scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of a dolutegravir-based regimen as first-line treatment of HIV infection in India

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. e25085 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Zheng ◽  
Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy ◽  
Mingshu Huang ◽  
A David Paltiel ◽  
Kenneth H Mayer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hiv Infection ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Budgetary Impact ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost–effectiveness analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Aguilar-Serra ◽  
Vicente Gimeno-Ballester ◽  
Alfonso Pastor-Clerigues ◽  
Javier Milara ◽  
Ezequiel Marti-Bonmati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Estimate Quality ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Aim: To assess the cost–effectiveness of first-line treatment with dacomitinib compared with gefitinib in patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC EGFR-positive in the context of Spain. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed including costs, utilities and disutilities to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost–effectiveness ratio when treating with dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Results: Dacomitinib presented higher QALYs (0.51) compared with gefitinib (0.45). Dacomitinib costs were €33,061 in comparison with €26,692 for gefitinib arm. An incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of €111,048 was obtained for dacomitinib. Conclusion: Dacomitinib was more effective in terms of QALYs gained than gefitinib. However, to obtain a cost–effectiveness alternative, a discount greater than 25% in dacomitinib acquisition cost is required.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation as First-Line Treatment

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. A529
Author(s):  
M. Aronsson ◽  
H. Walfridsson ◽  
M. Janzon ◽  
U. Walfridsson ◽  
L.Å Levin
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Cost-effectiveness of rituximab plus CVP for first-line treatment of advanced indolent lymphoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6583-6583
Author(s):  
J. Hornberger ◽  
C. Reyes ◽  
E. Verhulst ◽  
D. Lubeck ◽  
N. Valente
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

6583 Background: The addition of rituximab (RTX) to CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) in the treatment of advanced follicular lymphoma increases median time to progression by 17 months (15 month v 32 months; p < 0.0001) (Marcus et al, Blood 2005). A societal cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to estimate projected lifetime clinical and economic implications of this treatment. Methods: The cost-effectiveness (CE) of RTX + CVP versus CVP was estimated for a 50 yr old patient. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free and overall survival, up to 4 years, were obtained from the M39021 trial. After 4 years, transition rates from initiation of treatment to progression or death were assumed to be the same in both arms. The clinical and economic implications of relapse and its treatment were included in the model. Incremental costs associated with addition of RTX were estimated using Medicare reimbursement rates and published retail price data. Costs included drug and administration costs, adverse events, treatment of relapses, and end-of-life costs. Utility estimates were derived from the literature and a 3% discount rate was employed. Results: Projected mean overall survival is 1.5 yrs longer for patients assigned to RTX+ CVP versus only CVP (13.7 v 12.2 yrs). The addition of RTX to CVP is estimated to cost an additional $26,439 on average, with an expected gain of 0.85 year of quality-adjusted survival. Over a lifetime, the cost per QALY gained is $31,329. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the variables that most influenced cost-effectiveness were the time horizon (range: $18,800- $31,240) and the unit drug cost of RTX (range: $24,000-$38,000). Conclusion: The model estimates a cost-to-QALY gained ratio that is below that of many treatments used for oncology patients. The use of RTX + CVP for first-line treatment of advanced follicular lymphoma is projected to be cost-effective compared to CVP alone under a range of sensitivity analyses. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Colombia (ONCOLGroup study)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16150-e16150
Author(s):  
J. Godoy ◽  
A. F. Cardona ◽  
H. Cáceres ◽  
J. M. Otero ◽  
M. Lujan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Average Total Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

e16150 Background: Renal cell carcinoma has increased its incidence by 126% since 1950. A local study developed a complete economic evaluation of sunitinib versus IFN in first-line treatment of mRCC in Colombia, finding that sunitinib was more cost-useful and cost-effective. Methods: A Markov model was developed using 6-week cycles for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of four interventions (IFN, sunitinib, bevacizumab+IFN, sorafenib) approved as first-line treatment for mRCC in Colombia. The model used the third-party payer perspective and a 5-year time-line; it also presumed that all the patients (pts) continued with active treatment until progression when it became acceptable to continue with a second-line treatment or BSC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves of IFN were used as reference framework; they were obtained form a published clinical trial. The hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were estimated for comparing new generation medicaments with IFN. The information about frequency of use and health service cost units consumed in Colombia was taken from a series of 24 pts treated in Manizales, Pereira, Medellín and Bogotá. Service costs were requested from an external consultant and corresponded to the average value billed by the EPSs, calculated from 33 sources of information which were representative of the country's market. The cost of the medicaments was obtained from LCLC. The costs and benefits were discounted annually at 3%. (all cost are presented in Colombian pesos Col$ 2008 with an exchange rate 1 USD = 1836.20 Col$). Results: Incremental analysis indicated a difference of 41.1 million Col$ in the average total cost of treatment when Sunitinib was compared to IFN; in contrast, comparing sorafenib and Bevacizumab+INF to sunitinib demonstrated that the average total cost was less for the sunitinib by 8.3 and 104.2 million Col$, respectively. Additionally, the ratios of incremental cost-effectiveness by life years (LY) gained demonstrated sunitinib's simple dominance over sorafenib and the combination of bevacizumab+IFN, and an average by LY gained of 100.5 million Col$ compared to IFN. Conclusions: Sunitinib is the most cost-effective option as first-line treatment for mRCC pts in Colombia. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness of First-Line Treatment with Doxorubicin/Ifosfamide Compared to Trabectedin Monotherapy in the Management of Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Italy, Spain, and Sweden

