Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amdahl, Jordan, Diaz, Jose, Sharma, Arati, Park, Jinhee, Chandiwana, David, Delea, Thomas E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28636648
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175920
_version_ 1783245135713140736
author Amdahl, Jordan
Diaz, Jose
Sharma, Arati
Park, Jinhee
Chandiwana, David
Delea, Thomas E.
author_facet Amdahl, Jordan
Diaz, Jose
Sharma, Arati
Park, Jinhee
Chandiwana, David
Delea, Thomas E.
author_sort Amdahl, Jordan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources. METHODS: A partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan–Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results. RESULTS: In the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: −0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (−£1,061, 95% CrI: −£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5479501
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54795012017-07-05 Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom Amdahl, Jordan Diaz, Jose Sharma, Arati Park, Jinhee Chandiwana, David Delea, Thomas E. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Sunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources. METHODS: A partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan–Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results. RESULTS: In the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: −0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (−£1,061, 95% CrI: −£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom. Public Library of Science 2017-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5479501/ /pubmed/28636648 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175920 Text en © 2017 Amdahl et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Amdahl, Jordan
Diaz, Jose
Sharma, Arati
Park, Jinhee
Chandiwana, David
Delea, Thomas E.
Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom
title Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom
title_full Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom
title_short Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom
title_sort cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the united kingdom
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28636648
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175920
work_keys_str_mv AT amdahljordan costeffectivenessofpazopanibversussunitinibformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintheunitedkingdom
AT diazjose costeffectivenessofpazopanibversussunitinibformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintheunitedkingdom
AT sharmaarati costeffectivenessofpazopanibversussunitinibformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintheunitedkingdom
AT parkjinhee costeffectivenessofpazopanibversussunitinibformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintheunitedkingdom
AT chandiwanadavid costeffectivenessofpazopanibversussunitinibformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintheunitedkingdom
AT deleathomase costeffectivenessofpazopanibversussunitinibformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintheunitedkingdom