Cargando…

Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS), olaparib and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: A decision-analytic model estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guy, Holly, Walder, Lydia, Fisher, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386009/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30478649
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0745-z
_version_ 1783397303069966336
author Guy, Holly
Walder, Lydia
Fisher, Mark
author_facet Guy, Holly
Walder, Lydia
Fisher, Mark
author_sort Guy, Holly
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS), olaparib and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: A decision-analytic model estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for niraparib versus RS, olaparib, and rucaparib from a US payer perspective. The model considered recurrent OC patients with or without germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut), who were responsive to their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Model health states were: progression-free disease, progressed disease and dead. Mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using parametric survival distributions based on ENGOT-OV16/NOVA (niraparib phase III trial), ARIEL3 (rucaparib phase III trial) and Study 19 (olaparib phase II trial). Mean overall survival (OS) benefit was estimated as double the mean PFS benefit based on the relationship between PFS and OS observed in Study 19. Costs included: drug, chemotherapy, monitoring, adverse events, and terminal care. EQ-5D utilities were estimated from trial data. RESULTS: Compared to RS, niraparib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$68,287/QALY and US$108,287/QALY for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. Compared to olaparib and rucaparib, niraparib decreased costs and increased QALYs, with a cost saving of US$8799 and US$22,236 versus olaparib and US$198,708 and US$73,561 versus rucaparib for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib was estimated to be less costly and more effective compared to olaparib and rucaparib, and the ICER fell within an acceptable range compared to RS. Therefore, niraparib may be considered a cost-effective maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent OC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-018-0745-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6386009
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63860092019-03-12 Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States Guy, Holly Walder, Lydia Fisher, Mark Pharmacoeconomics Original Research Article OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS), olaparib and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: A decision-analytic model estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for niraparib versus RS, olaparib, and rucaparib from a US payer perspective. The model considered recurrent OC patients with or without germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut), who were responsive to their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Model health states were: progression-free disease, progressed disease and dead. Mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using parametric survival distributions based on ENGOT-OV16/NOVA (niraparib phase III trial), ARIEL3 (rucaparib phase III trial) and Study 19 (olaparib phase II trial). Mean overall survival (OS) benefit was estimated as double the mean PFS benefit based on the relationship between PFS and OS observed in Study 19. Costs included: drug, chemotherapy, monitoring, adverse events, and terminal care. EQ-5D utilities were estimated from trial data. RESULTS: Compared to RS, niraparib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$68,287/QALY and US$108,287/QALY for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. Compared to olaparib and rucaparib, niraparib decreased costs and increased QALYs, with a cost saving of US$8799 and US$22,236 versus olaparib and US$198,708 and US$73,561 versus rucaparib for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib was estimated to be less costly and more effective compared to olaparib and rucaparib, and the ICER fell within an acceptable range compared to RS. Therefore, niraparib may be considered a cost-effective maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent OC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-018-0745-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-11-27 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6386009/ /pubmed/30478649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0745-z Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Guy, Holly
Walder, Lydia
Fisher, Mark
Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_full Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_fullStr Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_full_unstemmed Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_short Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_sort cost-effectiveness of niraparib versus routine surveillance, olaparib and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with ovarian cancer in the united states
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386009/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30478649
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0745-z
work_keys_str_mv AT guyholly costeffectivenessofniraparibversusroutinesurveillanceolaparibandrucaparibforthemaintenancetreatmentofpatientswithovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT walderlydia costeffectivenessofniraparibversusroutinesurveillanceolaparibandrucaparibforthemaintenancetreatmentofpatientswithovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT fishermark costeffectivenessofniraparibversusroutinesurveillanceolaparibandrucaparibforthemaintenancetreatmentofpatientswithovariancancerintheunitedstates