The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Cost-effectiveness comparison of cabozantinib with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma following the failure of prior therapy in England
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s159833 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jie Meng, Johanna Lister, Anne-Lise Vataire, Roman Casciano, Jerome Dinet |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib with the standard of care in England in adult patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), following prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy. We developed a partitioned-survival model with three health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib and its comparators. The model time horizon was 30 years. Efficacy and safety data were derived from pivotal clinical trials (METEOR: NCT01865747, CheckMate025: NCT01668784, and AXIS: NCT00678392). METEOR data were used for a direct comparison of cabozantinib and everolimus. Cabozantinib and nivolumab were compared indirectly, whereas equal efficacy for axitinib and everolimus was assumed based on a previously published expert opinion. For all efficacy endpoints, the best-fitting log-logistic or fractional polynomial curves were used to estimate outcomes. Utilities were converted from the 5-level EQ-5D version instrument applied during the METEOR study for specific health states. Reductions in utility scores due to adverse events were applied. English costs (eg, drug prices) and resource use (eg, visit to consultant) data were used. The total treatment cost was estimated to be 84,136 Great British Pounds (GBP) per patient treated with cabozantinib. The health gains were 2.26 life-years (LYs) and 1.78 quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) versus axitinib and everolimus were 98,967 GBP/QALY and 137,450 GBP/QALY, respectively. Cabozantinib was less costly and more effective than nivolumab; the incremental cost was -6,742 GBP and the QALY difference was 0.18. Treatment with cabozantinib was more effective than treatment with axitinib or everolimus but was associated with higher total costs. When compared with nivolumab, cabozantinib represents an efficient option with nominally better efficacy and lower costs. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 12% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,229,642
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#274
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,567
of 344,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.