Cost-effectiveness analysis of pazopanib in second-line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma in Spain

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments, such as erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib, for patients diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Two Bayesian NMAs were performed independently, by using the polynomial fraction method to fit Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and progression-free survival. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty.

RESULTS

The ICER was calculated for the four first-line treatments by comparing them with gefitinib, and the ratios obtained were as follows: €166,416/QALY for osimertinib, €183,682/QALY for dacomitinib, €167,554/QALY for afatinib, €36,196/QALY for erlotinib. It was seen that patients who received osimertinib presented higher QALYs (0.49), followed by dacomitinib (0.33), afatinib (0.32), erlotinib (0.31), and gefitinib (0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Gefitinib is the most cost-effective treatment. In terms of QALYs gained, Osimertinib was more effective than all other TKIs. Nevertheless, with a Spanish threshold of €24,000/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 70%, to obtain a cost-effectiveness alternative.

Dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with dacomitinib compared with gefitinib in patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC EGFR-positive in the context of Spain. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed including costs, utilities and disutilities to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio when treating with dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Results: Dacomitinib presented higher QALYs (0.51) compared with gefitinib (0.45). Dacomitinib costs were €33,061 in comparison with €26,692 for gefitinib arm. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €111,048 was obtained for dacomitinib. Conclusion: Dacomitinib was more effective in terms of QALYs gained than gefitinib. However, to obtain a cost-effectiveness alternative, a discount greater than 25% in dacomitinib acquisition cost is required.

Survival and Cost-Effectiveness of Trabectedin Compared to Ifosfamide Monotherapy in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma Patients

Trabectedin and ifosfamide are among the few cytostatic agents active in advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STSs). Trabectedin is most potent against so-called L-sarcomas (leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma). The survival gain and cost-effectiveness of these agents in a second-line setting were analysed in the setting of advanced STS after failure of anthracyclines. A prospective observational trial had previously been performed to assess the use of trabectedin in a Dutch real-world setting. Data on ifosfamide monotherapy were acquired from previous studies, and an indirect comparison of survival was made. A state-transition economic model was constructed, in which patients could be in mutually exclusive states of being preprogression, postprogression, or deceased. The costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatments were assessed from a Dutch health-care perspective. Separate analyses for the group of L-sarcomas and non-L-sarcomas were performed. Trabectedin treatment resulted in a median progression-free survival of 5.2 months for L-sarcoma patients, 2.0 months for non-L-sarcoma patients, and a median overall survival of 11.8 and 6.0 months, respectively. For L-sarcoma patients, trabectedin offered an increase of 0.368 life years and 0.251 QALYs compared to ifosfamide and €20,082 in additional costs, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €80,000 per QALY gained. In the non-L-sarcoma patients, trabectedin resulted in 0.413 less life years and 0.266 less QALYs, at the increased cost of €4,698. The difference in survival between drugs and the acquisition costs of trabectedin were the main influences in these models. Trabectedin was shown to have antitumour efficacy in advanced L-sarcoma. From a health economics perspective, the costs per QALY gained compared to ifosfamide monotherapy that may be acceptable, considering what is currently regarded as acceptable in the Netherlands.

Pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcomas

Pazopanib is the first and only tyrosine kinase inhibitor currently approved for the treatment of multiple histological subtypes of soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Initially developed as a small molecule inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, preclinical work indicates that pazopanib exerts an anticancer effect through the inhibition of both angiogenic and oncogenic signaling pathways. Following the establishment of optimal dosing and safety profiles in early phase studies and approval for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, pazopanib was investigated in STS. A landmark phase III randomized study demonstrated improved progression-free survival with pazopanib compared to that with placebo in pretreated patients with STS of various subtypes. The efficacy of pazopanib in specific STS subtypes has been further described in real-world-based case series in both mixed and subtype-specific STS cohorts. At present, there are no clinically validated predictive biomarkers for use in selecting patients with advanced STS for pazopanib therapy, limiting the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the drug. In this review, we summarize the preclinical and clinical data for pazopanib, outline the evidence base for its effect in STS and explore reported studies that have investigated putative biomarkers.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes with pazopanib in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas in a compassionate use setting: results of the SPIRE study. Acta Oncol 2017;56:1769-1775. [PMID: 28723233 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1332779]

