Search

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.

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.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.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.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.

263 Background: The PRONOUNCE trial was a phase III, randomized, open-label U.S. study comparing pemetrexed (PemC) with bevacizumab (PCB) in the treatment of advanced chemo-naive nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). The primary endpoint of improved PFS without grade 4 toxicity for PemC over PCB was not met. There were no differences in PFS or OS. This analysis was conducted to estimate differences in costs of treatment and related patient care between the groups to inform evidence-based treatment decision making. Methods: A cost-minimization analysis was performed using data from the PRONOUNCE trial and publically available U.S. unit costs. Drug costs modeled included induction, maintenance, and subsequent therapies. Other estimated medical costs were drug administration, concomitant medications, and treatment of grade 3/4 toxicities. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to model joint uncertainty associated with model parameters. Results: The average cost of treatment with PemC was $4,689 less than PCB ($30,334 vs $35,024). Drug acquisition and administration costs were less in all modeled settings (induction, maintenance, and subsequent lines) for PemC. Costs associated with concomitant medications and grade 3/4 toxicities were similar ($13,286 vs $13,738). PemC was cost saving in 99% of 10,000 PSA iterations. Conclusions: Based on the PRONOUNCE trial and model results, PemC may present a similarly effective but less costly treatment option for patients in the United States compared with PCB. While treatment decision making should consider the overall safety profile and patient preferences, this study provides estimates of the costs of treatment of these two therapeutic options. The analysis was based on clinical trial data; therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all patients. [Table: see text]

Objective To investigate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Design A semi-Markov model was constructed from a French health collective perspective, with health states related to first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, resection of metastases, disease-free after successful resection and death. Methods Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression-free and overall survival data from the only head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab and bevacizumab (PEAK) were performed to estimate transitions to disease progression and death. 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 French 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 applied. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Based on a head-to-head clinical trial that demonstrates better efficacy outcomes for patients with wild-type RAS mCRC who receive panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, the incremental cost per life-year gained was estimated to be €26,918, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was estimated to be €36,577. Sensitivity analyses indicate the model is robust to alternative parameters and assumptions. Conclusions The incremental cost per QALY gained indicates that panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 represents good value for money in comparison to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 and, with a willingness-to-pay ranging from €40,000 to €60,000, can be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC.

Introduction Health technology assessment is not required for regulatory submission or approval in either the United States (US) or Japan. This study was designed as a cross-country evaluation of cost analyses conducted in the US and Japan based on the PRONOUNCE phase III lung cancer trial, which compared pemetrexed plus carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (PemC) versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin plus bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (PCB). Methods Two cost analyses were conducted in accordance with International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research good research practice standards. Costs were obtained based on local pricing structures; outcomes were considered equivalent based on the PRONOUNCE trial results. Other inputs were included from the trial data (e.g., toxicity rates) or from local practice sources (e.g., toxicity management). The models were compared across key input and transferability factors. Results Despite differences in local input data, both models demonstrated a similar direction, with the cost of PemC being consistently lower than the cost of PCB. The variation in individual input parameters did affect some of the specific categories, such as toxicity, and impacted sensitivity analyses, with the cost differential between comparators being greater in Japan than in the US. Conclusion When economic models are based on clinical trial data, many inputs and outcomes are held consistent. The alterable inputs were not in and of themselves large enough to significantly impact the results between countries, which were directionally consistent with greater variation seen in sensitivity analyses. The factors that vary across jurisdictions, even when minor, can have an impact on trial-based economic analyses. Funding Eli Lilly and Company. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0270-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.