Temozolomide for malignant gliomas in British Columbia: A population-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review

Economic evaluations using Real World Data (RWD) has been increasing in the very recent years, however, this source of information has several advantages and limitations. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of full economic evaluations (EE) developed using RWD. A systematic review was carried out through articles from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Included were studies that employed RWD for both costs and effectiveness. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Of the 14,011 studies identified, 93 were included. Roughly half of the studies were carried out in a hospital setting. The most frequently assessed illnesses were neoplasms while the most evaluated interventions were pharmacological. The main source of costs and effects of RWD were information systems. The most frequent clinical outcome was survival. Some 47% of studies met at least 80% of CHEERS criteria. Studies were conducted with samples of 100-1000 patients or more, were randomized, and those that reported bias controls were those that fulfilled most CHEERS criteria. In conclusion, fewer than half the studies met 80% of the CHEERS checklist criteria.

Verification of imatinib cost-effectiveness in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor in British Columbia (VINCE-BC study)

Background. This cost-effectiveness analysis of imatinib in British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA) patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) was performed to justify funding.

Patients and Methods. A pragmatic, retrospective review identified BCCA patients with advanced GIST who received imatinib or historical treatment during successive, pre-specified time periods. Primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness (CE) of imatinib based on median overall survival (MOS). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness based on median progression-free survival (PFS) and comparison to literature efficacy. This study took the BCCA perspective. Sensitivity analyses varying effectiveness over the 95% confidence interval (CI), cost to its extremes, discounting level at 0, 3, and 5%, and substituting life expectancy for MOS were performed.

Results. Forty-six and 47 patients in the imatinib and historical groups respectively showed MOS with imatinib to be 66.7 months (95%CI 61.7— infinity) compared to 7.7 (95%CI 6.0—12.6) in the historical group. Median-PFS were 45.3 months (95%CI 24.4—infinity) and 5.6 (95%CI 3.5—8.5) respectively. Imatinib effectiveness was similar to literature reports. The annual incremental CE ratio for imatinib was $15,882 CDN per median life year gained and $23,603 CDN per median year of PFS.

Conclusions. Imatinib for advanced GIST seems cost-effective in BC. Results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2008) 14: 105—112.

The economics of temozolomide in brain cancer

For 30 years, nitrosourea was the only adjuvant treatment available for aggressive glioma patients, despite its severe side effects; and, therefore, radiotherapy was often the therapy of choice. Survival prospect in these patients was, however, low with generally few patients surviving beyond 2 years. Recently, temozolomide was successfully tested in a number of randomised clinical trials and showed an increased survival. As many countries are considering reimbursement or have granted a market authorisation for temozolomide, a number of studies have been published in various countries in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of temozolomide for glioma patients in first- or second-line treatment. These studies show that in general, the incremental cost-effectiveness of temozolomide as adjuvant treatment, albeit at the higher end of commonly accepted thresholds, falls in line with other accepted cancer treatments.

Re-evaluation of the cost effectiveness of temozolomide for malignant gliomas in British Columbia

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To re-evaluate the cost effectiveness and median overall survival (OS) achieved in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas treated with temozolomide in British Columbia, as compared to previous lomustine use in the same patient population based on updated outcomes data. Results were also compared to temozolomide literature reports.

METHODS

A retrospective medical record review was performed to identify patients who received single agent temozolomide or lomustine during successive, prespecified time periods. Data were collected on survival, duration of therapy, drug cost, labour and supplies, and successive or prior chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients in the temozolomide group and 25 patients in the lomustine group were analysed. The median OS was 33.3 weeks (95% CI 28.4, 42.1 weeks) and 37.7 weeks (95% CI 25.0, 88.4 weeks) respectively (P = 0.783). Temozolomide patients received a mean of 5.1 cycles of drug treatment, with a mean cost per patient of 10746 dollars (CAD). In contrast, lomustine patients received a mean of 3.3 cycles of therapy, with a mean cost per patient of 129 dollars (CAD). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that temozolomide was generally not a cost-effective strategy and that lomustine was the dominant strategy. In the sensitivity analysis, in scenarios where median OS was prolonged with temozolomide as compared to lomustine, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each life year gained ranged from 32,247 dollars to 162,186 dollars.

CONCLUSION

No difference in survival was observed between patients treated with single agent lomustine and temozolomide. Based on the higher cost and lack of additional clinical benefit of temozolomide, lomustine is a more cost-effective treatment strategy.