BACKGROUND

A named patient program (NPP) was designed to provide patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (aSTS) access to pazopanib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The SPIRE study was a retrospective chart review of participating patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligibility criteria for the NPP and SPIRE mirrored those of the pivotal phase-III study, PALETTE, which compared pazopanib with placebo in patients ≥18 years with aSTS and whose disease had progressed during or following prior chemotherapy or were otherwise unsuitable for chemotherapy. Outcomes of interest included treatment patterns, treatment duration, relative dose intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate, adverse events (AEs) and reasons for treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients were enrolled (median age 56 years; 60% female). Most patients received pazopanib in second- and third-line therapy (28.0% and 28.4%, respectively), followed by fourth line (19.0%) and ≥ fifth line (18.5%). The median duration of pazopanib treatment was 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.8-3.8), with a mean daily dose of 715 mg equating to 92% of recommended dose. Median OS was 11.1 months and clinical benefit rate was 46%. There was evidence of some clinical benefit across most histological subtypes. At study end, 40% of patients were alive and of these, 18% remained on pazopanib. Thirteen percent (13%) of patients discontinued pazopanib due to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPIRE study demonstrated activity of pazopanib in heavily pretreated aSTS patients in a compassionate use setting. No new safety concerns were noted. Reassuringly, the relative dose intensity of pazopanib was 92%.

Economic Evaluations of Pharmaceuticals Granted a Marketing Authorisation Without the Results of Randomised Trials: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceuticals are usually granted a marketing authorisation on the basis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Occasionally the efficacy of a treatment is assessed without a randomised comparator group (either active or placebo).

OBJECTIVE

To identify and develop a taxonomic account of economic modelling approaches for pharmaceuticals licensed without RCT data.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the websites of UK health technology assessment bodies and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Scientific Presentations Database for assessments of treatments granted a marketing authorisation by the US Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency from January 1999 to May 2014 without RCT data (74 indications). The outcome of interest was the approach to modelling efficacy data.

RESULTS

Fifty-one unique models were identified in 29 peer-reviewed articles, 30 health technology appraisals, and 15 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research abstracts concerning 30 indications (44 indications had not been modelled). We noted the high rate of non-submission to health technology assessment agencies (28/98). The majority of models (43/51) were based on 'historical controls'-comparisons to previous meta-analysis or pooling of trials (5), individual trials (16), registries/case series (15), or expert opinion (7). Other approaches used the patient as their own control, performed threshold analysis, assumed time on treatment was added to overall survival, or performed cost-minimisation analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in the quality and approach of models constructed for drugs granted a marketing authorisation without a RCT. The most common approach is of a naive comparison to historical data (using other trials/registry data as a control group), which has considerable scope for bias.

Pazopanib in the management of advanced soft tissue sarcomas

Therapy of soft tissue sarcomas represents an area of significant unmet need in oncology. Angiogenesis has been explored as a potential target both preclinically and clinically, with suggestions of activity. Pazopanib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with prominent antiangiogenic effects. In a Phase II study, pazopanib demonstrated activity in strata enrolling patients with leiomyosarcomas, synovial sarcomas, or other sarcomas but not those enrolling adipocytic sarcomas. PALETTE, the pivotal Phase III trial, demonstrated improved progression-free survival versus placebo in pazopanib-treated patients previously treated for advanced soft tissue sarcomas. No survival benefit was observed, and adipocytic sarcomas were excluded. Health-related quality-of-life assessments indicated significant decrements in several areas affected by pazopanib toxicities, but no global deterioration. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that pazopanib therapy may or may not be cost-effective in different geographic settings. Pazopanib provides important proof-of-concept for antiangiogenic therapy in soft tissue sarcomas. Its use can be improved by further biological studies of its activity profile in sarcomas, studies of biological rational combinations, and clinicopathologic/biological correlative studies of activity to allow better drug targeting.