International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab versus placebo for relapsed malignant mesothelioma.
Рандомизированное исследованиеКлиническое исследование III фазыСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lang Wenwang, Wei Jiarong, Jiang Qinling, Ai Qi, Zhao Xianling, Xiao Liang, He Yulong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although nivolumab has shown clinical benefits for relapsed malignant mesothelioma, its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared to placebo for relapsed malignant mesotheliomas from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
METHOD: A three-state Markov model was developed based on data from the phase 3 randomized CONFIRM clinical trial. The drug cost and utility values for the health state were obtained from the relevant literature. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model.
RESULTS: Patients receiving nivolumab gained more health benefits (0.65 QALYs vs. 0.43 QALYs). The cost was higher ($25,806.08 vs. $9,310.74) than for patients in the placebo group, resulting in an ICER of $75,805.11/QALY, which was above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of three times per capita GDP ($35,864.61) in China. The result of OWSA indicated that the cost of nivolumab, the utility of the disease progression, and the discount rate were the most significant factors. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probability that nivolumab was not cost-effective as was 100.00% above the specified WTP threshold.
CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, nivolumab was not as cost-effective as placebo for relapsed malignant mesothelioma.
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared to placebo for relapsed malignant mesotheliomas from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
METHOD: A three-state Markov model was developed based on data from the phase 3 randomized CONFIRM clinical trial. The drug cost and utility values for the health state were obtained from the relevant literature. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model.
RESULTS: Patients receiving nivolumab gained more health benefits (0.65 QALYs vs. 0.43 QALYs). The cost was higher ($25,806.08 vs. $9,310.74) than for patients in the placebo group, resulting in an ICER of $75,805.11/QALY, which was above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of three times per capita GDP ($35,864.61) in China. The result of OWSA indicated that the cost of nivolumab, the utility of the disease progression, and the discount rate were the most significant factors. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probability that nivolumab was not cost-effective as was 100.00% above the specified WTP threshold.
CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, nivolumab was not as cost-effective as placebo for relapsed malignant mesothelioma.