Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid versus placebo in the management of skeletal metastases in lung cancer patients (LC pts): Comparison across three European countries

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

8081 Background: Zoledronic acid (ZOL) reduces the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) in LC pts with bone metastases. The present retrospective analysis compared the economic impact of ZOL in LC pts in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: Estimated direct costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) experienced by LC pts with bone metastases receiving placebo (PBO) or ZOL were modeled and compared. Overall survival (OS), SRE incidence, and number of infusions administered were obtained from a 21-mo randomized clinical trial comparing the proportion of pts who experienced an on-study SRE with 4 mg ZOL or PBO every 3 wk (Rosen et al. JCO. 2003). Costs of treatments and SREs were estimated using national reimbursement listings (eg, diagnosis-related groups), private databases, and published literature. Mean number of SREs was calculated by multiplying mean SRE rate by OS for LC pts in the study. For QALYs, OS was multiplied by a utility factor of 0.53. Consistent with similar economic analyses, it was assumed that quality of life (QOL) decreased 20% to 80% (depending on the SRE type) for 1 mo after each SRE experienced. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the effects of alternate scenarios, with < €30,000/QALY considered cost-effective. Results: During the median OS of 179 days, PBO pts (n = 120) experienced a mean of 2.07 SREs vs 1.32 SREs among ZOL pts (n = 124). QALYs were estimated at 0.352/pt (ZOL pts) and 0.335/pt (PBO pts). Use of ZOL resulted in a net increase of 0.017 QALY/pt vs PBO. ZOL drug-related costs were €1,610, €1,510 and €1,597 per pt in France, Germany, and the UK, respectively. Use of ZOL resulted in reductions in SRE costs of €2,221, €2,031, and €2,014 per pt, respectively. Overall, ZOL saved €598 per pt in France, €521 in Germany, and €417 in the UK. In sensitivity analyses, ZOL was cost-effective under a variety of scenarios (total range, -€98,356 to +€34,052 per QALY). Conclusions: ZOL leads to fewer SREs, better estimated QOL, and lower estimated costs relative to PBO in German, French, and UK LC pts with bone metastases. Use of ZOL in these populations is therefore cost-saving and highly cost-effective. [Table: see text]