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

2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (5) ◽  
pp. 400-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng-Fei Zhang ◽  
Dan Xie ◽  
Qiu Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of addition of fruquintinib to best supportive care (BSC) in third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: To conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov model was established to simulate the course of metastatic CRC. Three health states—progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death—were included. Clinical data were derived from the FRESCO trial and health utility values were extracted from previous literature. The primary outcome of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in US dollars per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a Chinese societal perspective. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the study. Results: Addition of fruquintinib to BSC gained 0.54 QALY at a cost of $15,404.57 while the BSC group gained 0.38 QALY at a cost of $9603.94. ICER of fruquintinib versus BSC was $36,253.94/QALY. In the 1-way sensitivity analyses, utility for PD in both groups, utility for PFS in both groups, and cost of fruquintinib significantly influenced the results of the analysis. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $28,988.40/QALY, probabilities of addition of fruquintinib to BSC or BSC alone as the cost-effective option were 0% and 100%, indicating addition of fruquintinib is not a dominant option compared with BSC. Conclusions: Addition of fruquintinib to BSC is not a cost-effective regimen in the third-line setting for patients with metastatic CRC from the Chinese societal perspective.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background: In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing‐to‐pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY).Conclusion: After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing‐to‐pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background : In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods : A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing‐to‐pay threshold was set USD 27,130/QALY, which is 3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results : Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting an incremental results effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY). Conclusion : After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing‐to‐pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing-to-pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY). Conclusion After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing-to-pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background: In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing‐to‐pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY).Conclusion: After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing‐to‐pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab as third-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15090-15090
Author(s):  
M. Romeo ◽  
G. Soler ◽  
M. Martínez Villacampa ◽  
B. Laquente ◽  
A. López Doriga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Cost-effectiveness for metastatic colorectal cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15003-e15003
Author(s):  
Linli Yao ◽  
Jiaqi Han ◽  
Longjiang She ◽  
Dong Ding ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Third ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost

e15003 Background: As standard third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer, regorafenib and fruquintinib, compared with placebo, increase median overall survival by 2.5 months and 2.7 months, respectively. Given the incremental clinical benefit, we aim to estimate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib in the third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese payer perspective. Methods: A mathematical Markov model was established to project the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib from the CONCUR and FRESCO clinical trials. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were analyzed with extracted data from the trials. Willingness to pay (WTP) of $26508 was used. Drug costs were estimated from the perspectives of the health care system in the People’s Republic of China. One way sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. Results: Fruquintinib, compared with regorafenib, provided an additional 0.028 QALYs (0.274 QALYs versus 0.246 QALYs) at less cost ($33536 versus $35607). Conclusions: Fruquintinib is more cost-effective than regorafenib as the third-line management for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when WTP is $26508.

scholarly journals Adding Enzalutamide to First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng-Fei Zhang ◽  
Dan Xie ◽  
Qiu Li
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hormone Sensitive ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic profile of adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) from the US and Chinese payers' perspectives.Materials and Methods: A Markov model with three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death, was constructed. All patients were assumed to enter the model in the PFS state and transit according to the transition structure. Efficacy data were derived from the ENZAMET trial and Weibull distribution curves were modeled to fit the survival curves. Costs in the model included cost of drugs, best-supportive care (BSC), follow-up, tests, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatments. The primary endpoint of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the impact of several key parameters on the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Overall, ICERs were $430,933.95/QALY and $225,444.74/QALY of addition of enzalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) vs. ADT from the US and Chinese payers' perspective, respectively. The most influential factors were the utility for the PFS state and the cost of enzalutamide. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000.00/QALY in the US and $28,988.40/QALY in China, the probability of adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment being a cost-effective option for mHSPC was 0%.Conclusions: Based on the data from the ENZAMET trial and the current price of enzalutamide, adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment is not cost-effective for patients with mHSPC from the US and Chinse payers' perspectives.

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab + FOLFIRI versus bevacizumab + FOLFIRI in the first-line treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in China.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 133-133
Author(s):  
Ilse Van Oostrum ◽  
Yannan Hu ◽  
Zijiao Yuan ◽  
Michael Schlichting ◽  
Libo Tao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

133 Background: Adding cetuximab to FOLFIRI chemotherapy (cet+CT) as first-line (1L) treatment for RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been reported as cost-effective vs bevacizumab + FOLFIRI (bev+CT) in multiple jurisdictions. This study determined the cost-effectiveness (CE) of cet+CT for patients with mCRC in China. Methods: A published 3–health-state (nonprogressive, progressive, death) CE model was adapted to reflect Chinese patient characteristics, health state utilities, unit costs, and discounting rates, applying FIRE-3 trial–based resource utilization and adverse event rates. Progression-free and overall survival estimates were based on published FIRE-3 trial simulations to statistically adjust for available later-line treatment modalities in China vs those observed in FIRE-3. [1] Cetuximab and bevacizumab costs were based on up-to-date prices after the 2019 national reimbursement drug listing negotiations. Incremental CE ratios (ICERs) are given as cost (Chinese Yuan [¥]) per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was ¥193,931, equivalent to 3 times the gross domestic product per capita, following WHO guidance. Results: Overall costs/costs restricted to 1L treatment were ¥483,771/¥249,619 (cet+CT) and ¥366,036/¥156,802 (bev+CT). Health effects were 3.32/2.68 (cet+CT) and 2.39/1.94 (bev+CT) LYs/QALYs gained. Discounted ICERs for cet+CT vs bev+CT were ¥148,311 and ¥186,517 per LY and QALY gained in deterministic analysis. cet+CT had a 71.8% (LY) and 52.5% (QALY) probability of being cost-effective. Treatment duration with a biologic in 1L, utilities in 3L treatment, and duration of 2L treatment were the main outcome drivers. Conclusions: Projections suggest that cet+CT is cost-effective vs bev+CT for 1L treatment of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China, with ICERs below the current WTP threshold in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. [1] Van Oostrum I, et al. Value Health. 2020;23(Suppl 1): S8.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of regorafenib for metastatic colorectal cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 658-658
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Goldstein ◽  
Bilal B. Ahmad ◽  
Qiushi Chen ◽  
Turgay Ayer ◽  
David H. Howard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Correct Trial ◽  
The Third ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

658 Background: Regorafenib was approved by the FDA in 2012 for the management of previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is now the standard of care in the third-line setting. Compared to placebo it improves median overall survival by 1.4 months but is associated with adverse effects and additional cost. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to best supportive care for patients receiving third-line treatment for mCRC. Methods: We developed a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of regorafenib compared to best supportive care in the third-line treatment of mCRC based on randomized data from the CORRECT trial. Weibull models were fitted to the published overall and progression-free survival curves, and were used to extrapolate the cause-specific mortality and progression risks. Costs for administration and management of adverse events were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services, and drug costs based on the Medicare average wholesale prices (all in 2014 US $). Health outcomes were measured in life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Quality of life adjustments were calculated based on health utility values in the CORRECT trial and toxicity disutilities and durations were included for the most common toxicities: hand/foot syndrome, diarrhea, and hypertension. Model robustness was addressed by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: In the model, regorafenib provided an additional 0.06 QALYs (0.12 LYs) at a cost of $40,373. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $734,153/QALY. In all one-way sensitivity analyses, the ICER of regorafenib was >$550,000/QALY. The ICER of regorafenib was greater than $200,000/QALY in >99% of PSAs. Conclusions: This is the first U.S.-based cost-effectiveness analysis of regorafenib in mCRC, and our findings show that regorafenib provides minimal incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY. The ICER of regorafenib could be improved by use of an effective biomarker to select patients most likely to benefit, or by a lower price for payers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document