Comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of Paclical® and Taxol® in Russian Federation

Ovarian cancer is a severe oncological disease, characterized by relatively late detection and unfavorable course leading to significant mortality among affected patients. One of the most well-proven treatment strategies is combination of taxanes such as Paclitaxel with platinum compounds. Unfortunately physicochemical properties of Paclitaxel (Taxol®) necessitate using it with an expensive, highly allergenic and hard to manage emulsifier that requires an extensive premedication regime before administration. A recently developed technology for micronizing Paclitaxel has allowed to create a new drug form, Paclical®, which allows to carry out chemotherapy without a need for complex premedication and specialized infusion systems. Available randomized clinical trial data indicates that Paclical® is not inferior to Taxol® in terms of safety and efficacy. Since taxanes are in high demand in oncology, it appears worthwhile to carry out a pharmacoeconomic comparison of Paclical® and Taxol®, which is the subject of current research effort. Aim. To perform the pharmacoeconomic analysis of Paclical® and Taxol® as adjuvants for Carboplatine for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer within context of Russian Healthcare. Methodology. This PHe is conducted perspective of public health organizations of the RF at federal and national levels, as well as from general social interest perspective. A complex PHe model consisting of a “decision tree” (to model treatment proper) and a Markov model (to model survival without progression over timespan of 12 months) was constructed. Cycle length for the Markov component of the model was set at 1 month. Two groups composed of 1000 patients each was simulated, each receiving one of the investigated drugs in combination with carboplatine, as well as full set of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions as outlined in relevant Russian standards. Randomized clinical trial dedicated to safety, tolerability and efficacy of the investigated compounds was used as data source. Direct medical costs in each simulated group were estimated using existing standards. Indirect costs including GDP loss and disability payments were also accounted for. Cost-effectiveness analysis, Cost-minimization analysis, Budget impact analysis, pharmacoeconomic expediency assessment and sensitivity analysis were performed. Result. Cost-minimization indicator for Paclical® was determined to be -3 544 819 rub., indicating reduction of direct costs when using this drug. Paclical® also dominated in terms of CER (259 703,5 rub. for Paclical® and 306 852,6 rub. for Taxol®), and since use of Paclical® was associated with both increased effectiveness and cost reduction, ICER calculation was not necessary. Overall number of patients surviving without progression at 12-month mark was used as efficacy criterion. Budget impact analysis has found that Paclical® is associated with reduction of budgetary burden, specifically a 3,6% saving that corresponds to 130 919 rub. per 100 000 of population (adjusted for ovarian cancer incidence). Pharmacoeconomic expediency assessment indicated that both drugs are acceptable for purposes of drug reimbursement system but Paclical® is somewhat more appealing due to wTP/CER indicator of 5,7 (with Taxol® having 4,8). Sensitivity analysis has confirmed the robustness of these findings Conclusion. Use of Paclical® is associated with higher healthcare resources utilization efficiency due to Paclical®’s domination in terms of CER indicator, as well as direct cost reduction of 3 544 819 rub., better absolute progression-free survival at 12-month mark, and reduction of budgetary burden by 3,6% per 100 000 of population. Both drugs being investigated are acceptable as part of drug reimbursement system but Paclical® is slightly more attractive. Thus, use of Paclical® in Russian oncological patients with ovarian cancer appears highly expedient.

онкология, Пакликал®, Таксол®, рак, яичник, таксан, фармакоэкономика, анализ эффективности затрат, анализ минимизации затрат, анализ влияния на бюджет, oncology, Paclical®, Taxol®, taxane, pharmacoeconomics, ovary, cancer, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost minimization analysis, budget impact analysis

1. Akin J.M., Waddell J.A., Solimando D.A. Paclitaxel and Carboplatin (TC) Regimen for Ovarian Cancer. Hospital Pharmacy. 2014; 49 (5): 425-431.

2. Eisenhauer E.A., Therasse P., Bogaerts J. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 228-47.

3. Guyot P., Ades A.E., Ouwens M.J. & Welton N.J. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2012; 12: 9.

4. Hershman D.L., Lacchetti C., Dworkin R.H., Smith E.M.L., Bleeker J., Cavaletti G., Chauhan C., Gavin P., Lavino A., Lustberg M.B., Paice J., Schneider B., Smith M.L., Smith T., Terstriep S., Wagner-Johnston N., Bak K., Loprinzi C.L. Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 1941-1967.

