Cost-utility analysis of selective internal radiation therapy with Y-90 resin microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background: The study assessed the cost-utility of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with Y-90 resin microspheres versus sorafenib in UK patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma ineligible for transarterial chemoembolization. Materials & methods: A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed for patients with low tumor burden (≤25%) and good liver function (albumin-bilirubin grade 1). Efficacy, safety and quality of life data were from a European Phase III randomized controlled trial and published studies. Resource use was from registries and clinical surveys. Results: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years were 1.982 and 1.381, and discounted total costs were £29,143 and 30,927, for SIRT and sorafenib, respectively. Conclusion: SIRT has the potential to be a dominant (more efficacious/less costly) or cost-effective alternative to sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the economic value of targeted therapies as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment in the US and Sweden by indirect comparison of survival data. METHODS: • A Markov model simulated disease progression, adverse events and survival with sunitinib vs sorafenib in the US and bevacizumab plus interferon-α (IFN-α) in both countries. • Results, in life-years (LYs), progression-free LYs (PFLYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained and treatment costs (2008 USD) were obtained through deterministic and probabilistic analyses over the patient's lifetime. RESULTS: • Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than sorafenib (gains of 0.52 PFLYs, 0.16 LYs and 0.17 QALYs and savings/patient of $13,576 in the US) and bevacizumab plus IFN-α (gains of 0.19 PFLYs, 0.23 LYs and 0.16 QALYs in both countries and savings/patient of $67,798 and $47,264 in the US and Sweden, respectively). • Results were most influenced by hazard ratios for progression-free and overall survival and treatment costs, making results generalizable across other countries if relative costs were to fall within the ranges of those in the US and Sweden. CONCLUSION: • The present analyses suggest that first-line mRCC treatment with sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib and bevacizumab plus IFN-α.

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.