Dataset Information

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments.

ABSTRACT: Randomised controlled trials have shown that targeted therapies like sunitinib are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about the current use of these therapies, and their associated costs and effects in daily clinical practice. We estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies comprising one or more sequentially administered drugs.Analyses were performed using patient-level data from a Dutch population-based registry including patients diagnosed with primary mRCC from January 2008 to December 2010 (i.e., treated between 2008 and 2013). The full disease course of these patients was estimated using a patient-level simulation model based on regression analyses of the registry data. A healthcare sector perspective was adopted; total costs included healthcare costs related to mRCC. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in cost per life-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the overall uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness.In current daily practice, 54% (336/621) of all patients was treated with targeted therapies. Most patients (84%; 282/336) received sunitinib as first-line therapy. Of the patients receiving first-line therapy, 30% (101/336) also received second-line therapy; the majority was treated with everolimus (40%, 40/101) or sorafenib (28%, 28/101). Current treatment practice (including patients not receiving targeted therapy) led to 0.807 QALYs; mean costs were €58,912. This resulted in an additional €105,011 per QALY gained compared to not using targeted therapy at all. Forty-six percent of all patients received no targeted therapy; of these patients, 24% (69/285) was eligible for sunitinib. If these patients were treated with first-line sunitinib, mean QALYs would improve by 0.062-0.076 (where the range reflects the choice of second-line therapy). This improvement is completely driven by the health gain seen amongst patients eligible to receive sunitinib but did not receive it, who gain 0.558-0.684 QALYs from sunitinib. Since additional costs would be €7,072-9,913, incremental costs per QALY gained are €93,107-111,972 compared to current practice.Health can be gained if more treatment-eligible patients receive targeted therapies. Moreover, it will be just as cost-effective to treat these patients with sunitinib as current treatment practice.

SUBMITTER: De Groot S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5439671 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments.

De Groot S S Blommestein H M HM Redekop W K WK Sleijfer S S Kiemeney L A L M LALM Oosterwijk E E Uyl-de Groot C A CA

PloS one 20170522 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Randomised controlled trials have shown that targeted therapies like sunitinib are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about the current use of these therapies, and their associated costs and effects in daily clinical practice. We estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies comprising one or more sequentially administered drugs.<h4>Methods</h4>Analyses were performed using patient-level data from a Dutch popu ...[more]

PMID: 28531203

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEvidence is lacking on second-line and later treatments for patients with RAS wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC) who receive first-line anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody therapy. In this study, we explored the real-world treatment sequences, treatment duration, and factors associated with treatment sequences and durations in Japanese patients with CRC.MethodsThis retrospective observational cohort study used a Japanese administrative claims database (April 2008 to July 2021). Patients with confirmed CRC (presumed RAS wild-type) who received first-line FOLFOX (leucovorin + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) plus anti-EGFR therapy in or after May 2016, followed by second-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy plus an antiangiogenic drug, were included. Treatment durations were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with treatment duration.ResultsAnalysis populations consisted of 1163 (first-line and second-line) and 645 (third-line) patients. At the start of first-line therapy, 67.8% of patients were male, the mean age was 64 years, 83.4% had left-sided CRC, and 84.3% were prescribed FOLFOX plus panitumumab. For second-line therapy, patients were prescribed bevacizumab (63%), ramucirumab (27%), or aflibercept beta (10%). Median (95% CI) treatment durations from the start of second-line therapy to the end of antitumor drug therapies were similar for bevacizumab (12.5 months [11.2, 14.0]), ramucirumab (12.5 months [11.2, 14.8]), and aflibercept beta (14.0 months [10.4, 17.0]). Treatment duration from second-line was positively associated with first-line treatment duration of 6 months or more, CRC surgery before starting first-line therapy, and liver surgery during first-line therapy, and was negatively associated with use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs before second-line therapy.ConclusionReal-world data revealed that all three antiangiogenic drugs were used as second-line therapy after first-line anti-EGFR antibodies and showed similar treatment durations.

