Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab combined with lomustine in the treatment of progressive glioblastoma using a Markov model simulation analysis.

Background: Progressive glioblastoma (GBM) is a malignancy with extremely poor prognosis. Chemotherapy is one of the approved systemic treatment modalities. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of using bevacizumab (BEV) in combination with lomustine (LOM) regimen for the treatment of progressive glioblastoma in China. Methods: The estimation results are derived from a multicenter randomized phase III trial, which demonstrated improved survival in GBM patients receiving BEV+LOM combination therapy. To calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of Chinese society, a Markov model was established. Univariate deterministic analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were employed to address the uncertainties within the model. Results: Compared to LOM monotherapy, the total treatment cost for BEV+LOM combination therapy increased from $2,646.70 to $23,650.98. The health-adjusted life years (QALYs) for BEV+LOM combination therapy increased from 0.26 QALYs to 0.51 QALYs, representing an increment of 0.25 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $84,071.12. The cost-effectiveness curve indicates that within the willingness-to-pay (WTP) range of $35,906 per QALY, BEV+LOM combination therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma patients. Conclusions: Taken as a whole, the findings of this study suggest that, from the perspective of payers in China, BEV+LOM combination therapy as a first-line treatment for GBM is not a cost-effective option. However, considering the survival advantages this regimen may offer for this rare disease, it may still be one of the clinical treatment options for this patient population.

Re-evaluation of the cost effectiveness of temozolomide for malignant gliomas in British Columbia.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate the cost effectiveness and median overall survival (OS) achieved in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas treated with temozolomide in British Columbia, as compared to previous lomustine use in the same patient population based on updated outcomes data. Results were also compared to temozolomide literature reports. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was performed to identify patients who received single agent temozolomide or lomustine during successive, prespecified time periods. Data were collected on survival, duration of therapy, drug cost, labour and supplies, and successive or prior chemotherapy. RESULTS: Forty-one patients in the temozolomide group and 25 patients in the lomustine group were analysed. The median OS was 33.3 weeks (95% CI 28.4, 42.1 weeks) and 37.7 weeks (95% CI 25.0, 88.4 weeks) respectively (P = 0.783). Temozolomide patients received a mean of 5.1 cycles of drug treatment, with a mean cost per patient of 10746 dollars (CAD). In contrast, lomustine patients received a mean of 3.3 cycles of therapy, with a mean cost per patient of 129 dollars (CAD). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that temozolomide was generally not a cost-effective strategy and that lomustine was the dominant strategy. In the sensitivity analysis, in scenarios where median OS was prolonged with temozolomide as compared to lomustine, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each life year gained ranged from 32,247 dollars to 162,186 dollars. CONCLUSION: No difference in survival was observed between patients treated with single agent lomustine and temozolomide. Based on the higher cost and lack of additional clinical benefit of temozolomide, lomustine is a more cost-effective treatment strategy.