5. Italian Group for Antiemetic Research. Randomized, double-blind, dose-finding study of dexamethasone in preventing acute emesis induced by anthracyclines, carboplatin, or cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22: 725-729.

6. Jos C.M., Mossink M.S.C. Understanding and Performing Economic Assessments at the Company Level. M.I.M. TNO Work and Employment Geneva. WHO 2002.

7. Sanna V., Pala N., Sechi M. Targeted therapy using nanotechnology: focus on cancer. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2014; 9: 467-83.

8. Schwartz R. Biological Modeling and Simulation: A Survey of Practical Models, Algorithms and Numerical Methods. 2008. The MIT Press.

9. Swarm R.A., Abernethy A.P., Anghelescu D.L. Adult cancer pain. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2013; 11 (8): 992-1022.

10. Tewari K., Monk B. The 21st Century Handbook of Clinical Ovarian Cancer. Berlin: Springer; 2015; 140-142.

11. Vasey P.A., Jayson G.C., Gordon A., et al. Phase III randomized trial of docetaxel-carboplatin versus paclitaxel-carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy for ovarian carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96: 1682-91.

12. Vergote I., Brize A., Lisyanskaya A., Lichinitser M. Randomized phase III study comparing paclical-carboplatin with paclitaxel-carboplatin in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: Suppl; abstr 5517.

13. Аналитическая информация, IMS Россия, 2015 г. [Электронный ресурс]. URL:http://www.ims.ru/.

14. Белоусов Ю.Б., Белоусов Д.Ю. Учебное пособие «Основы фармакоэкономических исследований». М.: 2000 г. Национальный фонд содействия научным и клиническим исследованиям при РГМУ

15. Государственный реестр предельных отпускных цен. [Электронный ресурс] http://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/pricelims.aspx (дата обращения: 02.03.2016).

16. Интернет-ресурс Федерального Государственного Бюджетного Учреждения «Российский Научный Центр Рентгенорадиологии» Министерства здравоохранения российской федерации (ФГБУ «РНЦРР» Минздрава России) [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.rncrr.ru/patsientam/ (дата обращения: 01.03.2016).

17. Информационный сервис «aptekamos.ru» [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://aptekamos.ru/ (дата обращения: 02.03.2016).

18. Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. (ред.). Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2012 году. М.: ФГБУ «МНИОИ им. П. А. Герцена» Минздрава России. 2014; 236.

19. Отраслевой стандарт «Клинико-экономические исследования. Общие положения» Приказ Минздрава РФ от 27.05.2002 №163 вместе с ост 91500.14.0001-2002 [Электронный ресурс]. http://www.healtheconomics.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=300:-q-q&catid=55:2009-05-29-19-56-44&Itemid=104.

20. Приказ Министерства труда и социальной защиты РФ от 29 сентября 2014 г. N 664н «О классификациях и критериях, используемых при осуществлении медико-социальной экспертизы граждан федеральными государственными учреждениями медико-социальной экспертизы».

21. Стандарт первичной медико-санитарной помощи при злокачественных новообразованиях яичников I-IV стадии (обследование в целях установления диагноза заболевания и подготовки к противоопухолевому лечению) (Утверждено приказом Министерства здравоохранения и социального развития Российской Федерации от 20 декабря 2012 года 1150н).

22. Тарифы на медицинские услуги Московского городского фонда ОМС, введённые в действие в 2015 г. [Электронный ресурс]. http://www.mgfoms.ru.

23. Тюляндин С.А. Рак яичников: химиотерапия второй линии. Практич. онкология. 2000; 4: 346-79.

24. Федеральная служба государственной статистики, 2015 г. [Электронный ресурс]. http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/ statistics/accounts/#(дата обращения: 07.03.2016)

25. Федеральная служба государственной статистики, 2015 г. [Электронный ресурс]. http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/ statistics/population/demography/# (дата обращения: 10.03.2016). Численность и состав населения в 2015 г.

26. Федеральный закон от 24.11.1995 N 181-ФЗ (ред. от 29.06.2015) «О социальной защите инвалидов в Российской Федерации».

27. Чиссов В.И., Давыдов М.И. Онкология: Национальное руководство. М.: ГЭОТАР-МЕДИА; 2008.

28. Ягудина Р.И., Юсупова С.Д., Назаренко П.В. Использование фармакоэпидемиологических методов в современной фармации: Учебное пособие. М.: Московская медицинская академия им. И.М. Сеченова. 2003; 64.