Cost-Effectiveness Models and Resource Use/Cost Inputs for Untreated Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma- A Systematic Literature Review

Author(s)

Kaminski A1, May J2, Malcolm B3, Ejzykowicz F4, Kurt M4, Chun D4, Ho S2, Alleman CJ5
1Pharmerit- an OPEN Health Company, Bethesda, MD, USA, 2Bristol Myers Squibb, Uxbridge, UK, 3Bristol Myers Squibb, Middlesex, UK, 4Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA, 5OPEN Health - Evidence & Access, Rotterdam, ZH, Netherlands

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain and evaluate the availability of health economic evidence (costs, resource use, and economic evaluations), in the global published literature, for patients with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) with two independent reviewers was conducted in August 2019. MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, health technology assessments’ (HTA) databases, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched without applying time limits. Additionally, ISPOR conference proceedings and HTA agencies’ websites were hand searched. Publications of interest were restricted to economic models and studies reporting cost-benefit evaluations, costs, or healthcare resource use (HCRU) data for aRCC. Clinical trials were excluded.

RESULTS: Among 101 publications included in the review, the majority were on economic models (n=77), covering several countries and interventions. Most of the economic modeling studies were conducted in the United States (US) (n=12), Spain (n=6), the United Kingdom (n=5), Italy (n=5), and China (n=5). The top 5 most reported treatments amongst economic models were sunitinib (n=51), pazopanib (n=20), nivolumab+ipilimumab (n=13), bevacizumab+interferon-alpha-2a (n=13), and sorafenib (n=7). Other study designs included in the SLR were 16 claims database analyses, 6 reviews on patient medical records, and 2 registry studies. Among these, the majority were conducted in the US (n=16). These studies presented both cost and HCRU data, although most of the identified HCRU data were reported in these references (9 out of 14 total HCRU studies). These studies reported on fewer number and variety of treatments, with most being sunitinib (n=7), pazopanib (n=5), or unspecified targeted therapy (n=5).

CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-specific cost-effectiveness data for previously untreated aRCC patients are available in the global literature. However, more granular and local-level evidence of HCRU data in this population is needed to cover interventions and countries more broadly.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2020-11, ISPOR Europe 2020, Milan, Italy

Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue S2 (December 2020)

Code

PCN80

Topic

Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis

Disease

Drugs, Oncology

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×