Sarcoma ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian F. Guest ◽  
Monica Panca ◽  
Erikas Sladkevicius ◽  
Nicholas Gough ◽  
Mark Linch
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background. Doxorubicin/ifosfamide is a first-line systemic chemotherapy for the majority of advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS) subtypes. Trabectedin is indicated for the treatment of ASTS after failure of anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide; however it is being increasingly used off-label as a first-line treatment. This study estimated the cost effectiveness of these two treatments in the first-line management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, and Sweden.Methods. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy, defined as the cost per QALY gained, in each country.Results. First-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide resulted in lower two-year healthcare costs and more QALYs than first-line treatment with trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a cost per QALY threshold of €35,000, >90% of a cohort would be cost effectively treated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries.Conclusion. Within the model’s limitations, first-line treatment of patients with ASTS with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded healthcare resources in Italy, Spain, and Sweden and is therefore the preferred treatment in all three countries. These findings support the recommendation that trabectedin should remain a second-line treatment.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Different PD-L1 Expression Status

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoqiang Liu ◽  
Shuo Kang ◽  
Xinchen Wang ◽  
Fangjian Shang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Expression Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

BackgroundAtezolizumab could significantly improve clinical outcomes and was associated with less toxicity compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of PD-L1-selected patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the economic outcomes remain unclear yet in China. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with different PD-L1 expression status from the Chinese health sector perspective.MethodsA decision-analytic model was conducted to evaluate the economic outcomes for the first-line treatment of EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic NSCLC with atezolizumab and chemotherapy in high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower110 trial. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and published literatures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model results.ResultsAtezolizumab yielded additional 0.91 QALYs, 0.57 QALYs, 0.42 QALYs in comparison with chemotherapy, and the ICERs were $123,778.60/QALY, $142,827.19/QALY, $168,902.66/QALY in the high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression, and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. When PAP was available, the ICERs were $52,414.63/QALY, $52,329.73/QALY, $61,189.66/QALY in the three categories of PD-L1 expression status populations, respectively. The ICERs were exceed the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,828/QALY (three times of per capita gross domestic product of China in 2019) in China. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost of atezolizumab played a vital role in the model outcomes, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed atezolizumab was unlikely to be cost-effective at the WTP threshold regardless of PD-L1 expression status and whether the PAP was available or not.ConclusionsAtezolizumab as first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected metastatic NSCLC patients without EGFR mutations or ALK translocations is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 expression status in the Chinese context.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Lenvatinib in the Treatment of Advanced or Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma from a Canadian Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Brandon M. Meyers ◽  
Arndt Vogel ◽  
Paul Marotta ◽  
Petr Kavan ◽  
Laveena Kamboj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Canadian Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor indicated for the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). In the Phase III REFLECT trial, lenvatinib was noninferior in the primary endpoint of overall survival versus sorafenib, the only systemic therapy funded in Canada prior to the introduction of lenvatinib. Lenvatinib also demonstrated statistically significant improvement compared to sorafenib in secondary endpoint progression-free survival, time to progression, and objective response rate. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib for the first-line treatment of patients with uHCC from a Canadian perspective. A cost-utility analysis was conducted using partitioned survival modelling, with health states representing progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death. Health effects were measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were represented in Canadian dollars. Clinical inputs were derived from the REFLECT trial, with outcomes extrapolated using parametric survival models. EQ-5D data collected in REFLECT were used to determine health state utility values, and estimates of resource use came from a survey of clinicians. The model predicted incremental costs of-$5,021 and incremental QALYs of 0.17, making lenvatinib dominant over sorafenib. The model demonstrates lenvatinib to be a cost-effective use of resources versus sorafenib in Canada for the treatment of uHCC. Overall costs are lower compared with sorafenib, while health benefits are greater, with modelled progression-free and overall survival extended by 4.1 and 2.6 months in the lenvatinib arm, respectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document