IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0177364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments

Author

Listed:
  • S De Groot
  • H M Blommestein
  • W K Redekop
  • S Sleijfer
  • L A L M Kiemeney
  • E Oosterwijk
  • C A Uyl-de Groot

Abstract

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials have shown that targeted therapies like sunitinib are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about the current use of these therapies, and their associated costs and effects in daily clinical practice. We estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies comprising one or more sequentially administered drugs. Methods: Analyses were performed using patient-level data from a Dutch population-based registry including patients diagnosed with primary mRCC from January 2008 to December 2010 (i.e., treated between 2008 and 2013). The full disease course of these patients was estimated using a patient-level simulation model based on regression analyses of the registry data. A healthcare sector perspective was adopted; total costs included healthcare costs related to mRCC. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in cost per life-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the overall uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness. Results: In current daily practice, 54% (336/621) of all patients was treated with targeted therapies. Most patients (84%; 282/336) received sunitinib as first-line therapy. Of the patients receiving first-line therapy, 30% (101/336) also received second-line therapy; the majority was treated with everolimus (40%, 40/101) or sorafenib (28%, 28/101). Current treatment practice (including patients not receiving targeted therapy) led to 0.807 QALYs; mean costs were €58,912. This resulted in an additional €105,011 per QALY gained compared to not using targeted therapy at all. Forty-six percent of all patients received no targeted therapy; of these patients, 24% (69/285) was eligible for sunitinib. If these patients were treated with first-line sunitinib, mean QALYs would improve by 0.062–0.076 (where the range reflects the choice of second-line therapy). This improvement is completely driven by the health gain seen amongst patients eligible to receive sunitinib but did not receive it, who gain 0.558–0.684 QALYs from sunitinib. Since additional costs would be €7,072–9,913, incremental costs per QALY gained are €93,107–111,972 compared to current practice. Discussion: Health can be gained if more treatment-eligible patients receive targeted therapies. Moreover, it will be just as cost-effective to treat these patients with sunitinib as current treatment practice.

Suggested Citation

  • S De Groot & H M Blommestein & W K Redekop & S Sleijfer & L A L M Kiemeney & E Oosterwijk & C A Uyl-de Groot, 2017. "Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177364
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177364
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177364&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0177364?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. Eddy & William Hollingworth & J. Jaime Caro & Joel Tsevat & Kathryn M. McDonald & John B. Wong, 2012. "Model Transparency and Validation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 733-743, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimitris Bertsimas & John Silberholz & Thomas Trikalinos, 2018. "Optimal healthcare decision making under multiple mathematical models: application in prostate cancer screening," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 105-118, March.
    2. Harvard, Stephanie & Winsberg, Eric & Symons, John & Adibi, Amin, 2021. "Value judgments in a COVID-19 vaccination model: A case study in the need for public involvement in health-oriented modelling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    3. Andrew J. Palmer & Julie A. Campbell & Barbara de Graaff & Nancy Devlin & Hasnat Ahmad & Philip M Clarke & Mingsheng Chen & Lei Si, 2021. "Population norms for quality adjusted life years for the United States of America, China, the United Kingdom and Australia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(8), pages 1950-1977, August.
    4. Matthew R Behrend & María-Gloria Basáñez & Jonathan I D Hamley & Travis C Porco & Wilma A Stolk & Martin Walker & Sake J de Vlas & for the NTD Modelling Consortium, 2020. "Modelling for policy: The five principles of the Neglected Tropical Diseases Modelling Consortium," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Simone A. Huygens & Isaac Corro Ramos & Carlijn V. C. Bouten & Jolanda Kluin & Shih Ting Chiu & Gary L. Grunkemeier & Johanna J. M. Takkenberg & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken, 2020. "Early cost-utility analysis of tissue-engineered heart valves compared to bioprostheses in the aortic position in elderly patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 557-572, June.
    6. Víctor Granados-García & Ana M Contreras & Carmen García-Peña & Guillermo Salinas-Escudero & Hla-Hla Thein & Yvonne N Flores, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Testing Strategies that Use Antibody Levels to Detect Chronic Hepatitis C in Blood Donors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, May.
    7. Adam Lundqvist & Katarina Steen Carlsson & Pierre Johansen & Emelie Andersson & Michael Willis, 2014. "Validation of the IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes and the Impact of Choice of Macrovascular Risk Equations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-12, October.
    8. Thi-Phuong-Lan Nguyen & E Pamela Wright & Thanh-Trung Nguyen & C C M Schuiling-Veninga & M J Bijlsma & Thi-Bach-Yen Nguyen & M J Postma, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for and Managing Identified Hypertension for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Vietnam," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Johanna Leväsluoto & Johanna Kohl & Anton Sigfrids & Jussi Pihlajamäki & Janne Martikainen, 2021. "Digitalization as an Engine for Change? Building a Vision Pathway towards a Sustainable Health Care System by Using the MLP and Health Economic Decision Modelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, November.
    10. Han-I. Wang & Alexandra Smith & Eline Aas & Eve Roman & Simon Crouch & Cathy Burton & Russell Patmore, 2017. "Treatment cost and life expectancy of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): a discrete event simulation model on a UK population-based observational cohort," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 255-267, March.
    11. Harvard, Stephanie & Werker, Gregory R. & Silva, Diego S., 2020. "Social, ethical, and other value judgments in health economics modelling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    12. Zachary A. Collier & James H. Lambert, 2019. "Principles and methods of model validation for model risk reduction," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 146-153, June.
    13. Ankur Pandya & Ashley A Eggman & Hooman Kamel & Ajay Gupta & Bruce R Schackman & Pina C Sanelli, 2016. "Modeling the Cost Effectiveness of Neuroimaging-Based Treatment of Acute Wake-Up Stroke," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    14. Vojtěch Kamenský & Vladimír Rogalewicz & Ondřej Gajdoš & Gleb Donin, 2022. "Discrete Event Simulation Model for Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Screening for Asymptomatic Patients with Lower Extremity Arterial Disease," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-16, September.
    15. A C Bouman & A J ten Cate-Hoek & B L T Ramaekers & M A Joore, 2015. "Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    16. L. Standfield & T. Comans & M. Raymer & S. O’Leary & N. Moretto & P. Scuffham, 2016. "The Efficiency of Increasing the Capacity of Physiotherapy Screening Clinics or Traditional Medical Services to Address Unmet Demand in Orthopaedic Outpatients: A Practical Application of Discrete Eve," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 479-491, August.
    17. Paul Jülicher & Vladimir P Chulanov & Nikolay N Pimenov & Ekaterina Chirkova & Anna Yankina & Claudio Galli, 2019. "Streamlining the screening cascade for active Hepatitis C in Russia: A cost-effectiveness analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-22, July.
    18. Eleanor J. Murray, 2020. "Epidemiology's Time of Need: COVID-19 Calls for Epidemic-Related Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 105-120, Fall.
    19. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Olga Theou & Justin Beilby & Matteo Cesari & Renuka Visvanathan, 2019. "Structuring a conceptual model for cost-effectiveness analysis of frailty interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, September.
    20. Rudabeh Meskarian & Marion L Penn & Sarah Williams & Thomas Monks, 2017. "A facility location model for analysis of current and future demand for sexual health services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177364. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.