A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US. (2nd November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Graham, Christopher N.; Christodoulopoulou, Alexandra; Knox, Hediyyih N.; Sabatelli, Lorenzo; Hechmati, Guy; Garawin, Tamer; Strickler, John H.
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical economics. Volume 21:Number 11(2018)
• Page Start: 1075
• Page End: 1083
• Publication Date: 2018-11-02
• Subjects: Panitumumab -- wild-type RAS -- outcomes -- cost-effectiveness -- first-line therapy -- metastatic colorectal cancer; D61 -- I12 -- I18; Medical care -- Cost control -- Periodicals; Medical economics -- Periodicals; 362.10941
• DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1510409
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6998

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Materials and methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60, 286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US $135, 391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled. Limitations: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources. Conclusions: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.