Search

Background: The cost-effectiveness analyses of follicular lymphoma (FL) treatments have focused on the second-line rituximab maintenance in patients with relapsed FL. The assessment of full FL treatment chain has been lacking., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of FL treatment sequences., Methods: Transitions between progression-free first-line treatment (PF1), progression-free second-line treatment (PF2), progression, and death health states were simulated with a probabilistic Markov model with half-cycle correction. At first, patients were assumed to be receiving rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP) induction. The first-line RCHOP induction responders continued without (RCHOP) or with (RCHOPR) the first-line rituximab-maintenance treatment. In the case of PF1 failure, patients received RCOPR/bendamustine or RCOPR/COP according to the European Society for Medical Oncology guidance. In the case of PF2 failure, patients were expected to receive the best supportive care (BSC). The survivals and adverse events were estimated with direct and indirect comparisons. Health outcomes and Finnish payer (drug, drug administration, monitoring, test, progression, serious adverse event) costs valued in 2010 euros were discounted with 3% per annum., Results: The mean discounted lifetime overall survival with FL was 9.6 to 11.5 years, quality-adjusted survival was 7.2 to 8.8 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), progression-free time was 7.7 to 10.2 years, and costs were €153,425 to €168,549, depending on the treatment sequence. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for RCHOPR→RCOPR/bendamustine→BSC, RCHOPR→RCOPR/COP→BSC, and RCHOP→RCOPR/bendamustine→BSC were €9575/€8014/€5900, €9881/€8310/€6013, and €8812/€7194/€5808, respectively, per QALY/life-year/progression-free year gained in comparison with RCHOP→RCOPR/COP→BSC. According to the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier, the treatment of 61.8% to 72.7% patients with RCHOPR→RCOPR/bendamustine→BSC was cost effective at €20,000 to €30,000/QALY gained (expected value of perfect information [EVPI], €1287 to €1976/patient). The relative results were found to be robust in sensitivity analyses, and, in the direct comparison that included only head-to-head data, the first-line rituximab maintenance had 93.1% cost-effectiveness probability at €20,000/QALY gained (EVPI, €282/patient)., Conclusion: Sequences that included first-line rituximab maintenance is and second-line bendamustine are potentially cost effective in the treatment of FL., Limitations: Because of data available, health outcomes of the first-line rituximab induction were excluded, the second-line patients on COP were assumed to incur the cost of COP, and the efficacy and adverse events of CHOP and the efficacy and adverse events of bendamustine were estimated indirectly according to a comparison of rituximab+bendamustine and RCHOP, and treatment benefits were truncated., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cytokine therapy is currently used as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Until recently, treatments with proven efficacy after the failure of first-line cytokine therapy were not available. In recent clinical trials, sunitinib has been associated with good response rates in patients with mRCC., Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib as second-line therapy for cytokine-refractory mRCC compared with current routine clinical practice in Finland (ie, best supportive care [BSC], including palliative biochemotherapy)., Methods: A probabilistic decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib. Data were gathered from clinical trials, literature sources, and expert opinions, as well as from a local sample (n = 39) from 2 university hospitals in Finland. Clinical experts treating patients with mRCC in Finland provided the information on care practices of prescribing sunitinib. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the health care payer in Finland., Results: According to estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), 1 progression-free month gained cost euro4802 (2005 Euros); 1 life-year gained cost euro30,831; and 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained cost euro43,698, compared with BSC, in the treatment of mRCC. The expected mean cost in BSC was euro5543. When parameter uncertainty was considered, the probability of sunitinib being the more cost-effective choice of treatment was ~70% at the willingness-to-pay level of euro45,000/QALY gained., Conclusions: Based on the results of this cost-effectiveness analysis, sunitinib is potentially cost-effective as a second-line treatment of mRCC compared with the treatment currently practiced in Finnish hospitals. The ICER (euro/QALY gained) obtained in the present study was less than the value considered suitable for novel oncology treatments.