A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US.

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.

Economic Analysis of Panitumumab Compared With Cetuximab in Patients With Wild-type KRAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer That Progressed After Standard Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: In this analysis, we compared costs and explored the cost-effectiveness of subsequent-line treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab in patients with wild-type KRAS (exon 2) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after previous chemotherapy treatment failure. Data were used from ASPECCT (A Study of Panitumumab Efficacy and Safety Compared to Cetuximab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer), a Phase III, head-to-head randomized noninferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of panitumumab and cetuximab in this population. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to perform a cost-minimization analysis and a semi-Markov model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab monotherapy versus cetuximab monotherapy in chemotherapy-resistant wild-type KRAS (exon 2) mCRC. The cost-minimization model assumed equivalent efficacy (progression-free survival) based on data from ASPECCT. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with the full information (uncertainty) from ASPECCT. Both analyses were conducted from a US third-party payer perspective and calculated average anti-epidermal growth factor receptor doses from ASPECCT. Costs associated with drug acquisition, treatment administration (every 2 weeks for panitumumab, weekly for cetuximab), and incidence of infusion reactions were estimated in both models. The cost-effectiveness model also included physician visits, disease progression monitoring, best supportive care, and end-of-life costs and utility weights estimated from EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire responses from ASPECCT. FINDINGS: The cost-minimization model results demonstrated lower projected costs for patients who received panitumumab versus cetuximab, with a projected cost savings of $9468 (16.5%) per panitumumab-treated patient. In the cost-effectiveness model, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained revealed panitumumab to be less costly, with marginally better outcomes than cetuximab. IMPLICATIONS: These economic analyses comparing panitumumab and cetuximab in chemorefractory wild-type KRAS (exon 2) mCRC suggest benefits in favor of panitumumab. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01001377.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis.

BACKGROUND: Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (C/IC) in the intensive care unit are challenging conditions that are associated with high rates of mortality. New guidelines from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases strongly recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC. Here, a cost-effectiveness model was developed from the United Kingdom perspective to examine the costs and outcomes of antifungal treatment for C/IC based on the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines. METHODS: Costs and treatment outcomes with the echinocandin anidulafungin were compared with those for caspofungin, micafungin and fluconazole. The model included non-neutropenic patients aged ≥16 years with confirmed C/IC who were receiving intravenous first-line treatment. Patients were categorised as either a clinical success or failure (patients with persistent/breakthrough infection); successfully treated patients switched to oral therapy, while patients categorised as clinical failures switched to a different antifungal class. Other inputs were all-cause mortality at 6 weeks, costs of treatment-related adverse events and other medical resource utilisation costs. Resource use was derived from the published literature and from discussion with clinical experts. Drug-acquisition/administration costs were taken from standard United Kingdom costing sources. RESULTS: The model indicated that first-line anidulafungin could be considered cost-effective versus fluconazole (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £813 per life-year gained) for the treatment of C/IC. Anidulafungin was cost-saving versus caspofungin and micafungin due to lower total costs and a higher rate of survival combined with a higher probability of clinical success. DISCUSSION: European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC; our model indicated that anidulafungin marries clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: From the United Kingdom perspective, anidulafungin was cost-effective compared with fluconazole for the treatment of C/IC and was cost-saving versus the other echinocandins.

Cost-minimization analysis of panitumumab compared with cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of first-line treatment with panitumumab + FOLFOX in comparison to cetuximab + FOLFIRI among patients with wild-type (WT) RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the US. METHODS: A cost-minimization model was developed assuming similar treatment efficacy between both regimens. The model estimated the costs associated with drug acquisition, treatment administration frequency (every 2 weeks for panitumumab, weekly for cetuximab), and incidence of infusion reactions. Average anti-EGFR doses were calculated from the ASPECCT clinical trial, and average doses of chemotherapy regimens were based on product labels. Using the medical component of the consumer price index, adverse event costs were inflated to 2014 US dollars, and all other costs were reported in 2014 US dollars. The time horizon for the model was based on average first-line progression-free survival of a WT RAS patient, estimated from parametric survival analyses of PRIME clinical trial data. RESULTS: Relative to cetuximab + FOLFIRI in the first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC, the cost-minimization model demonstrated lower projected drug acquisition, administration, and adverse event costs for patients who received panitumumab + FOLFOX. The overall cost per patient for first-line treatment was $179,219 for panitumumab + FOLFOX vs $202,344 for cetuximab + FOLFIRI, resulting in a per-patient saving of $23,125 (11.4%) in favor of panitumumab + FOLFOX. CONCLUSIONS: From a value perspective, the cost-minimization model supports panitumumab + FOLFOX instead of cetuximab + FOLFIRI as the preferred first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC patients requiring systemic therapy.