Biomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2014
Cost-effectiveness of nilotinib, dasatinib and imatinib as first-line treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia in Colombia, 2012.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Romero Martín, Chávez Diana, De Los Ríos Magalí, Alvis-Guzmán Nelson
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: New tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments for chronic myeloid leukemia based on nilotinib, dasatinib and imatinib have improved patient quality of life and have turned chronic myeloid leukemia from a fatal disease into a chronic disease.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nilotinib, 600 mg, and dasatinib, 100 mg, each compared to imatinib, 400 mg, as first-line therapy in chronic myeloid leukemia in Colombia from a third-party payer's perspective.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov model to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of one hundred 55 year-old patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase, and the time horizon for the baseline case was established as being until the end of life. Progression-free life-years saved were considered the primary outcome. Transition probabilities for major molecular response, disease progression to accelerated phase or blast crisis, and chronic myeloid leukemia related deaths were analyzed in the model for each arm. A 3% discount rate was applied to all costs and patient outcomes. Model robustness was evaluated using both univariate and multivariate Montecarlo sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Nilotinib was higher in expected progression-free life-years saved (15.21 vs. 12.64 for imatinib), followed by dasatinib (14.91 vs. 14.54 for imatinib). Imatinib had lower total lifetime costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$ 33,120.36 in the nilotinib arm and US$ 514,939.08 in the dasatinib arm per progression-free life-years (PF-LYs) saved, each compared to imatinib. When analyzing nilotinib versus dasatinib indirectly, nilotinib was found to be dominant due to higher efficacy (2.25 PF-LYs) and lower costs (US$ 44,674) in the baseline case. The average estimated cost to manage disease progression per year was US$ 101,978.78, considered to be the threshold.
CONCLUSION: In Colombia, using PF-LYs as the efficacy outcome, nilotinib is highly cost-effective when compared to imatinib and dominant vs. dasatinib in first-line therapy for CML in chronic phase.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nilotinib, 600 mg, and dasatinib, 100 mg, each compared to imatinib, 400 mg, as first-line therapy in chronic myeloid leukemia in Colombia from a third-party payer's perspective.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov model to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of one hundred 55 year-old patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase, and the time horizon for the baseline case was established as being until the end of life. Progression-free life-years saved were considered the primary outcome. Transition probabilities for major molecular response, disease progression to accelerated phase or blast crisis, and chronic myeloid leukemia related deaths were analyzed in the model for each arm. A 3% discount rate was applied to all costs and patient outcomes. Model robustness was evaluated using both univariate and multivariate Montecarlo sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Nilotinib was higher in expected progression-free life-years saved (15.21 vs. 12.64 for imatinib), followed by dasatinib (14.91 vs. 14.54 for imatinib). Imatinib had lower total lifetime costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$ 33,120.36 in the nilotinib arm and US$ 514,939.08 in the dasatinib arm per progression-free life-years (PF-LYs) saved, each compared to imatinib. When analyzing nilotinib versus dasatinib indirectly, nilotinib was found to be dominant due to higher efficacy (2.25 PF-LYs) and lower costs (US$ 44,674) in the baseline case. The average estimated cost to manage disease progression per year was US$ 101,978.78, considered to be the threshold.
CONCLUSION: In Colombia, using PF-LYs as the efficacy outcome, nilotinib is highly cost-effective when compared to imatinib and dominant vs. dasatinib in first-line therapy for CML in chronic phase.