Value in Health. 2008 Jan-Feb;11(1):4-12. [Link]
Cordony A, Le Reun C, Smala A, Symanowski JT, Watkins J.
M-TAG Pty Ltd, A Unit of IMS Health, St Leonards, NSW, Australia. firstname.lastname@example.org
Objectives: Findings from the largest randomized phase III trial in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (EMPHACIS study; n = 448) were used to examine the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed plus cisplatin therapy versus cisplatin monotherapy in patients with the disease. The cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed/cisplatin versus alternative treatments was also examined.
Methods: Two cost-effectiveness analyses were designed to model best survival outcome over time for a number of patient cohorts. First, trial-based patient-level data were utilized and resource use was costed for the study arm and comparator. A second cost-effectiveness analysis then compared the mean costs and outcomes associated with pemetrexed/cisplatin with the most commonly used (unlicensed) regimens in the United Kingdomâ€”mitomycin-C, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP); vinorelbine; and active symptom controlâ€”using trial-based data and data extrapolated from a review of the literature.
Results: The total pemetrexed/cisplatin cost per patient varied between Â£8779 and Â£9020 for all cohorts studied in model 1. Average life-years gained per patient were between 0.20 and 0.28. Quality-adjusted life-years, based on mean and median survival, ranged from 0.13 to 0.31. Incremental cost per life-year gained and quality-adjusted life-year ratios, using both mean and median survival, ranged from Â£20,475 to Â£68,598. The second cost-effectiveness analysis resulted in ratios ranging from Â£14,595 to Â£32,066.
Conclusions: Pemetrexed/cisplatin demonstrated acceptable cost-effectiveness when compared with cisplatin monotherapy and alternative treatments commonly used in UK clinical practice.