Cost-Effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib for Renal Cancer in the United States.

We write to comment on a recently published study by Delea et al. in the January 2015 issue of JMCP that evaluated the cost-effectiveness (CE) of sunitinib (SU) versus pazopanib (PAZ) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from a U.S. third-party payer perspective.1 This analysis was based on COMPARZ and PISCES, clinical trials that compared SU and PAZ2,3 and led the authors to conclude that PAZ is cost-effective (in fact, dominant, according to the base-case results) compared with SU. Such assessment of economic value is clearly important for deciding between therapies to ensure fair access; therefore, we welcome a comparative evaluation of SU and PAZ. However, we believe that some of the key assumptions and inputs used in the model by Delea et al. render their results and conclusions invalid.  Best practice requires that results from a health economic model should reflect the most likely outcomes based on sound methodology and robust evidence for its inputs, as recommended by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).4 Here, we focus on 2 key areas (utilities and survival modeling) where, in our view, the analysis by Delea et al. falls short of this standard, and a third area (treatment costs) where the basis for the data derived is unclear.