Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

Immunotherapy combinations are now accepted as safe and effective first-line treatment options for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This study used patient data from the CheckMate 214 clinical trial to evaluate the temporal trends and costs related to grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) among patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. We found that the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time and that patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower AE costs compared with those treated with sunitinib (at 42 months: US$19,096 vs US$27,473 per patient). As such, nivolumab plus ipilimumab may represent a treatment option that may reduce both the clinical and economic burden among patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatments of advanced intermediate- or poor-risk renal-cell carcinoma: a number needed to treat analysis from the Brazilian private perspective.

BACKGROUND: Considering clinical benefits of new combination therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), this study aims to calculate the number needed to treat (NTT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P + A), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N + I) as first-line treatments, from the Brazilian private perspective. METHODS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data for intermediate- and poor-risk groups were obtained from KEYNOTE-426 and CHECKMATE-214 trials for P + A and N + I, respectively, versus sunitinib as mRCC first-line treatment. RESULTS: Considering a 12-month time horizon, 6 patients should be treated with P + A to prevent one death with sunitinib use, resulting in a COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Using N + I, NNT for 12-month OS rate was 13 compared to sunitinib, with a COPE of 6,357,965 BRL. Regarding PFS data, NNT was also 6 when comparing P + A versus sunitinib, with an estimated COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Estimated NNT was 20 comparing N + I and sunitinib, resulting in a COPE of 10,172,744 BRL. Cost differences between two treatment options, reached more than 6 million BRL for PFS, and 2 million BRL for OS. CONCLUSION: At the 12-month landmark, P + A suggests better economic scenario versus N + I as first-line mRCC treatment option for intermediate- and poor-risk groups, through an indirect comparison using sunitinib as a common comparator.

Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan.

Importance: With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%. Exposures: The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact. Results: In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Vs Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the US.

Importance: Checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy represents a major advance in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab-ipilimumab have become standard of care options after demonstrating clinical efficacy against sunitinib in separate phase 3 trials. The cost-effectiveness of these regimens is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab- ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed and run between August and December 2019. Separate analyses were conducted for an intermediate- and poor-risk patient population (base case) and a favorable-risk population (exploratory analysis) because prognosis is known to differ between risk groups; 100 000 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were simulated in each treatment arm. Survival, treatment regimens, and other relevant conditions were based on data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 and CheckMate214 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector. Main Outcomes and Measures: An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for each of the 2 analyses and compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: Pembrolizumab-axitinib was estimated to add 0.60 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the base case analysis (3.66 vs 3.05 QALYs) and 0.25 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the exploratory analysis (4.55 vs 4.30 QALYs), and was more costly (base case analysis: $562 927 vs $458 961; exploratory analysis: $589 035 vs $470 403). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $172 532 per QALY in the base case analysis and $468 682 per QALY in the exploratory analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the base case model was most sensitive to first-line drug prices (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at upper limit of nivolumab price and lower limits of axitinib and pembrolizumab prices: $89 983, $102 287, and $114 943 per QALY, respectively). The exploratory analysis model was most sensitive to overall survival rates (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at lower limit of pembrolizumab-axitinib rate and upper limit of nivolumab-ipilimumab rate: $278 644 and $285 684 per QALY, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that pembrolizumab-axitinib treatment is associated with greater QALYs compared with nivolumab/ipilimumab treatment in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma but may not be cost-effective. Price reductions may make the cost of pembrolizumab-axitinib proportional to its clinical value and less financially burdensome to the US health care system.

Sunitinib First-line Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Costs and Effects.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are important in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). The aim of the study was to evaluate the costs and effects of sunitinib in mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 81 mRCC patients who received first-line sunitinib therapy between 2010 and 2014 were recruited. Drug doses, laboratory and imaging studies, outpatient visits and inpatient stays were recorded. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured (15D- and EQ-5D - 3L questionnaires). RESULTS: The cost of sunitinib (mean 22,268 €/patient range 274 € to 105,121 €) covered 73% of the total costs during the treatment period. The total treatment cost was 30,530 €/patient (range=1,661-111,516 €). The median overall survival was 17.9 months. HRQoL decreased during treatment. CONCLUSION: The main cost during sunitinib treatment of mRCC was the drug itself (73% of the total costs). Drug costs and HRQoL should be considered when choosing treatment for mRCC.

[Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System]. / Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde.

Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib in First-line Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), the KEYNOTE-426 study demonstrated a significant progression-free survival and overall survival for pembrolizumab plus axitinib in comparison with sunitinib. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for previously untreated patients with aRCC in China. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the costs and health outcomes of treatment of aRCC with sunitinib or pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. Additional subgroup analyses were also performed. The primary outputs of the model included the total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib provided an additional 2.461 LYs (1.650 QALYs). The total cost per patient was US$178,725 for pembrolizumab plus axitinib and US$87,693 for sunitinib. The ICER for pembrolizumab plus axitinib was US$55,185/QALY versus sunitinib. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to pembrolizumab cost and overall hazard ratio. The results of subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained greater than US$32,000/QALY across the all patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is not likely to be cost effective versus sunitinib for patients with previously untreated aRCC at a threshold value of US$29,306/QALY.

Pazopanib has equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower Total costs than Sunitinib for treating metastatic or advanced renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib and pazopanib are extensively used as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We performed this meta-analysis to assess the anti-tumor effectiveness, toxicity, and total costs of the two drugs among patients with mRCC/advanced RCC (aRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to obtain eligible articles. The endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs. RESULTS: We included 14 medium- to high-quality studies. Both drugs were valid for mRCC/aRCC, with equivalent PFS (hazard ratio (HR) =1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.15, P = 0.13), OS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.79-1.07, P = 0.29), objective response rate (ORR, risk ratio (RR) =1.03, 95% CI: 0.93-1.13, p = 0.58), and disease control rate (DCR, RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94-1.22, P = 0.54). Sunitinib had more dosage reductions and higher PPPM (weighted mean difference = - 1.50 thousand US dollars, 95% CI: - 2.27 to - 0.72, P = 0.0002). Furthermore, more incidences of severe fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were recorded for sunitinib, but pazopanib had more liver toxicity. In subgroup analysis, studies from the US reported longer OS (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95, P = 0.004) and higher ORR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03-1.51, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib provides equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower PPPM as compared with sunitinib for mRCC/aRCC. Great care should be given to pazopanib-treated patients with abnormal liver function. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sunitinib versus Interferon-Alfa for First-Line Treatment of Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib versus interferon-alfa for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) was developed from a healthcare payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Survival curves from the pivotal trial of sunitinib versus interferon-alfa were extrapolated beyond the trial period to estimate the underlying progression-free survival and overall survival parametric distributions. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct costs were sourced from local public healthcare institutions. The sunitinib dose in the model reflected local prescribing practices whereby a combination of 50 mg (28 percent) and 37.5 mg (72 percent) strengths are used. RESULTS: The base-case analysis comparing sunitinib versus interferon-alfa resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD191,061 (USD139,757) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the utility value assumed for the progression-free health state and the price of sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of any price reduction, sunitinib had an exceedingly high ICER and was not considered a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Singapore's context for the first-line treatment of advanced RCC. The findings from our evaluation will be useful to inform local healthcare decision making and resource allocations for tyrosine kinase inhibitors when appraised alongside comparative clinical effectiveness data and payer affordability considerations.

First-line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Recently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

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.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Intermediate- to Poor-Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The treatment paradigm of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed rapidly in recent years. In first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk patients, the CheckMate 214 study demonstrated a significant survival advantage for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib. The high cost of combined immune-modulating agents warrants an understanding of the combination's value by considering both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC from the U.S. payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab with those of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in 2017. We extrapolated survival beyond the trial closure using Weibull distribution. Model robustness was addressed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The total mean cost per-patient of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib was $292,308 and $169,287, respectfully. Nivolumab and ipilimumab generated a gain of 0.978 QALYs over sunitinib. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab and ipilimumab was $125,739/QALY versus sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Our analysis established that the base case ICER in the model for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib is below what some would consider the upper limit of the theoretical willingness-to-pay threshold in the U.S. ($150,000/QALY) and is thus estimated to be cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article assessed the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib for treatment of patients with intermediate- to poor-risk metastatic kidney cancer, from the U.S. payer perspective. It would cost $125,739 to gain 1 quality-adjusted life-year with nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib in these patients.

Patterns of practice and pharmacoeconomic analysis of the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Greece--the CRISIS study. A retrospective analysis by the Hellenic Genitourinary Cancer Group (HGUCG).

