Cost-Effectiveness of Daraxonrasib vs Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
Han, S.; Starasvetskaya, N.; Terrero, G.; Hosein, P.; de Lima Lopes Junior, G.
Show abstract
Abstract Introduction: Daraxonrasib is the first broad RAS-targeted medicine approved for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In RASolute 302, it approximately doubled median overall survival in the prespecified RAS G12 population. The US wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) is $39,800 per 30-day supply. Contemporary oncology launch prices have risen substantially, and many recently launched drugs have been priced above value-based benchmarks. The value of a genuinely transformative oncology therapy at this price is uncertain. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of daraxonrasib compared with investigators-choice chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma using publicly available clinical and economic data. Design, Setting, and Participants: Economic evaluation using a 3-state partitioned survival model informed by the international randomized phase 3 RASolute 302 trial. Published Kaplan-Meier curves and numbers at risk were used to reconstruct pseudo-individual patient data. The RAS G12 population (n=459), corresponding to the trials dual primary efficacy end points, was the primary economic population; the overall randomized population (n=500) was analyzed in parallel. Analyses were conducted in 2026 from a US health sector perspective. Exposures: Daraxonrasib 300 mg orally once daily versus investigators-choice chemotherapy, weighted to the observed trial regimen distribution. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and the 30-day daraxonrasib price consistent with willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000, $150,000, $200,000, and $255,000/QALY. Costs were expressed in 2026 US dollars and discounted at 3% annually. Results: In the RAS G12 population, daraxonrasib generated 0.652 additional life-years and 0.506 additional QALYs at an incremental cost of $253,171, yielding an ICER of $500,637/QALY. The corresponding overall-population ICER was $542,255/QALY. A 10-year horizon changed the RAS G12 ICER to $497,270/QALY; using curve-specific distributions selected by Akaike information criterion produced $493,895/QALY. In 5000 probabilistic simulations, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0% at $150,000 and $200,000/QALY and 0.1% at $255,000/QALY. Threshold prices in the RAS G12 population were $14,060 per 30 days at $150,000/QALY and $17,730 at $200,000/QALY, reductions of 64.7% and 55.5% from WAC. An independent secondary implementation using separately digitized survival curves and piecewise-exponential extrapolation produced a higher ICER; after calibrating drug exposure to observed treatment duration, the estimate remained approximately $676,000/QALY, with most of the difference attributable to the extrapolated treatment-exposure tail. Conclusions and Relevance: Daraxonrasib nearly doubled median overall survival in previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, in which median survival with standard chemotherapy was about 7 months, and should remain available to eligible patients. At WAC, daraxonrasib costs approximately $500,000 per QALY, well above conventional US benchmarks. Because actual net acquisition prices may reflect confidential discounts or rebates, the ICER based on WAC may exceed the ICER at the net price. Threshold list prices consistent with $150,000-$200,000/QALY were $14,060-$17,730 per 30 days (a 55%-65% reduction from WAC), offered as reference points for pricing and coverage discussions rather than recommended prices.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Emerging Therapies for COVID-19: the value of information from more clinical trials 91%
- Statistical Decision Properties of Imprecise Trials Assessing COVID-19 Drugs 90%
- New IPECAD open-source model framework for the health technology assessment of early Alzheimer’s disease treatment: development and use cases 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cost-effectiveness of real-world administration of chemotherapy and add-on Viscum album L. therapy compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of stage IV NSCLC patients 92%
- First-Line Systemic Treatment Strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma : a cost-effectiveness analysis 91%
- A Core Outcome Set to evaluate the impact of prognostication in people living with advanced cancer: an international consensus study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Bayesian Interim Analysis and Efficiency of Phase III Randomized Trials 93%
- Bacterial lipopolysaccharide as negative predictor of gemcitabine efficacy in advanced pancreatic cancer * translational results from the AIO-PK0104 phase 3 study 91%
- Immortal time bias in older vs younger age groups: a simulation study with application to a population-based cohort of patients with colon cancer 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Prediction of oncogene mutation status in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis with a special focus on artificial-intelligence-based methods 89%
- Predicting EGFR mutation status in lung adenocarcinoma presenting as ground-glass opacity: utilizing radiomics model in clinical translation 87%
- Cost-effectiveness of CT perfusion for the detection of large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke followed by endovascular treatment: A model-based health economic evaluation study 85%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Benefits and Budget Impact of Lenzilumab plus Standard of Care Compared with Standard of Care Alone for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in the United States from the Hospital Perspective 90%
- Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of the Next-Generation COVID-19 mRNA-1283 Vaccine in the United States 89%
- Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of the COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine in the United States 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.