Cancer medicine · 2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuing bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone after first progression of metastatic colorectal cancer.
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.
Li Yulian, Hu Min, Zhang Zhe, Chu Mingming, Xu Rufu, Liu Lulu, Dong Wenxing, Yang Mengmeng, Zhang Rong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Continuation of bevacizumab plus second-line chemotherapy has significantly improved overall and progression-free survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the cost-effectiveness of such high cost therapy is still uncertain in China; so this analysis was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options from the Chinese health care system perspective.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using data from the ML18147 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00700102) by modeling a partitioned survival model. Main evaluation indicators were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and stability of the model. Subgroup and scenario analyses were also performed to make our study more relevant.
RESULTS: Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy increased 0.12 QALYs and an incremental cost of $22,761.62 compared with chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of $188,904.09 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival and the cost of bevacizumab. Compared with chemotherapy, bevacizumab plus chemotherapy had a 0% cost-effectiveness probability, and no cost-effectiveness in subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY. The scenario analysis found that bevacizumab biosimilar gained an ICER of $126,397.38 per QALY when assuming the cost of drugs was calculated at the most affordable price.
CONCLUSIONS: At the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY, continuation of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is unlikely considered cost-effective for patients after first progression of mCRC.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using data from the ML18147 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00700102) by modeling a partitioned survival model. Main evaluation indicators were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and stability of the model. Subgroup and scenario analyses were also performed to make our study more relevant.
RESULTS: Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy increased 0.12 QALYs and an incremental cost of $22,761.62 compared with chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of $188,904.09 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival and the cost of bevacizumab. Compared with chemotherapy, bevacizumab plus chemotherapy had a 0% cost-effectiveness probability, and no cost-effectiveness in subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY. The scenario analysis found that bevacizumab biosimilar gained an ICER of $126,397.38 per QALY when assuming the cost of drugs was calculated at the most affordable price.
CONCLUSIONS: At the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY, continuation of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is unlikely considered cost-effective for patients after first progression of mCRC.