Background:Metastatic RCC (mRCC) treatment has been revolutionized with 11 approved targeted agents. We report patterns of practice, outcomes and pharmacoeconomic analyses after the introduction of targeted therapy. Patients and methods: CRISIS was a retrospective multicenter study of mRCCpatients who received targeted therapy . Results were related to the start of 1st-line therapy, with a cut off at 1 January 2011 in order to depict the impact of increased availability of effective options. Results: 164 patients, were included. 70.1% and 44.5% received 2nd and 3rd-line therapy, respectively. More patients were treated in 2nd-line after 1 January 2011. After a median follow-up of 55.1 months, median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 10.7 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 8.3-13.7), 7.3 (95% CI: 5.1-8.6), 5.8 (95% CI: 3.8-7.8) and 34 (95% CI: 28.5-39.8), 22.4 (95% CI: 16-32.1), 18.3 (95% CI: 12.4-26.4) months for first, second and third line, respectively. Efficacy of sunitinib and pazopanib in 1st-line were similar. The mean total cost/patient was 35,012.2 Euros (standard deviation [SD]: 28,971.5). Conclusions: Our study confirms previous real-world data suggesting that continuing advances in the treatment of mRCC produce favorable outcomes in everyday practice. Pharmacoeconomic analyses are important for cost-effective utilization of emerging novel therapies.

Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde / Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System / Costo-efectividad entre el pazopanib y el sunitinib para el cáncer renal metastásico desde la perspectiva del Sistema Único de Salud

Resumo: O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

Abstract: Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

Resumen: El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.

Cost-utility of Sunitinib Versus Pazopanib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Canada using Real-world Evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The development of new targeted therapies in kidney cancer has shaped disease management in the metastatic phase. Our study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of sunitinib versus pazopanib in first-line setting in Canada for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients using real-world data. METHODS: A Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of patients treated in first-line with sunitinib versus pazopanib. Transition probabilities were estimated using observational data from a Canadian database where real-life clinical practice was captured. The costs of therapies, disease progression, and management of adverse events were included in the model in Canadian dollars ($Can). Utility and disutility values were included for each health state. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for a time horizon of 5 years, from the Canadian Healthcare System perspective. RESULTS: The cost difference was $36,303 and the difference in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.54 in favour of sunitinib with an ICUR of $67,227/QALY for sunitinib versus pazopanib. The major cost component (56%) is related to best supportive care (BSC) where patients tend to stay for a longer period of time compared to other states. The difference in life years gained (LYG) between sunitinib and pazopanib was 1.21 LYG (33.51 vs 19.03 months) and the ICER was $30,002/LYG. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model with a high probability of sunitinib being a cost-effective option when compared to pazopanib. CONCLUSION: When using real-world evidence, sunitinib is found to be a cost-effective treatment compared to pazopanib in mRCC patients in Canada.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS: A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China.

PURPOSE: Targeted therapies, including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, and everolimus, have recently become the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of sequential treatment regimens for mRCC and associated adverse events (AEs) from the Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: Key inputs included in the calculation were patient population, dosing information, incidence rates and associated costs of Grade 3/4 AEs, treatment costs (including drug discount programs), and patients' progression-free survival (PFS) as a proxy for length of treatment. To calculate PFS, this study identified pivotal clinical trials and generated a reconstructed individual patient data set from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The median PFS from the pooled estimates were used in the calculation. In the base-case scenario, sunitinib was used as first line and the other three therapies were used as second line. Sensitivity analyses were conducted where (1) sorafenib was used as first line, or (2) a third-line therapy was added to the base-case scenario. RESULTS: In the base case, the cost per patient per treatment month (PPPM) cost was the lowest for sunitinib + axitinib among all sequential regimens (¥14,898) and was the highest for sunitinib + sorafenib (¥20,103). If sorafenib is used as first line, everolimus had lower per patient per months (PPPM) cost than axitinib (¥17,046 vs ¥23,337), but also had shorter PFS (13.5 months vs 15 months). Second sensitivity analysis with an additional third-line therapy showed consistent results with the base-case scenario; axitinib as second line was the least costly. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, for mRCC sequential treatment, sunitinib followed by axitinib generates the highest cost savings from the Chinese payers' perspective. Future studies are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of various mRCC treatment regimens in Chinese populations.