Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2019 Feb;23(8):1-144. doi: 10.3310/hta23080.
Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that affects patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival. Cabozantinib (Cometriq; Ipsen, Paris, France) and vandetanib (Caprelsa; Sanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA) are currently the treatment modality of choice for treating unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC.
(1) To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. (2) To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib versus each other and best supportive care. (3) To identify key areas for primary research. (4) To estimate the overall cost of these treatments in England.
Peer-reviewed publications (searched from inception to November 2016), European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions.
A systematic review [including a network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model.
The systematic review identified two placebo-controlled trials. The Efficacy of XL184 (Cabozantinib) in Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer (EXAM) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with unresectable locally advanced, metastatic and progressive MTC. The ZETA trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC. Both drugs significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) more than the placebo ( < 0.001). The NMA suggested that, within the symptomatic and progressive MTC population, the effects on PFS were similar (vandetanib vs. cabozantinib: hazard ratio 1.14, 95% credible interval 0.41 to 3.09). Neither trial demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit for cabozantinib or vandetanib versus placebo, although data from ZETA were subject to potential confounding. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib demonstrated significantly better objective response rates and calcitonin (CTN) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) response rates than placebo. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. The assessment group model indicates that, within the EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within the restricted EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC with CEA/CTN doubling times of ≤ 24 months), the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. The maximum annual budget impact within the symptomatic and progressive population is estimated to be ≈£2.35M for cabozantinib and ≈£5.53M for vandetanib. The costs of vandetanib in the restricted EU-label population are expected to be lower.
The intention-to-treat populations of the EXAM and ZETA trials are notably different. The analyses of ZETA subgroups may be subject to confounding as a result of differences in baseline characteristics and open-label vandetanib use. Attempts to statistically adjust for treatment switching were unsuccessful. No HRQoL evidence was identified for the MTC population.
The identified trials suggest that cabozantinib and vandetanib improve PFS more than the placebo; however, significant OS benefits were not demonstrated. The economic analyses indicate that within the EU-label population, the ICERs for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per QALY gained. Within the restricted EU-label population, the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained.
(1) Primary research assessing the long-term effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib within relevant subgroups. (2) Reanalyses of the ZETA trial to investigate the impact of adjusting for open-label vandetanib use using appropriate statistical methods. (3) Studies assessing the impact of MTC on HRQoL.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016050403.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
甲状腺髓样癌(MTC)是一种罕见的癌症,会影响患者的健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)和生存。卡博替尼(Cometriq;Ipsen,巴黎,法国)和凡德他尼(Caprelsa;Sanofi Genzyme,剑桥,MA,美国)是目前治疗不可切除的进行性和有症状的 MTC 的首选治疗方法。
(1)评估卡博替尼和凡德他尼的临床疗效和安全性。(2)估计卡博替尼和凡德他尼相对于彼此和最佳支持性护理的增量成本效益。(3)确定主要研究领域。(4)估计这些治疗方法在英国的总体成本。
同行评审的出版物(从成立到 2016 年 11 月搜索)、欧洲公共评估报告和制造商的提交。
进行了系统评价[包括网络荟萃分析(NMA)],以评估卡博替尼和凡德他尼的临床疗效和安全性。经济分析包括对现有分析的审查和新模型的开发。
系统评价确定了两项安慰剂对照试验。XL184(卡博替尼)在晚期甲状腺髓样癌中的疗效(EXAM)试验评估了卡博替尼在不可切除的局部晚期、转移性和进行性 MTC 患者中的疗效和安全性。ZETA 试验评估了凡德他尼在不可切除的局部晚期或转移性 MTC 患者中的疗效和安全性。两种药物均显著改善了无进展生存期(PFS)(均<0.001)。NMA 表明,在有症状和进行性 MTC 人群中,对 PFS 的影响相似(凡德他尼与卡博替尼:危险比 1.14,95%可信区间 0.41 至 3.09)。两项试验均未显示卡博替尼或凡德他尼与安慰剂相比在总体生存方面有显著获益,尽管 ZETA 中的数据可能存在潜在混杂。卡博替尼和凡德他尼均显著提高了客观缓解率和降钙素(CTN)和癌胚抗原(CEA)反应率,优于安慰剂。卡博替尼和凡德他尼均产生了频繁的不良反应,经常导致剂量中断或减少。评估组模型表明,在欧盟标签人群(有症状和进行性 MTC)中,卡博替尼和凡德他尼的增量成本效益比(ICER)均超过 138,000 英镑/质量调整生命年(QALY)。在欧盟标签受限人群(CEA/CTN 倍增时间≤24 个月的有症状和进行性 MTC)中,凡德他尼的 ICER 预计将超过 66,000 英镑/QALY。预计在有症状和进行性人群中,卡博替尼的最大年度预算影响约为 2350 万英镑,凡德他尼的最大年度预算影响约为 5530 万英镑。预计在欧盟标签受限人群中,凡德他尼的成本将会降低。
EXAM 和 ZETA 试验的意向治疗人群明显不同。ZETA 亚组分析可能存在混杂,因为基线特征和开放标签凡德他尼使用存在差异。试图对治疗转换进行统计学调整没有成功。没有针对 MTC 人群的 HRQoL 证据。
已确定的试验表明,卡博替尼和凡德他尼改善 PFS 优于安慰剂;然而,并未证明有显著的 OS 获益。经济分析表明,在欧盟标签人群中,卡博替尼和凡德他尼的 ICER 超过 138,000 英镑/QALY。在欧盟标签受限人群中,凡德他尼的 ICER 预计将超过 66,000 英镑/QALY。
(1)评估卡博替尼和凡德他尼在相关亚组中的长期有效性的主要研究。(2)重新分析 ZETA 试验,以使用适当的统计方法调查调整开放标签凡德他尼使用的影响。(3)研究 MTC 对 HRQoL 的影响。
本研究注册为 PROSPERO CRD42016050403。
英国国家卫生研究院卫生技术评估计划。