Urologic oncology · 2023
Sequential intravesical gemcitabine-docetaxel vs. bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) in the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: A preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bukavina Laura, Bell Spencer, Packiam Vignesh T, Smaldone Marc, Abbosh Philip, Uzzo Robert, Kutikov Alexander, Correa Andres F, Magee Diana E
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Treatment naïve patients with high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are treated with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy as the standard of care. Recently, intravesical sequential gemcitabine-docetaxel in the BCG-naïve setting was shown to be well-tolerated and effective, raising the possibility of a new first line intravesical therapy. Cost effectiveness of this intervention remains unknown; therefore, we designed a cost effectiveness study evaluating BCG vs. sequential gemcitabine-docetaxel in patients with high risk NMIBC.
METHODS: Using TreeAgePro 2019 software, we developed a Markov model to evaluate BCG vs. gemcitabine-docetaxel from the U.S. Medicare perspective with a 2-year time horizon. Model probabilities and utilities were derived from published literature. Direct costs were obtained from Medicare cost databases. Our primary outcomes were effectiveness (measured in quality adjusted life years [QALYs]), cost and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000.
RESULTS: Our results indicate that while both treatments resulted in similar QALYs of 1.76, the mean costs per patient at 2 years were $12,363 and $7,090 for BCG and gemcitabine-docetaxel, respectively. Therefore, the BCG strategy was dominated by the gemcitabine-docetaxel strategy as it was equally effective and less costly. One way sensitivity analyses were completed and gemcitabine-docetaxel remained a cost-effective strategy.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis are novel in that they highlight a well tolerated, efficacious drug that is less expensive than the traditional gold standard therapy. In modern medicine, we are more often challenged by agents with marginally increased efficacy but at significantly higher costs; gemcitabine-docetaxel represents a rare entity which is a success for both patients and healthcare systems alike.
METHODS: Using TreeAgePro 2019 software, we developed a Markov model to evaluate BCG vs. gemcitabine-docetaxel from the U.S. Medicare perspective with a 2-year time horizon. Model probabilities and utilities were derived from published literature. Direct costs were obtained from Medicare cost databases. Our primary outcomes were effectiveness (measured in quality adjusted life years [QALYs]), cost and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000.
RESULTS: Our results indicate that while both treatments resulted in similar QALYs of 1.76, the mean costs per patient at 2 years were $12,363 and $7,090 for BCG and gemcitabine-docetaxel, respectively. Therefore, the BCG strategy was dominated by the gemcitabine-docetaxel strategy as it was equally effective and less costly. One way sensitivity analyses were completed and gemcitabine-docetaxel remained a cost-effective strategy.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis are novel in that they highlight a well tolerated, efficacious drug that is less expensive than the traditional gold standard therapy. In modern medicine, we are more often challenged by agents with marginally increased efficacy but at significantly higher costs; gemcitabine-docetaxel represents a rare entity which is a success for both patients and healthcare systems alike.