nach oben

PharmacoEconomics

Erschienen in:

01.11.2011 | Original Research Aticle

Patient Benefit-Risk Preferences for Targeted Agents in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma

verfasst von: Ms Ateesha F. Mohamed, A. Brett Hauber, Maureen P. Neary

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 11/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background: Angiogenesis inhibitor agents have been shown to be effective in increasing progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, these treatments have different toxicity profiles. Objective: Our objective was to quantify patients’ benefit-risk preferences for RCC treatments and relative importance of attributes in a common metric.

Methods: US residents aged ≥18 years with RCC completed a web-enabled, choice-format conjoint survey that presented a series of 12 trade-off questions, each including a pair of hypothetical RCC treatment profiles. Each profile was defined by efficacy (PFS, when overall survival held constant), tolerability effects (fatigue/tiredness, diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome [HFS], mouth sores) and serious adverse events (liver failure, blood clot). Trade-off questions were based on a predetermined experimental design with known statistical properties. Random-parameters logit was used to analyse the data.

Results: A total of 138 patients completed the survey. PFS was the most important attribute for patients over the range of levels included in the survey, while remaining attributes were ranked in decreasing order of importance: fatigue/tiredness, diarrhoea, liver failure, HFS, blood clot and mouth sores. In order to increase PFS by 11 months, patients would be willing to accept a maximum level of absolute blood clot risk of 3.1%(95%CI 1.5, 5.3) or liver failure risk of 2.0% (95% CI 1.0, 3.3).

Conclusion: A 22-month change in PFS was shown to be the most important improvement for patients. Severe fatigue/tiredness and diarrhoea were rated as the most troublesome tolerability effects of RCC treatment. Patients were likely willing to accept significant treatment-related risks of 2–3% for liver failure and blood clot to increase PFS by 11 months.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

¹ HFS results in the skin in the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet becoming tender or red.

Flanigan RC, Campbell SC, Clark JI, et al. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2003; 4 (5): 385–90PubMedCrossRef

Lane BR, Kattan MW. Predicting outcomes in renal cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Urol 2005; 15 (5): 289–97PubMedCrossRef

Klatte T, Pantuck AJ, Kleid MD, et al. Understanding the natural biology of kidney cancer: implications for targeted cancer therapy. Rev Urol 2007; 9 (2): 47–56PubMed

Gupta K, Miller JD, Li JZ, et al. Epidemiologic and socioeconomic burden ofmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): a literature review. Cancer Treat Rev 2008; 34 (3): 193–205PubMedCrossRef

Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. National Cancer Institute. SEER stat fact sheets [online]. Available from URL: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/kidrp.html [Accessed 2010 Aug 3]

Porta C, Paglino C, Imarisio I, et al. Cytokine-based immunotherapy for advanced kidney cancer: past results and future perspectives in the era of molecularly targeted agents. Scientific World Journal 2007 Apr 9; 7: 837–49PubMedCrossRef

Bukowski RM. Cytokine combinations: therapeutic use in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Semin Oncol 2000; 27 (2): 204–12PubMed

Motzer RJ, Mazumdar M, Bacik J. Effect of cytokine therapy on survival for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18 (9): 1928–35PubMed

Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (2): 115–24PubMedCrossRef

10.

Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Overall survival and updated results for sunitinib compared with interferon alfa in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27 (22): 3584–90PubMedCrossRef

11.

Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P, et al. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (22): 2271–81PubMedCrossRef

12.

Escudier B, Pluzanska A, Koralewski P, et al. Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial. Lancet 2007; 370 (9605): 2103–11PubMedCrossRef

13.

Escudier B, Bellmunt J, Négrier S, et al. Phase III trial of bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AVOREN): final analysis of overall survival. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28 (13): 2144–50PubMedCrossRef

14.

Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (2): 125–34PubMedCrossRef

15.

Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Sorafenib for treatment of renal cell carcinoma: final efficacy and safety results of the phase III treatment approaches in renal cancer global evaluation trial. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27 (20): 3312–8PubMedCrossRef

16.

Sternberg CN, Davis ID, Mardiak J, et al. Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J ClinOncol 2010 Feb; 28 (6): 1061–8CrossRef

17.

Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982-2007. Patient 2008; 1 (4): 273–82PubMedCrossRef

18.

Louviere J, Swait J, Hensher D. Introduction to stated preference models and methods. In: Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD, editors. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: 20–33CrossRef

19.

Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Mansfield C, et al. Crohn’s disease patients’ risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology 2007 Sep; 133 (3): 769–79PubMedCrossRef

20.

Johnson FR, Banzhaf M, Desvousges W. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000 Jun; 9 (4): 295–317PubMedCrossRef

21.

Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments. In: Fayers P, Hays R, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005: 431–44

22.

Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Watson ME, et al. Benefits, risks, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-naäve African Americans for HIV treatments. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2009 Jan; 23 (1): 29–34PubMedCrossRef

23.

Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 149–63PubMedCrossRef

24.

Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, et al. Age, health and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. J Risk Uncertainty 2002; 24 (2): 161–86CrossRef

25.

Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Marketing Res 1996; 33: 307–17CrossRef

26.

Kanninen B. Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J Marketing Res 2002; 39: 214–27CrossRef

27.

Dey A. Orthogonal fractional factorial designs. New York: Halstead Press, 1985

28.

Train K. Mixed logit. In: Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 139–54CrossRef

29.

Train K, Sonnier G. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A, editors. Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005: 117–34CrossRef

30.

Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998 Nov; 7 (7): 595–604PubMedCrossRef

31.

Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000 Jun; 320 (7248): 1530–3PubMedCrossRef

32.

Mantovani G, Monzini MS, Mannucci PM, et al. Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2005 Nov; 11 (6): 589–97PubMedCrossRef

33.

Lee WC, Joshi AV, Woolford S, et al. Physicians’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates in the treatment of haemophilia with inhibitors: a discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2008 May; 14 (3): 454–65PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Patient Benefit-Risk Preferences for Targeted Agents in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma
verfasst von: Ms Ateesha F. Mohamed
A. Brett Hauber
Maureen P. Neary
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2011
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 11/2011
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11593370-000000000-00000

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2011

Sample Size Determination for Cost-Effectiveness Trials

Rotavirus Vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix™)

The Importance of the Comparator in Economic Evaluations

Utility Estimation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Denosumab for the Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures in Post-Menopausal Women

Willingness to Pay for Adverse Drug Event Regulatory Actions