↓ Skip to main content

Pazopanib for the First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Pazopanib for the First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s40273-012-0006-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Kilonzo, Jenni Hislop, Andrew Elders, Cynthia Fraser, Donald Bissett, Samuel McClinton, Graham Mowatt, Luke Vale

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of pazopanib hydrochloride (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug for the first-line treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group were commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The objective of this paper is to summarize the independent review and critique of the evidence submitted for the consideration of the NICE Appraisal Committee and NICE's subsequently issued guidance. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. For progression-free survival (PFS), there was a statistically significant longer survival for pazopanib compared with placebo (as assessed by the ERG, based upon the original manufacturer submission with a clinical cut-off date of 23 May 2008) [median 11.1 vs. 2.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95 % CI 0.27, 0.60]. Data from the indirect comparison suggested that pazopanib had a greater survival than interferon alpha (IFN-α) [HR 0.512; 95 % CI 0.326, 0.802] but provided no evidence of any difference compared with sunitinib (HR 0.949; 95 % CI 0.575, 1.568). With regard to overall survival, 64 % (n = 99) of patients in the pazopanib arm and 63 % (n = 49) of patients in the placebo arm had died and a total of 51 % (n = 40) of placebo patients had crossed over to receive pazopanib. Although data were provided on an intention-to-treat basis, crossover between therapies made such data difficult to interpret. There was no evidence of any statistically significant difference between pazopanib and best supportive care (HR 0.501; 95 % CI 0.136, 2.348). In the indirect comparison, there were no statistically significant differences between pazopanib and IFN-α (HR 0.627; 95 % CI 0.173, 2.269) or between pazopanib and sunitinib (HR 0.969; 95 % CI 0.359, 2.608). Based upon the work presented including a 12.5 % discount for pazopanib, sunitinib was extendedly dominated by a combination of pazopanib and IFN-α. As a consequence, the incremental cost per QALY for pazopanib versus IFN-α was £38,925. The results were not greatly altered over the range of univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses conducted by the manufacturer but pair-wise probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that given a threshold value of £30,000, there is a 54 % probability that pazopanib was preferred to sunitinib, 40 % chance against IFN-α and 47 % chance against best supportive care. The Appraisal Committee concluded that pazopanib should be recommended as a first-line treatment option for people with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have not received prior cytokine therapy and have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and if the manufacturer provides pazopanib with a 12.5 % discount on the list price and provides a possible future rebate linked to the outcome of the head-to-head COMPARZ trial, as agreed under the terms of the patient access scheme and to be confirmed when the COMPARZ trial data are made available.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 25%
Student > Master 9 19%
Unspecified 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Other 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Unspecified 9 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 5 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,552,089
of 13,589,098 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#391
of 1,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,148
of 248,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#16
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,589,098 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 248,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.