Cost-Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in the Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that progresses after treatment with sorafenib. Cabozantinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinase receptors, recently showed improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in sorafenib-pretreated patients with advanced HCC in the CELESTIAL trial. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for second-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC from a US healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cost and utility data were extracted from the CELESTIAL trial and used to determine the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care. The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by using cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care in sorafenib-pretreated HCC. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis using data from the CELESTIAL trial, the incremental QALY and ICER were 0.067 and $1,040,675 for cabozantinib compared with placebo and best supportive care. OS reported in the CELESTIAL trial (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) had the strongest association with the ICER. In one-way sensitivity analyses, there were no scenarios in which cabozantinib was cost-effective. In a cost-threshold analysis, cabozantinib would have to be priced at least $50 per pill to be cost-effective considering a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Although the CELESTIAL trial demonstrated that cabozantinib improves OS compared with placebo in patients with HCC that progresses after treatment with sorafenib, our analysis shows that cabozantinib is not a cost-effective therapy in this scenario. CONCLUSIONS: At current costs, cabozantinib is not cost-effective for second-line therapy of HCC in the United States.

Cost-benefit analysis of second-generation antipsychotics and placebo in a randomized trial of the treatment of psychosis and aggression in Alzheimer disease.

CONTEXT: Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are prescribed for psychosis, aggression, and agitation in Alzheimer disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-benefit analysis of SGAs and placebo (taken to represent a "watchful waiting" treatment strategy) for psychosis and aggression in outpatients with AD. DESIGN: Randomized placebo-controlled trial of alternative SGA initiation strategies. SETTING: Forty-two outpatient clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients with AD and psychosis, aggression, or agitation (N = 421). Intervention Participants were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine, quetiapine fumarate, risperidone, or placebo with the option of double-blind rerandomization to another antipsychotic or citalopram hydrobromide or open treatment over 9 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly interviews documented health service use and costs. The economic perspective addressed total health care and medication costs. Costs of study drugs were estimated from wholesale prices with adjustment for discounts and rebates. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and were supplemented with measures of functioning, activities of daily living, and quality of life. Primary analyses were conducted using all available data. Secondary analyses excluded observations after the first medication change (ie, phase 1 only). Cost-benefit analysis was conducted using the net health benefits approach in a sensitivity analysis in which QALYs were valued at $50,000 per year and $100,000 per year. RESULTS: Average total health costs, including medications, were significantly lower for placebo than for SGAs, by $50 to $100 per month. There were no differences between treatments in QALYs or other measures of function. Phase 1-only analyses were broadly similar. Net-benefit analysis showed greater net health benefits for placebo as compared with other treatments, with probabilities ranging from 50% to 90%. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in measures of effectiveness between initiation of active treatments or placebo (which represented watchful waiting) but the placebo group had significantly lower health care costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00015548.