Project description:BackgroundA total of 11 treatment sequences for advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer are recommended by Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines, consisting of seven first-line and three second-line treatments. Five of these treatments were newly approved in China between 2021 and 2022. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these strategies from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.MethodsNetwork meta-analysis with non-proportional hazards was used to calculate the relative efficacy between interventions. A sequential model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences with first-line platinum- and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy (SC) with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, camrelizumab, sintilimab, sugemalimab or pembrolizumab, followed by second-line docetaxel, tislelizumab or nivolumab. SC and docetaxel were used as comparators for first-line and second-line treatments, respectively. QALY and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, respectively. Cost-effective threshold was set as USD 19,091. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the best first-line and second-line therapy.ResultsPembrolizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (PED) was the most effective treatment sequence. QALYs for patients received SC, nedaplatin + SC, tislelizumab + SC, sintilimab + SC, camrelizumab + SC, sugemalimab + SC, pembrolizumab + SC followed by docetaxel were 0.866, 0.906, 1.179, 1.266, 1.179, 1.266, 1.603, 1.721, 1.807; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by tislelizumab were 1.283, 1.301; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by nivolumab were 1.353, 1.389. Camrelizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (CAD) was the most cost-effective. Compared to SC with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, or sintilimab followed by docetaxel, ICERs of CAD were USD 12,276, 13,210, 6,974, 9,421/QALY, respectively. Compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by tislelizumab, the ICERs of CAD were USD 4,183, 2,804/QALY; CAD was dominant compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by nivolumab; The ICER of sugemalimab + SC followed by docetaxel and PED were USD 522,023, 481,639/QALY compared with CAD. Pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC were the most effective and cost-effective first-line options, respectively; tislelizumab was the most effective and cost-effective second-line therapy. Tislelizumab used in second-line was more effective than first-line, no significant differences between their cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity and scenario analysis confirmed robustness of the results.ConclusionsPED and CAD are the most effective and cost-effective treatment sequence, respectively; pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC are the most effective and cost-effective first-line choice, respectively; tislelizumab is the most effective and cost-effective second-line choice.

Project description:IntroductionMetastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) is a common cancer with poor survival outcomes. Although treatment options are limited, real-world treatment patterns and outcomes are not well understood, particularly beyond first-line treatment. This study described real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for mPDAC in the USA.MethodsThis retrospective analysis used electronic health record-derived de-identified data of patients with mPDAC diagnosed between January 1, 2014 and June 30, 2021. Treatments were classified into six groups: (1) standard combination chemotherapy; (2) nonstandard combination chemotherapy; (3) single-agent chemotherapy; (4) targeted therapy; (5) clinical study drugs; and (6) off-label therapies. Analyses were descriptive in nature. Treatment utilization and switching, and time on treatment and time to discontinuation, were described by first-line (1LOT) and second-line (2LOT) treatment groups. Median overall survival (mOS) from 1LOT and 2LOT was stratified by treatment group, and for 1LOT on the basis of whether patients received further treatment.Results1LOT included 6979 patients, 3241 (46%) of whom received further 2LOT. Standard combination chemotherapy was the most common 1LOT (70%) and 2LOT (46%). Nonstandard combination chemotherapy was used more as 2LOT (35%) than 1LOT (11%). First-line time on treatment was generally higher than second-line time on treatment, and time to discontinuation was lower than time on treatment. mOS in days (months) from 1LOT was 271 (8.9), 252 (8.3), 219 (7.2), 170 (5.6), 280 (9.2), and 182 (6.0), and mOS from 2LOT was 202 (6.6), 193 (6.3), 186 (6.1), 193 (6.3), 179 (5.9), and 97 (3.2), for groups 1-6, respectively. Within group 1, mOS from 1LOT was 318 days (10.4 months) for FOLFIRINOX and 241 days (7.9 months) for gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel.ConclusionMost patients with mPDAC received 1LOT in line with clinical practice guidelines, yet mOS remains poor. This study highlights the need for novel therapies to demonstrate improved patient survival compared with therapies in current clinical practice guidelines.

Dataset Information

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments.

Publications

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets