Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Cost-Effectiveness of Fruquintinib for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the USA

BACKGROUND

The FRESCO-2 trial established the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. However, its cost-effectiveness in the US context is not well documented.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib versus placebo for this patient population from the perspective of US payers.

METHODS

We developed a partitioned survival model on the basis of patient-level data reconstructed from the survival curves of the FRESCO-2 trial. Parametric estimation was conducted to estimate long-term clinical outcomes and medical costs over a lifetime horizon. Cost inputs and utilities were sourced from public data and previous literature. We used a discount rate of 3.0% per year for both clinical outcomes and costs. We adopted an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of US$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. We performed sensitivity and scenario analyses to examine the robustness of cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

Fruquintinib treatment resulted in incremental gains of 0.108 life years (LYs) and 0.073 QALYs compared with the placebo, at an additional cost of US$112,294, primarily driven by medication expenses. The ICER for fruquintinib versus placebo was calculated at US$1,037,855 per LY and US$1,546,619 per QALY gained, exceeding the predefined cost-effectiveness threshold. The cost-effectiveness results were robust across all sensitivity and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Despite the survival benefit, fruquintinib was not cost-effective compared with the placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in the US setting, on the basis of the conventional willingness-to-pay threshold. Our findings may provide a basis for informing the pricing and reimbursement decisions regarding fruquintinib.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib in Chinese patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a significant health concern worldwide, with metastatic CRC (mCRC) presenting a particularly challenging prognosis. The FRESCO-2 trial highlighted the potential of fruquintinib in heavily pretreated mCRC patients.

AIM

Given the recent changes in drug pricing in China and the evolving mCRC treatments, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib in the context of current Chinese healthcare standards.

METHOD

This study utilized data from the FRESCO-2 trial, incorporating a partitioned-survival model to simulate three health states: Progression-Free Survival, Progressive Disease, and death. Costs and utility values were derived from published literature and the FRESCO-2 trial. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the base-case result and to understand the impact of various parameters on the ICER.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis revealed a total cost of $11,089.05 for the fruquintinib group and $5,374.48 for the placebo group. The overall QALYs were higher in the fruquintinib group (0.61 QALYs) compared to the placebo group (0.43 QALYs). The ICER was calculated to be $31,747.67 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified the utility of progression-free survival, the cost of fruquintinib, and the costs of best supportive care as significant determinants of ICER.

CONCLUSION

Fruquintinib emerges as a promising therapeutic option for refractory mCRC. However, its cost-effectiveness depends on selected willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. While the drug's ICER surpasses the WTP based on China's 2022 GDP per capita, it remains below the threshold set at three times the national GDP.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list

PURPOSE

To assess the reporting quality of published economic evaluations of the negotiated oncology drugs listed for China's 2020 National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in China's 2020 NRDL using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, and WanFang Database up to March 31, 2021. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist scored the reporting quality between 0 and 100. A linear regression analysis was employed to examine the influence of various characteristics on the reporting quality scores.

RESULTS

Eighty papers were included in the study, with the majority published during the past decade. Furthermore, more than half of the articles (57.5%, or 46 out of 80) were written in English. The average CHEERS score was 74.63 ± 12.75 and ranged from 43.48 to 93.75. The most inadequately reported items included choice of model, characterization of heterogeneity, and discussion, as well as currency, price date and conversion. Higher scores were associated with articles published from 2019 to 2021 and English publications.

CONCLUSION

The economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in 2020 NRDL had moderate reporting quality. The Chinese economic evaluation publications could improve the reporting quality if the CHEERS checklist is consistently implemented. Also, the Chinese journals maybe explore introducing a reporting standard for economic evaluations.