Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2017
Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional bevacizumab to pemetrexed plus cisplatin for malignant pleural mesothelioma based on the MAPS trial.
Клиническое исследование III фазыСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Zhan Mei, Zheng Hanrui, Xu Ting, Yang Yu, Li Qiu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy, and pemetrexed/cisplatin (PC) is the gold standard first-line regime. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the addition of bevacizumab to PC (with maintenance bevacizumab) for unresectable MPM based on a phase III trial that showed a survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone.
METHODS: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the incorporation of bevacizumab, a Markov model based on the MAPS trial, including the disease states of progression-free survival, progressive disease and death, was used. Total costs were calculated from a Chinese payer perspective, and health outcomes were converted into quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Model robustness was explored in sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: The addition of bevacizumab to PC was estimated to increase the cost by $81446.69, with a gain of 0.112 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $727202.589 per QALY. In both one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the ICER exceeded the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product per capita of China ($23970.00 per QALY). The cost of bevacizumab had the most important impact on the ICER.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of bevacizumab with PC chemotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MPM in China. Given its positive clinical value and extremely low incidence of MPM, an appropriate price discount, assistance programs and medical insurance should be considered to make bevacizumab more affordable for this rare patient population.
METHODS: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the incorporation of bevacizumab, a Markov model based on the MAPS trial, including the disease states of progression-free survival, progressive disease and death, was used. Total costs were calculated from a Chinese payer perspective, and health outcomes were converted into quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Model robustness was explored in sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: The addition of bevacizumab to PC was estimated to increase the cost by $81446.69, with a gain of 0.112 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $727202.589 per QALY. In both one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the ICER exceeded the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product per capita of China ($23970.00 per QALY). The cost of bevacizumab had the most important impact on the ICER.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of bevacizumab with PC chemotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MPM in China. Given its positive clinical value and extremely low incidence of MPM, an appropriate price discount, assistance programs and medical insurance should be considered to make bevacizumab more affordable for this rare patient population.