Cost-effectiveness of encorafenib plus cetuximab in BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110450
Author(s):  
Jacopo Giuliani ◽  
Beatrice Mantoan ◽  
Andrea Bonetti

Recently, the introduction of encorafenib in combination with cetuximab was considered as a practice changing in BRAFV600-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of this paper was to assess the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib plus cetuximab in the second-line treatment of BRAFV600-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. BEACON CRC Trail was considered. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the ratio between the difference of the costs in the intervention and in the control groups (pharmacy costs) and the difference between the effect in the intervention and in the control groups (overall survival). Four hundred forty-one patients were included. Differences in costs between the two arms (encorafenib plus cetuximab vs FOLFIRI plus cetuximab) was 59 501 €, with a cost of 17 500 € per month of overall survival-gain. Combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by overall survival, at the actual prize encorafenib cannot be considered cost-effectiveness for second-line treatment of BRAFV600-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

2000 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Levy-Piedbois ◽  
I. Durand-Zaleski ◽  
H. Juhel ◽  
C. Schmitt ◽  
A. Bellanger ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua

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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua

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.


BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (5) ◽  
pp. 400-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng-Fei Zhang ◽  
Dan Xie ◽  
Qiu Li

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3507-3507
Author(s):  
Yasutoshi Kuboki ◽  
Tetsuji Terazawa ◽  
Toshiki Masuishi ◽  
Masato Nakamura ◽  
Jun Watanabe ◽  
...  

3507 Background: The efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) plus bevacizumab (BEV) as a later-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been demonstrated in clinical trials. Therefore, we conducted a randomized phase 2/3 study to determine whether FTD/TPI plus BEV is non-inferior to either FOLFIRI or S-1 and irinotecan plus BEV in terms of overall survival (OS) as second-line treatment in patients with mCRC. Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed mCRC who failed first-line doublet chemotherapy including fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin with either BEV or an anti-EGFR antibody (in cases of RAS wild-type) were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive either FTD/TPI plus BEV (experimental group, BEV 5.0 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, FTD/TPI 35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–5 and 8–12 of each 28-day cycle) or either FOLFIRI or S-1 and irinotecan plus BEV (control group). The primary endpoint was the OS. The non-inferiority margin of a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 was based on the assumption of a median survival time of 19 months for the control (power 0.80, 1-sided alpha 0.025). The secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), time to treatment failure, time to post-study treatment failure, proportion of patients receiving post-study treatment, quality of life, and safety. Results: As a result of the interim analysis for futility, the study was terminated in July 2020, and 397 patients were finally enrolled at 65 institutions from October 2017. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The median OS were 14.8 months in the FTD/TPI plus BEV group and 18.1 months in the control group [HR: 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99–1.93; p = 0.5920 for non-inferiority]; non-inferiority of FTD/TPI plus BEV was not demonstrated. The median PFS were 4.5 months in the FTD/TPI plus BEV group and 6.0 months in the control group (HR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.14–1.84). The RR and DCR were 3.8% and 61.2% in the FTD/TPI plus BEV group, respectively, and 7.1% and 71.7% in the control group, respectively. The proportions of patients receiving post-study treatment in the FTD/TPI plus BEV and control groups were 59.9% and 52.3%, respectively. The main grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the FTD/TPI plus BEV and control groups were neutropenia (65.8% and 41.6%, respectively), diarrhea (1.5% and 7.1%, respectively), and grade 1 or 2 alopecia (3.6% and 24.9%, respectively). Conclusions: FTD/TPI plus BEV did not show non-inferiority to FOLFIRI or S-1 and irinotecan plus BEV as second-line treatment in patients with mCRC. Post hoc subgroup analyses are ongoing to investigate patients who likely benefit from FTD/TPI plus BEV. Clinical trial information: jRCTs031180122.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document