Economic evaluation of sunitinib versus pazopanib and best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Chile: cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed treatment comparison.

Background: Sunitinib and Pazopanib are two metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) treatment alternatives, however the health system in Chile does not consider coverage for any. The cost-effectiveness versus relevant comparator was assessed to support evidence-based decision making. Methods: A four health states Markov model was built: first, second line treatments, BSC and death. Benefits were measured in QALYs, and efficacy estimates were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison. A 10-year time horizon and a 3% undifferentiated discount rate were considered. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The costs of treating MRCC with Sunitinib were higher than Pazopanib and BSC. When comparing Sunitinib versus Pazopanib, the incremental benefit is small favoring Sunitinib (0.03 QALYs). The base case scenario shows an average ICER of PA versus BSC of US$62,327.11/QALY and of US$85,885/QALY for Sunitinib versus Pazopanib. The ICER was most sensitive to the OS relative to BSC, where evidence was associated to important bias. Conclusions: Sunitinib or Pazopanib can be considered cost-effective if a 3 GDP per-capita threshold is assumed. The decision between SU or PA is highly sensitive to the price of the drugs, rather than the outcomes. Therefore, the decision might be made based on cost-minimization exercise.

Treatment patterns and costs for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with private insurance in the United States.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the evolution of treatment patterns and associated costs for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database was used to create a cohort of mRCC patients with at least 12 months of continuous enrollment from 2004 to 2011. We summarized treatment patterns over time; we used a nonparametric bootstrapping method to compare costs and logistic regression to examine the association between the likelihood of advancing to third-line therapy and beyond and the number of targeted therapy agents available. RESULTS: A total of 1527 mRCC patients were analyzed. In 2010, nine unique treatment regimens were used for first-line treatment, 8 for second-line treatment, and 8 for third-line treatment. A significant association (odds ratio 1.26; P = .001) between the odds of advancing to third-line therapy or beyond and the number of targeted agents available was noted. For 767 patients receiving modern therapy who were < 65 years old, and stratifying by whether the first-line treatment was oral or intravenous, drug cost per patient with ancillary services was $59,664 versus $86,518, respectively (P = .001). Total costs and drug out-of-pocket costs per patient during the first year increased by the number of switches: $111,680 to $2355 for no switches, $149,994 to $2538 for 1 switch, and $196,706 to $3524 for 2 or more switches. In 2004, the median drug cost was $11,458, while by 2010 it rose to $68,660. CONCLUSION: A marked shift in the management of mRCC has occurred, with wide heterogeneity in treatment patterns. More patients are able to receive more lines of therapy, but treatment costs are high.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Spain.

INTRODUCTION Sunitinib, an oral, multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, delays disease progression, with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years, improves quality of life and is becoming the first-line standard of care for metastatic renal carcinoma (mRCC). PURPOSE To assess the economic value of sunitinib as fi rst-line therapy in mRCC within the Spanish healthcare system. METHODS An adapted Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of sunitinib vs. sorafenib (SFN) and bevacizumab/interferon-α (BEV/IFN) as first-line mRCC therapy from the Spanish third-party payer perspective. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS data from sunitinib, SFN and BEV/IFN pivotal trials were extrapolated to project survival and costs in 6-week cycles. Results, in progression-free life-years (PFLY), life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with costs and benefits discounted annually at 3%, were obtained using deterministic and probabilistic analyses. RESULTS Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than both SFN (gains of 0.52 PFLY, 0.16 LY, 0.17 QALY) and BEV/IFN (gains of 0.19 PFLY, 0.23 LY, 0.16 QALY) with average cost savings/patients of €1,124 and €23,218, respectively. Using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €50,000/QALY, sunitinib achieved an incremental net benefit (INB) of €9,717 and €31,211 compared with SFN and BEV/IFN, respectively. At this WTP, the probability of sunitinib providing the highest INB was 75%. CONCLUSION Our analysis suggests that sunitinib is a costeffective alternative to other targeted therapies as first-line mRCC therapy in the Spanish healthcare setting.