Cost-effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service Perspective

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information of Cabozantinib Treatment for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma After Failure of Prior Therapy in South Korea

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness and value of information of cabozantinib compared to nivolumab in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients, who previously failed treatment from a societal perspective in South Korea.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was used to evaluate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of cabozantinib versus nivolumab. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were obtained from a network meta-analysis that included METEOR and CheckMate 025 trial results. Utility values for health states and adverse events were estimated based on the EQ-5D-5L data of METEOR trial with a Korean-specific tariff. Costs were estimated by a micro-costing approach using healthcare claims data and expert consultation. The impact of uncertainties in the model were explored by scenario analyses, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was estimated to assess the value of future research to decrease decision uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to nivolumab, cabozantinib was associated with improved OS, PFS, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at greater cost. The ICUR was $34,445 per QALY. In sensitivity analysis, drug costs had the greatest influence on the ICUR. Cabozantinib had a 68.0% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of 2 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. The population EVPI was $82.6 million at 2 GDP threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Cabozantinib was found to be cost-effective for advanced RCC patients after failure of prior therapy at a 2 GDP threshold. Future research that costs less than the estimated population EVPI would be worth considering for a comparison of cabozantinib and nivolumab.

An Italian, multicenter, real-world, retrospective study of first-line pazopanib in unselected metastatic renal-cell carcinoma patients: the 'Pamerit' study

OBJECTIVE

Despite the current immunotherapy era, VEGFR inhibitors maintain effectiveness in metastatic renal cell cancer. Real-world data concerning pazopanib are limited. The aim of this study is to add information about efficacy and safety of pazopanib as first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell cancer patients not enrolled into clinical trials.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis (the PAMERIT study) of first-line pazopanib in real-world metastatic renal cell cancer patients among 39 Centers in Italy. Outcomes were progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate and treatment-related adverse events. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test and multivariable Cox's models were used and adjusted for age, histology, previous renal surgery, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score and pazopanib initial dose.

RESULTS

Among 474 patients, 87.3% had clear cell metastatic renal cell cancer histology. Most of them (84.6%) had upfront renal surgery. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 15.8 and 34.4 months, respectively, significantly correlating with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium's good prognosis (P < 0.001), ECOG PS 0 (P < 0.001), age (<75 years, P = 0.005), surgery (P < 0.001) and response to pazopanib (P < 0.001). After 3 months of pazopanib, overall disease control rate have been observed in 76.6% patients. Among International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium's favorable group patients, 57/121 (47%) showed complete/partial response. No unexpected AEs emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study, metastatic renal cell cancer patients treated with first-line pazopanib reached greater progression-free survival and overall survival than in pivotal studies and had high response rates when belonging to International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium's favorable group, without new toxicities. Pazopanib has been confirmed a valid first-line option for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium's good prognosis metastatic renal cell cancer patients who cannot be submitted to immunotherapy.

An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from an Italian National Health Service perspective, considering the evolving Italian landscape in terms of new reimbursement agreements trend.

METHODS

This analysis is an update of the previously published cost-effectiveness analysis to incorporate recent 2019 costs and additional changes regarding drug discounting. A partitioned-survival analysis model with three different health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was utilized. Outcomes included progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs calculated for both treatments. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit (NMB) of pazopanib versus sunitinib. In the base case analysis, a time horizon of 5 years was used and future costs and QALYs were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. An impact of methodological and parameter uncertainly on base case results was evaluated using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, pazopanib had higher QALYs (+0.060) at lower costs (-€5,857) versus sunitinib, hence it dominated sunitinib. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the NMB with pazopanib were €7,647 and €8,841 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 97.5% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 95.4% at a threshold of €30,000, and 90.2% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions as demonstrated by deterministic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic RCC in Italy.

Cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins in real-world clinical practice in Italy

Aims: The costs associated with insulin therapy and diabetes-related complications represent a significant and growing economic burden for healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec (degludec) vs continuing previous basal insulin, in Italian patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D) diabetes, using a long-term economic model.Materials and methods: Data were retrieved from a real-world population of patients from clinical practice in Italy. Clinical parameters included in the base-case model were change from baseline in HbA_1c, rates of hypoglycemia, and basal and bolus insulin dose, at 6 months following switch to degludec. Costs of treatments were taken from official Italian pharmaceutical list prices and costs of hypoglycemia were based on the literature. The data were used to populate a long-term (lifetime) IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) - cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The robustness of these results was tested with extensive sensitivity analyses by varying the time horizons and abolishing each of the treatment differences and previous basal insulins.Results: The total incremental cost for degludec vs previous basal insulin was €-6,310 and €-2,682 for patients with T1D and T2D, respectively; the switch to degludec resulted in a QALY gain of 0.781 and 0.628. The long-term ICER for degludec vs continuing the previous basal insulin regimen showed that degludec was dominant for both T1D and T2D, meaning that patient health was improved in terms of QALYs with lower healthcare costs. Sensitivity analyses showed that degludec remained dominant in most scenarios including after elimination of any benefit in non-severe hypoglycemia and insulin dose, in both T1D and T2D.Conclusions: Under routine care, switching to degludec is dominant, compared with continuing previous basal insulin, in Italian patients with T1D or T2D.

Role and relevance of quality indicators in the selection of first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a position paper of the MeetURO Group

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors still play a very important role in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma despite a continuously changing scenario, in which immunotherapy and several combination-based approaches are also available. In this light, patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life are important factors in the selection of the best first-line treatment. This Review focuses on the existing evidence on patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life with several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (pazopanib, sunitinib, cabozantinib and tivozanib) used as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Pazopanib has equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower Total costs than Sunitinib for treating metastatic or advanced renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Background

Sunitinib and pazopanib are extensively used as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We performed this meta-analysis to assess the anti-tumor effectiveness, toxicity, and total costs of the two drugs among patients with mRCC/advanced RCC (aRCC).

Materials and Methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to obtain eligible articles. The endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs.

Results

We included 14 medium- to high-quality studies. Both drugs were valid for mRCC/aRCC, with equivalent PFS (hazard ratio (HR) =1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98–1.15, P = 0.13), OS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.79–1.07, P = 0.29), objective response rate (ORR, risk ratio (RR) =1.03, 95% CI: 0.93–1.13, p = 0.58), and disease control rate (DCR, RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94–1.22, P = 0.54). Sunitinib had more dosage reductions and higher PPPM (weighted mean difference = − 1.50 thousand US dollars, 95% CI: − 2.27 to − 0.72, P = 0.0002). Furthermore, more incidences of severe fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were recorded for sunitinib, but pazopanib had more liver toxicity. In subgroup analysis, studies from the US reported longer OS (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77–0.95, P = 0.004) and higher ORR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03–1.51, P = 0.03).

Conclusions

Pazopanib provides equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower PPPM as compared with sunitinib for mRCC/aRCC. Great care should be given to pazopanib-treated patients with abnormal liver function. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5704-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Economic Burden of Renal Cell Carcinoma-Part I: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

The economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) had been reported to be significant in a previous review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform an updated review by synthesizing economic studies related to the treatment of RCC that have been published since the previous review.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering English-language studies published between June 2010 and August 2018. We categorized these articles by type of analyses [cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost analysis, and cost of illness (COI)] and treatment setting (cancer status and treatment), discussed findings from these articles, and synthesized information from each article in summary tables.

RESULTS

We identified 52 studies from 2317 abstracts/titles deemed relevant from the initial search, including 21 CEA, 23 cost analysis, and 8 COI studies. For localized RCC, costs were found to be positively associated with the aggressiveness of the local treatment. For metastatic RCC (mRCC), pazopanib was reported to be cost effective in the first-line setting. We also found that the economic burden of RCC has increased over time.

CONCLUSION

RCC continues to impose a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. Despite the large number of treatment alternatives now available for advanced RCC, the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of many new agents remain unknown and warrant greater attention in future research.

