Comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of biologicals used for metastatic urothelial carcinoma

Résumé fourni par la source

Objective: to determine the economic and clinical consequences of using atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial cancer compared with pembrolizumab and nivolumab. Materials and methods. An assessment of the effectiveness and safety of medicines for urothelial cancer was carried out on the basis of a systematic search and review of clinical studies and an analysis of direct medical costs for medicines from public procurement in Moscow in 2019-2020 and information from official instructions for medical use. Results. Systematic search identifies 4, 4 and 7 clinical trials of nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, respectively, as well as 2 meta-analyses. The obtained data on the efficacy and safety did not allow us to identify greater or lesser effective options. Calculation of cost of three months therapy revealed that the cost of atezolizumab (935 thousand rubles) is 7 % lower vs. pembrolizumab (1 million rubles) and 18 % lower vs. nivolumab (1,136 million rubles). Thus, when using atezolizumab instead of pembrolizumab or atezolizumab, budget savings may occur, or allowing additional therapy to be provided to every 14th or every 6th patient, respectively within fixed budget. Conclusion. The use of atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial cancer led to budget savings or the possibility of additional treatment coverage with immuno-oncological therapy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.