Pharmacogenomics · 2011
Application of cost-effectiveness analysis to demonstrate the potential value of companion diagnostics in chronic myeloid leukemia.
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.
Gaultney Jennifer G, Sanhueza Enrique, Janssen Jeroen J, Redekop William K, Uyl-de Groot Carin A
Аннотация
AIM: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess the potential value of companion diagnostics in supporting treatment decisions for dasatinib and nilotinib in chronic myeloid leukemia.
MATERIALS & METHODS: A decision model was developed, and model inputs were taken from the literature and publicly available sources. The perspective of the healthcare sector in the Netherlands was used. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the results.
RESULTS: Companion diagnostics could improve health and reduce costs, despite the estimates being uncertain owing to limited evidence for comparative effectiveness between dasatinib and nilotinib. The results were sensitive to the cost of treatment, utility of progression and progression-free survival.
CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates the use of cost-effectiveness analysis at an early stage of health technology assessment to generate economic evidence for the use of companion diagnostics in treatment decisions and to support decision-making for their development.
MATERIALS & METHODS: A decision model was developed, and model inputs were taken from the literature and publicly available sources. The perspective of the healthcare sector in the Netherlands was used. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the results.
RESULTS: Companion diagnostics could improve health and reduce costs, despite the estimates being uncertain owing to limited evidence for comparative effectiveness between dasatinib and nilotinib. The results were sensitive to the cost of treatment, utility of progression and progression-free survival.
CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates the use of cost-effectiveness analysis at an early stage of health technology assessment to generate economic evidence for the use of companion diagnostics in treatment decisions and to support decision-making for their development.