Economic evaluation of sunitinib versus pazopanib and best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Chile: cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed treatment comparison

Background: Sunitinib and Pazopanib are two metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) treatment alternatives, however the health system in Chile does not consider coverage for any. The cost-effectiveness versus relevant comparator was assessed to support evidence-based decision making. Methods: A four health states Markov model was built: first, second line treatments, BSC and death. Benefits were measured in QALYs, and efficacy estimates were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison. A 10-year time horizon and a 3% undifferentiated discount rate were considered. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The costs of treating MRCC with Sunitinib were higher than Pazopanib and BSC. When comparing Sunitinib versus Pazopanib, the incremental benefit is small favoring Sunitinib (0.03 QALYs). The base case scenario shows an average ICER of PA versus BSC of US$62,327.11/QALY and of US$85,885/QALY for Sunitinib versus Pazopanib. The ICER was most sensitive to the OS relative to BSC, where evidence was associated to important bias. Conclusions: Sunitinib or Pazopanib can be considered cost-effective if a 3 GDP per-capita threshold is assumed. The decision between SU or PA is highly sensitive to the price of the drugs, rather than the outcomes. Therefore, the decision might be made based on cost-minimization exercise.

Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde

Resumo: O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

The Effectiveness of Sorafenib over Other Targeted Agents in the Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: a Meta-Analysis

The aim of the study was to perform a meta-analysis to compare the therapeutic effects and adverse events (AEs) of sorafenib in second-line treatments of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We searched online electronic databases: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library updated on November 2017.Trials of the effectiveness of sorafenib in second-line treatments of advanced RCC were included, of which the main outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and grade 3/4 AE. Other TAs significantly reduced the risk of PFS compared to sorafenib with respect to second-line treatment (HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.83; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were, however, found in patients in terms of the ORR (HR = 1.82; 95% CI, 0.98-3.35; p = 0.06). Frequencies of the most common toxicities were overall similar and adverse events differed only in sensitivity analysis in rash with exclusion of other TAs (HR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; p = 0.002). Overall survival was not debated between groups. In patients with mRCC, second-line sorafenib is associated with similar ORR as other target agents. While, sorafenib did not demonstrate a PFS advantage compared with other target agents, suggests sorafenib may not benefit patients with mRCC. Tolerability due to toxicities is similar compared sorafenib with other target agents. Further characterization of the RCC oncogenic pathway, and the ongoing clinical trials should help optimize the treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Patterns of practice and pharmacoeconomic analysis of the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Greece--the CRISIS study. A retrospective analysis by the Hellenic Genitourinary Cancer Group (HGUCG)

Background:Metastatic RCC (mRCC) treatment has been revolutionized with 11 approved targeted agents. We report patterns of practice, outcomes and pharmacoeconomic analyses after the introduction of targeted therapy. Patients and methods: CRISIS was a retrospective multicenter study of mRCCpatients who received targeted therapy . Results were related to the start of 1st-line therapy, with a cut off at 1 January 2011 in order to depict the impact of increased availability of effective options. Results: 164 patients, were included. 70.1% and 44.5% received 2nd and 3rd-line therapy, respectively. More patients were treated in 2nd-line after 1 January 2011. After a median follow-up of 55.1 months, median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 10.7 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 8.3-13.7), 7.3 (95% CI: 5.1-8.6), 5.8 (95% CI: 3.8-7.8) and 34 (95% CI: 28.5-39.8), 22.4 (95% CI: 16-32.1), 18.3 (95% CI: 12.4-26.4) months for first, second and third line, respectively. Efficacy of sunitinib and pazopanib in 1st-line were similar. The mean total cost/patient was 35,012.2 Euros (standard deviation [SD]: 28,971.5). Conclusions: Our study confirms previous real-world data suggesting that continuing advances in the treatment of mRCC produce favorable outcomes in everyday practice. Pharmacoeconomic analyses are important for cost-effective utilization of emerging novel therapies.

Pazopanib for renal cell carcinoma leads to elevated mean arterial pressures in a murine model

BACKGROUND

In the setting of metastatic RCC (mRCC), pazopanib is approved as first line therapy. Unfortunately treatment may lead to cardiotoxicity such as hypertension, heart failure, and myocardial ischemia.

