Frontiers in public health · 2022
Cost-effectiveness analysis of drug-eluting beads and conventional transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.
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.
Shao Guoliang, Wang Jingwen, Zhou Xiaoying, Sun Guojun, Dong Zuojun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of drug-eluting beads transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) and conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (cTACE) for first-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
METHODS: Based on the real-world clinical data of HCC patients receiving interventional therapy, a partitioned survival model was constructed for cost-effectiveness analysis. The model period is 1 month, and the research time limit is 10 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is used as the evaluation index. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to analyze the uncertainty of parameters to test the stability of the model results.
RESULTS: The ICER of the DEB-TACE group was 11,875.62 $/QALYs, which was lower than the willingness to pay threshold (WTP) of 31,499.23 $/QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility value of progression-free survival (PFS) in the DEB-TACE group had the greatest impact. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at the level of WTP of 31,499.23 $/QALYs, DEB-TACE had a cost-effective probability of 92%.
CONCLUSION: Under the current economic level in my country, DEB-TACE is more cost-effective than cTACE in the treatment of HCC patients.
METHODS: Based on the real-world clinical data of HCC patients receiving interventional therapy, a partitioned survival model was constructed for cost-effectiveness analysis. The model period is 1 month, and the research time limit is 10 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is used as the evaluation index. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to analyze the uncertainty of parameters to test the stability of the model results.
RESULTS: The ICER of the DEB-TACE group was 11,875.62 $/QALYs, which was lower than the willingness to pay threshold (WTP) of 31,499.23 $/QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility value of progression-free survival (PFS) in the DEB-TACE group had the greatest impact. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at the level of WTP of 31,499.23 $/QALYs, DEB-TACE had a cost-effective probability of 92%.
CONCLUSION: Under the current economic level in my country, DEB-TACE is more cost-effective than cTACE in the treatment of HCC patients.