scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in the Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 669-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis ◽  
Pedro N. Aguiar ◽  
Mónica L. Cordón ◽  
Yanin Chavarri-Guerra ◽  
Gilberto de Lima Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
The Cost

Background: Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that progresses after treatment with sorafenib. Cabozantinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinase receptors, recently showed improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in sorafenib-pretreated patients with advanced HCC in the CELESTIAL trial. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for second-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC from a US healthcare system perspective. Patients and Methods: Cost and utility data were extracted from the CELESTIAL trial and used to determine the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care. The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by using cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care in sorafenib-pretreated HCC. Results: In the base-case analysis using data from the CELESTIAL trial, the incremental QALY and ICER were 0.067 and $1,040,675 for cabozantinib compared with placebo and best supportive care. OS reported in the CELESTIAL trial (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63–0.92) had the strongest association with the ICER. In one-way sensitivity analyses, there were no scenarios in which cabozantinib was cost-effective. In a cost-threshold analysis, cabozantinib would have to be priced at least $50 per pill to be cost-effective considering a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Although the CELESTIAL trial demonstrated that cabozantinib improves OS compared with placebo in patients with HCC that progresses after treatment with sorafenib, our analysis shows that cabozantinib is not a cost-effective therapy in this scenario. Conclusions: At current costs, cabozantinib is not cost-effective for second-line therapy of HCC in the United States.

scholarly journals Sequencing Systemic Therapy Pathways for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Liver Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 549-562
Author(s):  
Christopher Sherrow ◽  
Kristopher Attwood ◽  
Kehua Zhou ◽  
Sarbajit Mukherjee ◽  
Renuka Iyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Introduction: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of liver cancer worldwide and carries a poor prognosis. Historically, sorafenib was the only available systemic treatment for advanced HCC. However, in recent years, 6 new treatments have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): regorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and nivolumab. Data are lacking regarding the most appropriate sequencing pathway for these agents. Our objective was to conduct a comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of different 1st- and 2nd-line treatment pathways for HCC reflecting all new drug approvals, and then use our data to provide guidance for clinicians on which pathway is the most cost-effective. Materials and Methods: Markov models were used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 8 different 1st- and 2nd-line treatment sequences. The model allowed for 9 possible states. Cost effectiveness ratios (CER) and incremental CER (ICER) were calculated to compare costs between different pathways and against a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Efficacy and toxicity data were extracted from the landmark trials for each agent. All agents except ramucirumab were included. The cost of each agent was based on the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) in USD as of June 2019. Monte-Carlo methods were used to simulate the experience of 1,000,000 patients per treatment sequence for a 12-month period. Results: The pathway with the lowest CER was sorafenib, followed by pembrolizumab (USD 227,741.03/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). ICER analysis supported implementing 2nd-line pembrolizumab-based pathways at a higher WTP threshold of 300,000/quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis did not substantially change these results. Conclusions: The most cost-effective strategy was 1st-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy followed by 2nd-line immunotherapy. All pathways exceeded a commonly accepted WTP of USD 100–150,000/QALY. Our preliminary results warrant further studies to best inform real-world practices.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Caspofungin and Fluconazole for Primary Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis and Candidemia in Ethiopia

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gebremedhin Beedemariam Gebretekle ◽  
Atalay Mulu Fentie ◽  
Girma Tekle Gebremariam ◽  
Eskinder Eshetu Ali ◽  
Daniel Asfaw Erku ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Invasive Candidiasis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Background: Caspofungin was shown to be more effective than fluconazole in treating patients with invasive candidiasis and/or candidaemia (IC/C). However, cost-effectiveness of caspofungin for treating IC/C in Ethiopia remains unknown. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of caspofungin compared to fluconazole as primary treatment of IC/C in Ethiopia.Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed to compare the cost-utility of caspofungin versus fluconazole antifungal agents as first-line treatment for adult inpatients with IC/C from the Ethiopian health system perspective. Treatment outcome was categorized as either a clinical success or failure, with clinical failure being switched to a different antifungal medication. Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) was used as a rescue agent for patients who had failed caspofungin treatment, while caspofungin or L-AmB were used for patients who had failed fluconazole treatment. Primary outcomes were expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (US$2021), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). QALYs and costs were discounted at 3% annually. Cost data was obtained from Addis Ababa hospitals while locally unavailable data were derived from the literature. Cost-effectiveness was assessed against the recommended threshold of 50% of Ethiopia’s gross domestic product/capita. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.Results: In the base-case analysis, treatment of IC/C with caspofungin as first-line treatment resulted in better health outcomes (12.86 QALYs) but higher costs (US$7,714) compared to fluconazole-initiated treatment followed by caspofungin (12.30 QALYs; US$3,217) or L-AmB (10.92 QALYs; US$2,781) as second-line treatment. Caspofungin as primary treatment for IC/C was not cost-effective when compared to fluconazole-initiated therapies. Fluconazole-initiated treatment followed by caspofungin was cost-effective for the treatment of IC/C compared to fluconazole with L-AmB as second-line treatment, at US$316/QALY gained. Our findings were sensitive to medication costs, drug effectiveness, infection recurrence, and infection-related mortality rates. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of our findings.Conclusions: Our study showed that the use of caspofungin as primary treatment for IC/C in Ethiopia was not cost-effective when compared with fluconazole-initiated treatment alternatives. The findings supported the use of fluconazole-initiated therapy with caspofungin as a second-line treatment to treat IC/C in Ethiopia and other low-income countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document