Cost-minimization analysis of panitumumab compared with cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer
To compare the costs of first-line treatment with panitumumab?+?FOLFOX in comparison to cetuximab?+?FOLFIRI among patients with wild-type (WT) RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the US.
A cost-minimization model was developed assuming similar treatment efficacy between both regimens. The model estimated the costs associated with drug acquisition, treatment administration frequency (every 2 weeks for panitumumab, weekly for cetuximab), and incidence of infusion reactions. Average anti-EGFR doses were calculated from the ASPECCT clinical trial, and average doses of chemotherapy regimens were based on product labels. Using the medical component of the consumer price index, adverse event costs were inflated to 2014 US dollars, and all other costs were reported in 2014 US dollars. The time horizon for the model was based on average first-line progression-free survival of a WT RAS patient, estimated from parametric survival analyses of PRIME clinical trial data.
Relative to cetuximab?+?FOLFIRI in the first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC, the cost-minimization model demonstrated lower projected drug acquisition, administration, and adverse event costs for patients who received panitumumab?+?FOLFOX. The overall cost per patient for first-line treatment was $179,219 for panitumumab?+?FOLFOX vs $202,344 for cetuximab?+?FOLFIRI, resulting in a per-patient saving of $23,125 (11.4%) in favor of panitumumab?+?FOLFOX.
From a value perspective, the cost-minimization model supports panitumumab?+?FOLFOX instead of cetuximab?+?FOLFIRI as the preferred first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC patients requiring systemic therapy
Graham, C., Hechmati, G., Fakih, MG., Knox, H., Maglinte, GA., Hjelmgren, J., ... Schwartzberg, LS. (2015). Cost-minimization analysis of panitumumab compared with cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. Journal of Medical Economics, 18(8), 619-628. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1035659