OBJECTIVE

Define the in vivo role of pazopanib in the development of cardiotoxicity.

METHODS

Wild type mice were dosed for 42 days via oral gavage, and separated into control and treatment (pazopanib) groups. Baseline ECG's, echocardiograms, and blood pressures were recorded. At the conclusion of the study functional parameters were again recorded, and animals were used for pathological, histological, and protein analysis.

RESULTS

After 2 weeks of dosing with pazopanib, the treatment group exhibited a statistically significant increase in mean arterial pressure compared to control mice (119 ± 11.7 mmHg versus 108 ± 8.2 mmHg, p = 0.049). Treatment with pazopanib led to a significant reduction in the cardiac output of mice.

CONCLUSION

Our findings in mice clearly demonstrate that treatment with pazopanib leads to a significant elevation in blood pressure after 2 weeks of dosing and this persists for the duration of dosing. The continued development of the cardio-oncology field will be paramount in providing optimal oncologic care while simultaneously improving cardiac outcomes through further investigation into the mechanisms of CV toxicity.

The role of pazopanib on tumour angiogenesis and in the management of cancers: A review

Pazopanib is a relatively new compound to be introduced into the chemotherapy field. It is thought to have decent anti-angiogenic properties, which gives an additional hope for the treatment of certain types of cancers. A systematic review solely discussing about pazopanib and its anti-angiogenic effect is yet to be published to date, despite several relevant clinical trials being conducted over the recent years. In this review, we aim to investigate the mechanism of pazopanib's anti-angiogenic effect and its effectiveness in treating several cancers. We have included, in this study, findings from electronically searchable data from randomized clinical trials, clinical studies, cohort studies and other relevant articles. A total of 352 studies were included in this review. From the studies, the effect of pazopanib in various cancers or models was observed and recorded. Study quality is indefinite, with a few decent quality articles. The most elaborately studied cancers include renal cell carcinoma, solid tumors, advanced solid tumors, soft tissue sarcoma, breast cancer and gynecological cancers. In addition, several less commonly studied cancers are included in the studies as well. Pazopanib had demonstrated its anti-angiogenic effect based on favorable results observed in cancers, which are caused by angiogenesis-related mechanisms, such as renal cell carcinoma, solid tumors, advanced solid tumors and soft tissue sarcoma. This review was conducted to study, analyze and review the anti-angiogenic properties of pazopanib in various cancers. The results obtained can provide a decent reference when considering treatment options for angiogenesis-related malignancies. Furthermore, the definite observations of the anti-angiogenic effects of pazopanib could provide newer insights leading to the future development of drugs of the same mechanism with increased efficiency and reduced adverse effects.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Elderly Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Starting Pazopanib or Sunitinib Treatment: A Retrospective Medicare Claims Analysis

Introduction

Studies indicate similar survival and toxicity between pazopanib and sunitinib, but few have examined real-world outcomes among elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The purpose of this retrospective claims analysis was to assess real-world overall survival (OS), healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and healthcare costs (both all-cause and associated with RCC diagnosis) among elderly advanced RCC patients starting pazopanib or sunitinib treatment.

Methods

Advanced RCC patients aged 65 years or older who started first-line treatment with pazopanib or sunitinib (index drug; the initiation date was the index date) were identified from the 100% Medicare database plus Part D linkage (January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014). Patients were stratified by index drug and matched 1:1 with use of propensity scores based on baseline characteristics. OS was assessed from the index date to death and compared by Kaplan–Meier analyses and univariable Cox models; patients were censored at the end of eligibility/data. Monthly HRU and costs from an intent-to-treat perspective were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Results

Baseline characteristics were balanced after matching (both N = 522). Treatment with pazopanib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared with treatment with sunitinib (18.2 months vs 14.6 months, respectively; log-rank p = 0.015). Pazopanib was associated with significantly lower monthly all-cause costs compared with sunitinib ($8845 vs $10,416, respectively), as well as lower inpatient costs associated with RCC diagnosis ($1542 vs $2522), fewer monthly inpatient admissions (0.179 vs 0.262), and shorter length of inpatient stay (1.375 days vs 1.883 days; all p ≤ 0.004).

