Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21627339›Full record

ArticleClinical drug investigation2011

Bevacizumab plus interferon-α versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of renal cell carcinoma in Italy: a cost-minimization analysis.

Roberto Ravasio, Cinzia Ortega, Roberto Sabbatini, Camillo Porta

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Renal cell carcinoma: how to hit the targets?Central European journal of urology · 2014
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Second-line treatment for renal cell cancer.British journal of cancer · 2012
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Roberto RavasioWolters Kluwer Health Italy, Milan, Italy. roberto.ravasio@wolterskluwer.com
Cinzia Ortega
Roberto Sabbatini
Camillo Porta
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia · ITUniversity of Pavia · ITWolters Kluwer Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRenal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common form of kidney cancer. Immunotherapy with interferon-α (IFNα) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) has been the historical therapy of choice for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic RCC prior to the more recent development of targeted therapies, including sunitinib and bevacizumab (combined with IFNα). Clinically and statistically significant advantages have been shown with both sunitinib and the combination of bevacizumab + IFNα versus IFNα alone in the treatment of advanced or metastatic RCC. The present study evaluated the incremental costs of bevacizumab + IFNα versus sunitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic RCC assuming similar efficacy for these treatments.

methodsThe efficacy profiles of bevacizumab + IFNα or sunitinib alone have been shown (indirectly) to be similar in patients with RCC; indeed, median progression-free survival (PFS) with either treatment is in the 10- to 11-month range. Therefore, a cost-minimization analysis was performed, focusing on direct medical costs only (drugs, administration and management of adverse events). The analysis considered the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS), comparing the cost of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) plus IFNα (9, 6 or 3 million IU [MIU]) versus sunitinib (50 mg) as first-line therapies for advanced or metastatic clear-cell RCC. The average cost per treated patient (year 2010 values) was assessed for the two treatment options at 11 months (median PFS).

resultsAssuming a PFS of 11 months for both treatment options, bevacizumab + IFNα (9 MIU) would be a lower cost strategy (cost savings of €2052 per patient) than sunitinib. This difference arises mainly from the reduction in the acquisition cost of bevacizumab to the NHS (risk-sharing agreement). The cost advantages for bevacizumab would increase in parallel with a reduction in IFNα dosing; for example, with IFNα 6 MIU the corresponding cost savings would be €4185, and with 3 MIU the cost advantage would be €6320 per patient.

conclusionThis analysis suggests that bevacizumab + IFNα is a cost-saving alternative to sunitinib in the treatment of first-line metastatic RCC. Its superior safety profile also meant that the cost of managing adverse events was lower for bevacizumab + IFNα than for sunitinib.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabCarcinoma, Renal CellClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansIndolesInterferon-alphaItalyKidney NeoplasmsMaleAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBevacizumabIndolesInterferon-alphaPyrrolesSunitinib

Identifiers

PMID21627339
OpenAlexW61283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.