Comparison of cost-effectiveness of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet for treating advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib versus Other Third-Line Treatments for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background

Regorafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as a standard treatment choice for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Nonetheless, its substantial cost places a significant burden on social health resources and patients. However, the cost-effectiveness (CE) of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies is still undetermined.

Objective

This study aims to assess the CE of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies for the treatment of mCRC.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as nine other databases to identify relevant studies published up to October 2023, focusing on patients with mCRC and examining the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib. Following the screening and extraction of pertinent data, the study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist.

Results

The literature search yielded 751 records, and after applying the inclusion criteria, 13 studies from 7 different countries were included. Of these, 7 studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102), 3 studies compared regorafenib with best supportive care (BSC), and 3 studies compared regorafenib with fruquintinib, serplulimab, and regorafenib dose optimization (ReDo).The quality of the included studies was high with an average QHES scores of 85.62. Regorafenib standard dose proves to be less cost-effective than alternative third-line therapies. Implementing a dose optimization strategy could potentially rectify this disparity and enhance the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib.

Conclusion

The use of the standard dose of regorafenib is generally regarded as not cost-effective when compared to other third-line therapies for patients with mCRC. However, implementing a dose-escalation strategy may enhance regorafenib's cost-effectiveness. Consequently, significant price reductions or optimizing the dose of regorafenib are required to achieve cost-effectiveness.

Value-Based Analysis of Therapies in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in US

BACKGROUND

Recent phase 2 trials have provided data supporting regorafenib dose optimization (ReDO) and trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) with bevacizumab (TAS-BEV) as treatment options in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Historically, regorafenib standard dose (RSD) and TAS-102 have been utilized as third-line options in mCRC. Given the incorporation of ReDO and TAS-BEV as treatment options, we sought to evaluate relative cost-effectiveness of ReDO vs. RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV for mCRC from a payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to estimate total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for ReDO, RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV. Clinical parameters were obtained from phase 2 and 3 trials for comparators. Health state utility values were from the RSD phase 3 clinical trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were utilized to compare treatments. Model robustness was checked with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, ReDO was dominant over TAS-BEV (ie provided a higher QALY at a lower cost). ReDO produced an ICER of $104,308 per QALY relative to RSD and $37,966 relative to TAS-102. In one-way sensitivity analyses, monthly drug cost of TAS-BEV was the most influential parameter determining relative cost-effectiveness between TAS-BEV and ReDO. When TAS-102 and RSD were independently compared to ReDO, the most influential parameters were related to duration of OS and PFS and costs of managing AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimum dosing strategy for regorafenib has improved its benefit-to-toxicity ratio and relative cost-effectiveness compared to RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV.

Safety, efficacy and patient-reported outcomes with trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the PRECONNECT study

BACKGROUND

In RECOURSE (, trifluridine/tipiracil significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PRECONNECT was designed to further characterise safety and clinical use of trifluridine/tipiracil.

METHODS

In this ongoing, international, multicentre, open-label trial, patients with pretreated mCRC received oral trifluridine/tipiracil 35 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 of each 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included PFS and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

793 patients (median age 62 years) from 13 countries received trifluridine/tipiracil for a median of 2.84 months (IQR 2.64). Adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 96.7%; the most common (≥20% of patients) were neutropaenia, asthenia/fatigue, nausea, anaemia and diarrhoea. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 73.9% of patients, with the most common being neutropaenia (39.1% of patients), anaemia (9.8%) and asthenia/fatigue (5.0%). Median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.7 to 2.9). Median time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status deterioration (≥2) was 8.9 months (range 0.03-14.72). There was no clinically relevant change from baseline in QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

PRECONNECT showed consistent results with the previously demonstrated safety and efficacy profile of trifluridine/tipiracil, with no new safety concerns identified. QoL was maintained during treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03306394.

Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil against nivolumab for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in Japan

Objective

Nivolumab and trifluridine/tipiracil have significantly improved the overall survival of patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in different placebo-controlled phase III trials. Accordingly, nivolumab and trifluridine/tipiracil have been approved and recommended for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in Japan. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil against nivolumab.

Methods

A partitioned survival model, which consisted of three health states, namely, ‘pre-progression,’ ‘post-progression,’ and ‘death,’ was constructed. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the TAGS and ATTRACTION-2 trials. Costs were estimated based on the standard clinical pathway and national insurance fee schedules. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The threshold value was set to JPY 7 500 000 (USD 68 182) for each quality-adjusted life-year.

Results

The expected median overall survival and progression-free survival were 5.59 and 1.99 months for trifluridine/tipiracil and 5.26 and 1.55 months for nivolumab, respectively. The quality-adjusted life-year and expected costs per patient were 0.4379 and JPY 2 054 625 (USD 18 678) for trifluridine/tipiracil and 0.5295 and JPY 5 018 148 (USD 45 620) for nivolumab, respectively. The expected median progression-free survival and overall survival were equivalent with trifluridine/tipiracil and nivolumab, whereas the expected quality-adjusted life-year with trifluridine/tipiracil was slightly lower than that with nivolumab. However, trifluridine/tipiracil reduced the total treatment cost by JPY 2 963 523 (USD 26 996) compared with that of nivolumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of nivolumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil was JPY 32 352 489 (USD 294 113) per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Conclusions

Trifluridine/tipiracil was more cost-effective than nivolumab for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in The Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Japan

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the cost utility of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) compared with that of best supportive care (BSC) in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapies; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents; and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents, in Japan.

