Cost-effectiveness Analysis of 11 Pharmacotherapies for Recurrent Glioblastoma in the USA and China

Overview

Journal Ther Adv Med Oncol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2024 Aug 2

PMID 39091601

Authors

Yanan Xu

Boya Xu

Haijing Guan

Zhigang Zhao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Several studies have systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of progressive or recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). However, the discernible limitations of efficacy and the elevated costs of interventions instigate an investigation into the cost-effectiveness of these treatments.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate cost-effectivenesses of 11 pharmacotherapeutic interventions for recurrent GBM from the perspective of healthcare payers in the United States (US) and China.

Design: A model-based pharmacoeconomic evaluation.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was employed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 11 distinct drug-based treatments. The clinical efficacy and safety data were obtained from a network meta-analysis, while the medical expenditure and health utility were primarily derived from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to scrutinize the impact of potential uncertainties to ensure the robustness of the model. The primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results: Among the therapeutic interventions evaluated, lomustine emerged as the cheapest option, with costs amounting to $78,998 in the United States and $30,231 in China, respectively. Regorafenib displayed the highest quality-adjusted life years at 0.475 in the United States and 0.465 in China. The one-way sensitivity analyses underscored that drug price was a key factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Both scenario and PSA consistently demonstrated that, considering the willingness-to-pay thresholds, lomustine was a cost-effective treatment with probability of more than 94%.

Conclusion: In comparison to the alternative antitumor agents, lomustine was likely to be a cost-effective option for relapsed GBM patients from the perspective of healthcare payers in both the United States and China.

References

Chen Z, Zhan M, Tian F, Xu T . Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide therapy for the treatment of unresected glioblastoma. Oncol Lett. 2020; 19(1):424-430. PMC: 6924092. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2019.11099. View

Bernard-Arnoux F, Lamure M, Ducray F, Aulagner G, Honnorat J, Armoiry X . The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2016; 18(8):1129-36. PMC: 4933490. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/now102. View

Wu B, Miao Y, Bai Y, Ye M, Xu Y, Chen H . Subgroup economic analysis for glioblastoma in a health resource-limited setting. PLoS One. 2012; 7(4):e34588. PMC: 3325281. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034588. View

Reardon D, Brandes A, Omuro A, Mulholland P, Lim M, Wick A . Effect of Nivolumab vs Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: The CheckMate 143 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6(7):1003-1010. PMC: 7243167. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1024. View

Hatswell A, Bullement A, Briggs A, Paulden M, Stevenson M . Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Models: Determining Model Convergence in Cohort Models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018; 36(12):1421-1426. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0697-3. View

Zheng Y, Pan F, Sorensen S . Modeling Treatment Sequences in Pharmacoeconomic Models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016; 35(1):15-24. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0455-3. View

Armeni P, Borsoi L, Fornaro G, Jommi C, Grossi F, Costa F . Cost-effectiveness and Net Monetary Benefit of Durvalumab Consolidation Therapy Versus No Consolidation Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the Italian National Health Service. Clin Ther. 2020; 42(5):830-847. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.03.012. View

Jackson C . flexsurv: A Platform for Parametric Survival Modeling in R. J Stat Softw. 2018; 70. PMC: 5868723. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v070.i08. View

Kazibwe J, Gheorghe A, Wilson D, Ruiz F, Chalkidou K, Chi Y . The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds for Evaluating Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries From 2015 to 2020: A Review. Value Health. 2022; 25(3):385-389. PMC: 8885424. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.08.014. View

10.

Patil V, Menon N, Chatterjee A, Tonse R, Choudhari A, Mahajan A . Mebendazole plus lomustine or temozolomide in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: A randomised open-label phase II trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2022; 49:101449. PMC: 9156991. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101449. View

11.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, De Bekker-Grob E, Briggs A, Carswell C . Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations. Value Health. 2022; 25(1):3-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1351. View

12.

Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, Rogers G, Dyer M, Mealing S . The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007; 11(45):iii-iv, ix-221. DOI: 10.3310/hta11450. View

13.

Jiang T, Nam D, Ram Z, Poon W, Wang J, Boldbaatar D . Clinical practice guidelines for the management of adult diffuse gliomas. Cancer Lett. 2020; 499:60-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.10.050. View

14.

Arbab A, Rashid M, Angara K, Borin T, Lin P, Jain M . Major Challenges and Potential Microenvironment-Targeted Therapies in Glioblastoma. Int J Mol Sci. 2017; 18(12). PMC: 5751333. DOI: 10.3390/ijms18122732. View

15.

Guyot P, Ades A, Ouwens M, Welton N . Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12:9. PMC: 3313891. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-9. View

16.

Duerinck J, Du Four S, Bouttens F, Andre C, Verschaeve V, Van Fraeyenhove F . Randomized phase II trial comparing axitinib with the combination of axitinib and lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2017; 136(1):115-125. DOI: 10.1007/s11060-017-2629-z. View

17.

Martikainen J, Kivioja A, Hallinen T, Vihinen P . Economic evaluation of temozolomide in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005; 23(8):803-15. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200523080-00006. View

18.

Taal W, Oosterkamp H, Walenkamp A, Dubbink H, Beerepoot L, Hanse M . Single-agent bevacizumab or lomustine versus a combination of bevacizumab plus lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (BELOB trial): a randomised controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(9):943-53. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70314-6. View

19.

McKinnon C, Nandhabalan M, Murray S, Plaha P . Glioblastoma: clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management. BMJ. 2021; 374:n1560. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1560. View

20.

Weller M, van den Bent M, Preusser M, Le Rhun E, Tonn J, Minniti G . EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diffuse gliomas of adulthood. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020; 18(3):170-186. PMC: 7904519. DOI: 10.1038/s41571-020-00447-z. View