0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 2 , * ,
      PLOS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Sunitinib was approved several years ago as a first-line drug for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, its high price and broad side effects when administered at the standard dose have limited its clinical use. A clinical trial (NCT02072031) confirmed that anlotinib could be used as the first-line treatment for mRCC. This study was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib as a first-line treatment for mRCC compared to that of sunitinib in China.

          Methods

          A Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib with that of sunitinib. Clinical data were obtained from a multi-center phase II trial (clinical trial information: NCT02072031). Utility values were obtained from the literature. Total costs were calculated from a Chinese societal perspective. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the model uncertainty. The life-year (LY), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated.

          Results

          The base-case analysis over a lifetime horizon of 10 years showed that the anlotinib group had 2.196 LYs and 1.487 QALYs at a total cost of $68,597.84. The sunitinib group had 2.194 LYs and 1.432 QALYs at a total cost of $88,060.02. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of anlotinib versus sunitinib of $-9,210,858.93 per LYs and $-354,117.07 per QALYs, suggesting that anlotinib is a more effective and less costly strategy than sunitinib.

          Conclusion

          Anlotinib may be a more cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for mRCC than sunitinib in China.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

          A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma.

            Pazopanib and sunitinib provided a progression-free survival benefit, as compared with placebo or interferon, in previous phase 3 studies involving patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3, randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of pazopanib and sunitinib as first-line therapy. We randomly assigned 1110 patients with clear-cell, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a continuous dose of pazopanib (800 mg once daily; 557 patients) or sunitinib in 6-week cycles (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment; 553 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent review, and the study was powered to show the noninferiority of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and quality of life. Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression of disease or death from any cause, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.22), meeting the predefined noninferiority margin (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, <1.25). Overall survival was similar (hazard ratio for death with pazopanib, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.08). Patients treated with sunitinib, as compared with those treated with pazopanib, had a higher incidence of fatigue (63% vs. 55%), the hand-foot syndrome (50% vs. 29%), and thrombocytopenia (78% vs. 41%); patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of increased levels of alanine aminotransferase (60%, vs. 43% with sunitinib). The mean change from baseline in 11 of 14 health-related quality-of-life domains, particularly those related to fatigue or soreness in the mouth, throat, hands, or feet, during the first 6 months of treatment favored pazopanib (P<0.05 for all 11 comparisons). Pazopanib and sunitinib have similar efficacy, but the safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals; COMPARZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00720941.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Markov Models in Medical Decision Making: A Practical Guide

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Validation
                Role: Data curationRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                7 February 2023
                2023
                : 18
                : 2
                : e0281402
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart Center, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital (Affiliated People’s Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
                [2 ] Department of Pharmacy, Center for Clinical Pharmacy, Cancer Center, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital (Affiliated People’s Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
                The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6581-2427
                Article
                PONE-D-22-25353
                10.1371/journal.pone.0281402
                9904460
                36749752
                c42bc2b3-38ce-43cf-bd97-33a804eb828f
                © 2023 Lin et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 22 September 2022
                : 22 January 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 2, Pages: 10
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Treatment
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Economic Analysis
                Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancers and Neoplasms
                Carcinoma
                Renal Cell Carcinoma
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancers and Neoplasms
                Genitourinary Tract Tumors
                Renal Cell Carcinoma
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Medicine and health sciences
                Clinical medicine
                Clinical trials
                Phase II clinical investigation
                Medicine and health sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug research and development
                Clinical trials
                Phase II clinical investigation
                Research and analysis methods
                Clinical trials
                Phase II clinical investigation
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmaceutics
                Drug Therapy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancers and Neoplasms
                Lung and Intrathoracic Tumors
                Small Cell Lung Cancer
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Probability Theory
                Markov Models
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article