Cost-Effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib for Renal Cancer in the United States

Delea, Thomas E.; Amdahl, Jordan; Diaz, Jose; Nakhai-Pour, Hamid Reza; Hackshaw, Michelle D.

doi:10.18553/jmcp.2015.21.1.46

Cited by 36 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Три иссле-дования по фармакоэкономическому моделированию на основе клинических испытаний (COMPARZ и PISCES или VEG105192) показали, что пазопаниб экономически более эффективен по сравнению с сунитинибом при использовании его в первой линии терапии у больных с метастатическим ПКР. Аналогичные результаты были получены в итальянском [36], испанском [37] и американ-ском [38] исследованиях. Кроме того, рядом авторов было продемонстрировано, что общие затраты здравоох-ранения в этих странах на использование пазопаниба в первой линии терапии и купирование побочных эффек-тов, а также на комплекс диагностических процедур ока-зались значительно ниже, чем при применении сунитини-ба в тех же целях [39][40][41].…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Pazopanib as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic kidney cancer

Алексеев¹,

Shevchuk²

2018

Med. sov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Б.Я. АЛЕКСЕЕВ, д.м.н., профессор, И.М. ШЕВЧУК, к.м.н. Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр радиологии Минздрава России, Москва ПАЗОПАНИБ -ПРЕПАРАТ ПЕРВОЙ ЛИНИИ ТЕРАПИИ У БОЛЬНЫХ С МЕТАСТАТИЧЕСКИМ РАКОМ ПОЧКИ Пазопаниб (Вотриент®) -пероральный низкомолекулярный мультикиназный ингибитор, который в первую очередь инги-бирует рецептор 1, 2 и 3 сосудистого эндотелиального фактора роста, рецепторы α и β тромбоцитарного фактора роста эндотелия и рецепторы c-kit-фактора стволовых клеток. В предварительных экспериментах с использованием моделей ангиогенеза у мышей и кроликов пазопаниб ингибировал ангиогенез, вызванный комбинированным фактором роста эндо-телия сосудов и основным фактором роста фибробластов. Хотя препарат был разработан как терапевтический мультиопу-холевый агент, в настоящее время во многих странах он одобрен для применения при распространенной саркоме мягких тканей и почечно-клеточном раке (ПКР). В мультицентровых рандомизированных исследованиях по изучению эффектив-ности пазопаниба в качестве препарата первой линии у больных с метастатическим ПКР он продемонстрировал значитель-но лучшую безрецидивную выживаемость (БРВ) по сравнению с цитокиновой терапией и одинаковое время до прогресси-рования в случае применения сунитиниба. Кроме того, побочные эффекты, такие как нарушение функции печени и артери-альная гипертензия, как правило, управляемы, и с точки зрения качества жизни и экономической эффективности пазопаниб представляется более предпочтительным агентом по сравнению с другими альтернативными препаратами. Ключевые слова: метастатический почечно-клеточный рак, мультитаргетные ингибиторы тирозинкиназ, пазопаниб. B.Ya. ALEKSEEV, I.M. SHEVCHUK National Medical Research Radiological Center of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow PAZOPANIB AS FIRST-LINE THERAPY FOR PATIENTS WITH METASTATIC KIDNEY CANCER Pazopanib (Votrient®) is an oral small-molecule multi-kinase inhibitor that predominantly inhibits vascular endothelial growthfactor receptor-1, -2 and -3, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α and -β and the stem cell factor receptor c-Kit. In preliminary experiments using mouse and rabbit models of angiogenesis, pazopanib inhibited angiogenesis caused by a combined vascular endothelial growth factor and a major fibroblast growth factor. Although the drug was developed as a therapeutic multi-tumour agent, it is currently approved in many countries for the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In multicentre, randomized trials of the efficacy of pazopanib as a first-line therapy in patients with metastatic RCC, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly greater in pazopanib recipients than in cytokine recipients and pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib with respect to time to disease progression. In addition, side effects such as liver dysfunction and hypertension can be usually managed, and pazopanib is likely to be a more preferred cost-effective option and shows better quality-of-life compared to other alternative drugs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

Pazopanib as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic kidney cancer

Алексеев¹,

Shevchuk²

2018

Med. sov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…В за-рубежных ра ботах [16,17] было показано, что при-менение суни тиниба в качестве терапии 1-й линии является фармакоэкономически более эффектив-ным по сравнению с использованием цитокинов или комбинации бевацизумаб с интерфероном. При сравнении с таргетным препаратом пазопани-бом наблюдается обратная картина -применение пазопаниба связано с меньшими финансовыми за- Медиана выживаемости без прогрессирования, мес тратами, что было продемонстрировано в ряде зару-бежных исследований [18][19][20][21]. В отечественной практике также было показано преимущество использования пазопаниба по срав-нению с сунитинибом в клинико-экономическом анализе С. К. Зырянова и соавт., в котором проводи-лось сравнение 2 ингибиторов VEGF-пути -пазопа-ниба и сунитиниба [22].…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

ESMO Symposium on Immuno-Oncology 2015 Officers and Organisation

Kaçal¹

2015

Annals of Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many parameters in the body composition analyses and Bio-impedance analysis (BIA) measurements such as total weight, body fat (BF%), fat-free mass (FFM), muscle mass, metabolic age, basal metabolic rate, resistance and phase angle. But we do not well known which of the parameter is the most important or which one of them are associated with overall survival (OS).Material and Method: In total, 173 patients have included in the study. Results:The mean age 54 years in man and 51 years in woman. Patients with cancer had lower hemoglobin and albumin levels compared to the healthy controls. The median OS was 17 (3-45) months of the cancer group and women were alive longer than men (22 vs 13 months, p<0.001).

show abstract

“…The model used in this evaluation was also used in an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib in treatment-naïve mRCC patients in the US [17] and Canada [18]. Different utility values were used in the US analysis [17] than in the Canadian [18] and current analyses. The unit costs estimates used in this analysis differ from those used in both the US and Canadian analyses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, a cost-effectiveness analysis of pazopanib versus sunitinib was not included as part of these studies. Two previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC based on COMPARZ from the US [17] and Canadian [18] healthcare system perspectives. In the current study, the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib was evaluated from a UK healthcare system perspective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources.MethodsA partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan–Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results.ResultsIn the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: −0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (−£1,061, 95% CrI: −£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsPazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib for Renal Cancer in the United States

Cited by 36 publications

References 26 publications

Pazopanib as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic kidney cancer

Pazopanib as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic kidney cancer

ESMO Symposium on Immuno-Oncology 2015 Officers and Organisation

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About