Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of the use of Everolimus Compared to Axitinib in Second Line Therapy of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Abstract

diversity of the health professionals and the basic scenario. The costliest scenarios were the one implementing HPV DNA testing which did not provide further participation despite a high cost and the one based on P4P incentives towards GP, although it allows high participation rates. ConClusions: Using a comprehensive BIM, we show that full coverage of OS might be the most cost-effective way to implement it, although practical and financial issues might favour other scenarios that may be more balanced regarding the distribution of costs between stakeholders or may be more easily implemented and accepted by health professionals.

The Additional Costs per Month of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival: An Economic Model Comparing Everolimus with Cabozantinib, Nivolumab, and Axitinib for Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

“…Prior assessments of cost-effectiveness have noted the costeffectiveness of second-line everolimus over axitinib in the United States, 21 Russia, 22 and the United Kingdom 23 but have not included newer targeted therapy comparators available in the United States. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the relative costs and benefits of everolimus, cabozantinib, nivolumab, and axitinib for second-line treatment of mRCC by assessing the cost per treated patient, cost per month of OS, and cost per month of PFS over 1-and 2-year horizons from a U.S. payer perspective.…”