METHODS

Efficacy data, utility values, and costs were extracted from published studies. The cost and effectiveness of regorafenib and of T/T were compared with those of BSC and examined between the 2 agents over a 5-year time horizon using a partitioned survival analysis. The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The costs were year-2018 revisions to the drug prices and medical fees. The uncertainty and robustness of the model were verified by 1-way sensitivity analysis, probability sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis compared with different clinical studies. A 2% per-annum discount was applied to expenses and QALYs. The willingness-to-pay threshold used was 5 million Japanese yen (JPY).

FINDINGS

Regorafenib and T/T had incremental costs of 11,898,982 JPY (107,781 US dollars [USD]) and 5,000,141 JPY (45,291 USD), incremental effects of 0.249 QALYs (0.280 LYs) and 0.344 QALYs (0.421 LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 47,773,791 JPY (432,734 USD) and 14,550,577 JPY (131,799 USD) per QALY, respectively. Results of sensitivity analyses all exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15 million JPY. In the comparison of the 2 agents, T/T was a dominant alternative over regorafenib.

IMPLICATIONS

As a third-line or later treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan, T/T is cost-effective compared with BSC, whereas regorafenib is not. It is necessary to adjust the price of regorafenib based on the results of this analysis, with the improvement of clinical parameters such as survival time and adverse events.

Real-World Adherence in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with Trifluridine plus Tipiracil or Regorafenib

BACKGROUND

Trifluridine and tipiracil (FTD + TPI) and regorafenib (REG) are approved treatments for the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study assesses adherence and duration of therapy with FTD + TPI versus REG and explores the effect of sequencing on adherence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults diagnosed with mCRC were identified in the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims: U.S. database (October 2014-July 2017). The observation period spanned from the index date (first dispensing of FTD + TPI or REG) to the earliest of a switch to another mCRC agent, the end of continuous enrollment, or the end of data availability. Medication possession ratio (MPR), proportion of days covered (PDC), and persistence and time to discontinuation (gap ≥45 days) were compared between FTD + TPI and REG users and among switchers (FTD + TPI-to-REG vs. REG-to-FTD + TPI).

RESULTS

A total of 469 FTD + TPI and 311 REG users were identified. FTD + TPI users had higher compliance with an MPR ≥80% (odds ratio [OR], 2.47; p < .001) and PDC ≥80% (OR, 2.77; p < .001). FTD + TPI users had better persistence (82.8% vs. 68.0%; p < .001) and lower risk of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; p = .006). Among switchers (96 FTD + TPI-to-REG; 83 REG-to-FTD + TPI), those switching from FTD + TPI to REG were more likely to have an MPR ≥80% (OR, 2.91; p < .001) and PDC ≥80% (OR, 4.60; p < .001) compared with REG-to-FTD + TPI switchers while treated with these drugs. Additionally, FTD + TPI-to-REG switchers had a lower risk of first treatment discontinuation (HR, 0.66; p = .009).

CONCLUSION

FTD + TPI users had significantly higher adherence and persistence, and patients who were treated with FTD + TPI before switching to REG also had higher adherence and persistence outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Trifluridine plus tipiracil (FTD + TPI) and regorafenib (REG) prolong survival in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but have different tolerability profiles. This study assessed real-world adherence to treatment with FTD + TPI versus REG and compared outcomes among patients who switched from FTD + TPI to REG and vice versa. FTD + TPI was associated with significantly higher medication adherence and longer time to discontinuation than REG. Patients treated with FTD + TPI prior to switching to REG also showed higher adherence outcomes. Findings could help inform decision making regarding the choice and sequencing of treatment with FTD + TPI versus REG in patients with mCRC.

Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102), a novel oral cytotoxic chemotherapy, significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo in heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAS102 in the third-line or later treatment for this population from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to simulate advanced gastric cancer, including three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death. Model inputs were derived from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TAGS trial, NCT02500043). Utilities were extracted from public resources. Costs were calculated from an American payer perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty.

RESULTS

From the US payer perspective, treatment with TAS102 for patients with heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer was estimated to increase costs by $59,180 compared with the placebo, with a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $986,333 per QALY. The costs for progression-free survival of TAS102 group had the greatest impact on the ICERs, as well as the cost of TAS102.

CONCLUSION

Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) is not a cost-effective choice for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer from an American payer perspective.

Economic evaluation of trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Greece

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) or regorafenib for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have been previously treated with or are not considered candidates for available therapies including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies, anti-VEGF agents and anti-EGFR agents in Greece. Methods: A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a third-party payer perspective over a 10 year time horizon. Efficacy data and utility values were extracted from published studies. Resource consumption data were obtained from local experts using a questionnaire developed for the purpose of the study and was combined with unit costs obtained from official sources. All costs reflect the year 2017 in euros. Primary outcomes were patients’ life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost–effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY and LYs gained. Results: Total life time cost per patient for FTD/TPI, BSC and regorafenib was estimated to be €10,087, €1,879 and €10,850, respectively. In terms of health outcomes, FTD/TPI was associated with 0.25 and 0.11 increment in LYs compared with BSC and regorafenib, respectively. Furthermore, FTD/TPI was associated with 0.17, and 0.07 increment in QALYs compared with BSC and regorafenib, resulting in ICERs of €32,759 per LY gained and €49,326 per QALY gained versus BSC. Moreover, FTD/TPI was a dominant alternative over regorafenib. Conclusion: The results indicate that FTD/TPI may represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with other alternative therapies as a third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Greece.