ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2026
Tivozanib versus Sorafenib as Subsequent-Line Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a US Healthcare Perspective.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The incidence of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) continues to rise in the United States. While first-line combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have improved outcomes, most patients eventually require subsequent-line therapy. The Phase III TIVO-3 trial demonstrated that tivozanib significantly prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib in relapsed or refractory aRCC, though without overall survival advantage. However, its economic value remains unestablished. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tivozanib versus sorafenib from a US healthcare perspective. Patients and Methods: A Partitioned Survival Model was developed using TreeAge Pro 2022 to simulate clinical outcomes over a 10-year lifetime horizon. Survival data were reconstructed from TIVO-3 trial Kaplan-Meier curves and extrapolated using standard parametric distributions. The model incorporated direct medical costs, including drug acquisition, monitoring, adverse event management, and terminal care. Health utilities were sourced from published literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Results: In the base-case analysis, tivozanib yielded 1.65 QALYs at a cost of $634,441.98, compared to 1.61 QALYs and $438,239.46 for sorafenib, corresponding to an incremental QALY gain of 0.04. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $4,865,127.00 per QALY, substantially exceeding the $150,000 per QALY threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that tivozanib was unlikely to be cost-effective at current pricing. Scenario analysis revealed that tivozanib only achieves cost-effectiveness if its acquisition cost is reduced by more than 49%. Conclusion: Despite superior PFS, tivozanib is unlikely to be a cost-effective subsequent-line therapy for aRCC compared to sorafenib at its current US market price. The high ICER is primarily driven by substantial drug costs relative to modest incremental health gains. Substantial price reductions are necessary to improve its value proposition within the US healthcare system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.