Leukemia research · 2016
Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in The Netherlands.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Blommestein Hedwig M, de Groot Saskia, Aarts Mieke J, Vemer Pepijn, de Vries Robin, van Abeelen Annet F M, Posthuma E F M Ward, Uyl-de Groot Carin A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil (GClb) has shown to be superior to rituximab combined with chlorambucil (RClb) and chlorambucil (Clb) in newly diagnosed patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness per life-year and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of GClb compared to RClb, Clb, and ofatumumab plus chlorambucil (OClb) in The Netherlands.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of GClb, RClb, Clb and other treatments in the United Kingdom. A country adaptation was made to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these therapies in The Netherlands using Dutch unit costs and Dutch data sources for background mortality and post-progression survival.
RESULTS: An incremental gain of 1.06 and 0.64 QALYs was estimated for GClb compared to Clb and RClb respectively, at additional costs of €23,208 and €7254 per patient. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were €21,823 and €11,344 per QALY. Indirect treatment comparisons showed an incremental gain varying from 0.44 to 0.77 QALYs for GClb compared to OClb and additional costs varying from €7041 to €5028 per patient. The ICER varied from €6556 to €16,180 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results.
CONCLUSION: GClb appeared to be a cost-effective treatment strategy compared to RClb, OClb and Clb.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of GClb, RClb, Clb and other treatments in the United Kingdom. A country adaptation was made to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these therapies in The Netherlands using Dutch unit costs and Dutch data sources for background mortality and post-progression survival.
RESULTS: An incremental gain of 1.06 and 0.64 QALYs was estimated for GClb compared to Clb and RClb respectively, at additional costs of €23,208 and €7254 per patient. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were €21,823 and €11,344 per QALY. Indirect treatment comparisons showed an incremental gain varying from 0.44 to 0.77 QALYs for GClb compared to OClb and additional costs varying from €7041 to €5028 per patient. The ICER varied from €6556 to €16,180 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results.
CONCLUSION: GClb appeared to be a cost-effective treatment strategy compared to RClb, OClb and Clb.