Conclusions

Among elderly Medicare patients with advanced RCC, first-line pazopanib tretament was associated with significantly longer OS, as well as lower healthcare costs and HRU, compared with first-line sunitinib treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0628-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Isolated clival metastasis: a rare presentation of renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma accounts for 3% of all adult malignancies. Usual sites of metastasis are lymph nodes, lungs, bone, liver and brain. We describe a patient who presented with complaints of holocranial headache and diplopia. MRI of the head showed a clival-based lesion with associated bony erosion. With suspicion of a metastatic lesion, an ultrasonogram of the abdomen was done which showed a left renal mass that enhanced on contrast-enhanced CT. There were no other metastatic foci. Patient underwent radiotherapy for the clival lesion. This case report emphasises on the evaluation of clival lesion with cranial neuropathies for a possibility of a renal primary tumour.

Assessment of pazopanib-related hypertension, cardiac dysfunction and identification of clinical risk factors for their development

BACKGROUND

Antineoplastic therapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been associated with hypertension (HTN), cardiomyopathy, and cardiac dysrhythmias. We therefore assessed the cardiovascular (CV) risk with pazopanib in a clinical setting.

METHODS

Medical records of 35 antineoplastic-naïve mRCC patients newly started on pazopanib were retrospectively reviewed at a single academic medical center. Assessment of the hypertensive response and adverse cardiac events associated with pazopanib was the primary objective. Outcomes were defined using the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. Potential clinical risk factors were investigated with univariate and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Pazopanib-induced HTN was observed in 57% of patients. Median maximal systolic blood pressure (SBP) during pazopanib treatment was 167.5 mmHg with median time to event of 24.5 days. New-onset HTN occurred in 6/14 (43%) patients. Baseline SBP > 130 mmHg (odds ratio [OR]: 5.32; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-29.99; p = 0.058) and ACEi/ARB use (OR: 4.88; 95% CI: 1.05 22.84; p = 0.044) were risk factors for pazopanib-induced HTN. When HTN was excluded, 34% of patients developed a CV adverse event. Age ≥ 60 years (OR: 8.72; 95% CI: 0.74-513.26; p = 0.105) trended towards being a predictor for a non-HTN CV adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that pazopanib has a broad CV toxicity profile in treatment-naïve mRCC patients headlined by a rapid and striking hypertensive response. More intensive BP control prior to starting pazopanib and standardization of CV surveillance particularly in older patients may optimize oncologic care while minimizing CV risk.

Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Two GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Italian Setting: Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide

PURPOSE

Maintaining glycemic control is the key treatment target for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists may be associated with other favorable treatment characteristics, such as reduction in body weight and reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with traditional diabetes interventions. The aim of the present analysis was to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of 2 GLP-1 receptor agonists, liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 μg (both administered once daily), in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin monotherapy in the Italian setting.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project long-term clinical outcomes and subsequent costs (in 2015 Euros [€]) associated with liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg treatment in a cohort with baseline characteristics derived from the open-label LIRA-LIXI trial (Efficacy and Safety of Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide as Add-on to Metformin in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes; NCT01973231) over patient lifetimes from the perspective of a health care payer. Efficacy data were taken from the 26-week end points of the same trial, including changes in glycated hemoglobin, body mass index, serum lipid levels, and hypoglycemic event rates. Outcomes projected included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, cumulative incidence and time to onset of diabetes-related complications, and direct medical costs. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

FINDINGS

Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improved discounted life expectancy (14.07 vs 13.96 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (9.18 vs 9.06 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) compared with lixisenatide 20 μg. These improvements were mostly attributable to a greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin level with liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg, leading to reduced incidence and increased time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Compared with lixisenatide 20 μg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with increased total costs over patient lifetimes (€41,623 vs €41,380), but this was offset by lower costs of treating diabetes-related complications (€26,682 vs €27,476). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2001 per QALY gained versus lixisenatide 20 μg. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained, liraglutide 1.8 mg had a probability of 77.2% of being cost-effective.

IMPLICATIONS

Based on long-term projections, liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be considered cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 μg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Italy.