patients are required to satisfy the primary composite end-point, including MACE and binary restenosis. The study is ongoing: the current paper focuses on the methodology and demography of the first 100 patients so far enrolled. Patients randomised to HDB tirofiban (n = 50, mean age: 62 +/- 12, 40 males) and abciximab (n = 50, mean age: 63 +/- 12, 38 males) do not differ for medical history, presentation profile, medications at discharge, angiographic profile and creatine-kinase MB-fraction at peak. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the trial will be available by the end of 2004: they will be crucial for the cardiologists to know whether the gold standard for AMI treatment should be reconsidered after the introduction of SES into the clinical practice.