Cost-effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service Perspective
A prior randomized controlled trial (COMPARZ [Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib]) found non-inferior progression-free survival for pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service perspective.
A partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was employed. The model time horizon was 5 years. For each treatment strategy, the model generated expected progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. Results were reported as incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact on results of methodological and parameter uncertainty.
In the base case, pazopanib was associated with higher QALYs and lower costs and dominated sunitinib. Using willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the net monetary benefits with pazopanib were €6508 and €7702 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 85% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 86% at a threshold of €30,000, and 81% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions.
These results suggest that pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
4
7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance
4
7%
Psychology
3
5%
Other
6
10%
Unknown
21
35%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Therapeutics
#2,052
of 3,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,848
of 424,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Therapeutics
#32
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
