Cost-Effectiveness of Pazopanib Compared with Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Canada
Authors:
Open Access
- 1 August 2016
- journal article
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 23 (4) , 340-354
Abstract
Background: In Canada and elsewhere, pazopanib and sunitinib—tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors—are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). A large randomized noninferiority trial of pazopanib versus sunitinib (comparz) demonstrated that the two drugs have similar efficacy; however, patients randomized to pazopanib experienced better healthrelated quality of life (hrqol) and nominally lower rates of non-study medical resource utilization. Methods: The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care system perspective was evaluated using a partitioned-survival model that incorporated data from comparz and other secondary sources. The time horizon of 5 years was based on the maximum duration of follow-up in the final analysis of overall survival from the comparz trial. Analyses were conducted first using list prices for pazopanib and sunitinib and then by assuming that the prices of sunitinib and pazopanib would be equivalent. Results: Based on list prices, expected costs were CA$10,293 less with pazopanib than with sunitinib. Pazopanib was estimated to yield 0.059 more quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Pazopanib was therefore dominant (more qalys and lower costs) compared with sunitinib in the base case. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in 79% of simulations and was cost-effective in 90%–100% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Assuming equivalent pricing, pazopanib yielded CA$917 in savings in the base case, was dominant in 36% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Conclusions: Compared with sunitinib, pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care perspective.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind, Cross-Over Trial Assessing Treatment Preference for Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: PISCES StudyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2014
- Overall Survival in Renal-Cell Carcinoma with Pazopanib versus SunitinibNew England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- How Do Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Inform Reimbursement Decisions for Oncology Medicines in Canada? The Example of Sunitinib for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell CarcinomaValue in Health, 2010
- Pan-Canadian review of cancer drugs will not be binding on provincesCanadian Medical Association Journal, 2010
- Elicitation of health state utilities in metastatic renal cell carcinomaCurrent Medical Research and Opinion, 2010
- Societal preference values for advanced melanoma health states in the United Kingdom and AustraliaBritish Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Health State Utility Scores for Cancer-Related Anemia through Societal and Patient ValuationsValue in Health, 2008
- Blinded Independent Central Review of Progression-Free Survival in Phase III Clinical Trials: Important Design Element or Unnecessary Expense?Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2008
- Renal-Cell CarcinomaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- A New Decision Model for Cost-Utility Comparisons of Chemotherapy in Recurrent Metastatic Breast CancerPharmacoEconomics, 1996