Cost-effectiveness of sunitinib as second-line treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumor in the People’s Republic of China
Authors Li J, Ren HY, Zhang J, Dong P, Wang Y, Stevens AL, Han Y, Huang M
Received 13 April 2016
Accepted for publication 21 July 2016
Published 23 January 2017 Volume 2017:7 Pages 1—9
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Francesco Chiappelli
Jian Li,1 Hong Ye Ren,2 Juanjuan Zhang,2 Peng Dong,2 Yan Wang,3 Andrea L Stevens,3 Yi Han,3 Min Huang4
1Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research for the Ministry of National Education, Department of GI Oncology, Peking University School of Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital & Institute, 2Pfizer Inc., Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 3WG Consulting, New York, NY, USA; 4School of Pharmacy, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib as a second-line treatment in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors that no longer respond to imatinib 400 mg/d, compared with imatinib 600 mg/d, 800 mg/d, or best supportive care (BSC) in the People’s Republic of China.
Methods: This study was conducted from the government payer’s perspective with a time horizon of 5 years. Three health states were considered: progression-free survival, disease progression survival, and death, with a cycle length of 6 weeks. Probabilities of disease progression and death were estimated based on survival functions using exponential distribution and progression survival data in the clinical trials. Drug costs were based on drug retail prices and the patient assistance program in the People’s Republic of China, and adverse event management costs were based on published data and/or expert opinion. Uncertainties for parameters in the study were addressed through one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
Results: When sunitinib was compared with imatinib 600 mg/d and BSC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was RMB75,715 with RMB121,080 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sunitinib demonstrated lower costs and higher QALYs than imatinib 800 mg/d. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the willingness-to-pay per QALY gained was set to be three times the per capita gross domestic product of the People’s Republic of China, that is, RMB46,510 in 2014. Sunitinib was demonstrated to be cost-effective compared with imatinib 600 mg/d, imatinib 800 mg/d, and BSC, with probabilities of 82.3%, 95.6%, and 78.2%, respectively.
Limitations: Clinical data for imatinib 800 mg/d and BSC in the analysis were based upon studies in non-Chinese populations. Because of the unavailability of utility data from Chinese gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients, the analysis used the utility estimates from studies performed in other countries.
Conclusion: Sunitinib provides greater clinical benefit than high-dose imatinib or BSC as a second-line treatment. In the Chinese setting, sunitinib is estimated to be cost-effective compared with imatinib 800 mg/d, imatinib 600 mg/d, or BSC.
Keywords: cost-effectiveness analysis, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, imatinib, sunitinib, best supportive care, second-line
Corrigendum for this paper has been published
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]