scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer in Guangzhou, southern China: a Markov simulation analysis based on natural community screening results

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e049581
Author(s):  
Qin Zhou ◽  
Hai-lin Li ◽  
Yan Li ◽  
Yu-ting Gu ◽  
Ying-ru Liang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different primary screening strategies: high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) alone, single immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT), double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening compared with no screening using the Markov model.MethodsTreeage Pro V.2011 software was used to simulate the Markov model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was compared with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, was used to reflect the cost-effectiveness of the CRC screening method. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used for parameter uncertainty.ResultsAll strategies had greater effectiveness because they had more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than no screening. When the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, all screening strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. The double iFOBT strategy was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies because it had the most QALYs and the least cost. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the sensitivity of low-risk adenoma, compliance with colonoscopy and primary screening cost were the main influencing factors comparing single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT with no screening. However, within the scope of this study, there was no fundamental impact on cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, the probabilities of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve with HRFQ alone, single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT were 0.0%, 5.3%, 69.3% and 25.4%, respectively.ConclusionsAll screening strategies for CRC were cost-effective compared with no screening strategy. Double iFOBT was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies. The significant influencing factors were the sensitivity of low-risk polyps, compliance with colonoscopy and cost of primary screening.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in China: an economic analysis based on a randomised, open-label, phase III trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e038867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenxiu Xin ◽  
Haiying Ding ◽  
Qilu Fang ◽  
Xiaowei Zheng ◽  
Yinghui Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Platinum Resistant ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundPembrolizumab was recently demonstrated to have survival benefit in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (r/mHNSCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in China remains uncertain.ObjectiveThis analysis aimed to describe the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus standard-of-care (SOC) therapy in r/mHNSCC in China.DesignA Markov model consisting of three health states (stable, progressive and dead) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab with SOC in platinum-resistant r/mHNSCC. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were collected from the KEYNOTE-040 trial, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Cost data were acquired for the payer’s perspective in China. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainties surrounding model parameters.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).ResultsThe total mean cost of pembrolizumab and SOC was US$45 861 and US$41 950, respectively. As for effectiveness, pembrolizumab yielded 0.31 QALYs compared with 0.25 QALYs for SOC therapy. The ICER for pembrolizumab versus SOC was US$65 186/QALY, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of US$28 130/QALY in China. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that utility values for progressive state, probability from stable to progressive in the SOC group, as well as cost of pembrolizumab were the three most influential variables on ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that standard therapy was more likely to be cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab at a WTP value of US$28 130/QALY. Results were robust across both univariate analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsPembrolizumab is not likely to be a cost-effective strategy compared with SOC therapy in patients with platinum-resistant r/mHNSCC in China.Trial registration numberNCT02252042; Post-results.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoaki Sugiura ◽  
Yuki Seo ◽  
Takayuki Takahashi ◽  
Hideyuki Tokura ◽  
Yasuhiro Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is an anticipated combination regimen for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer. However, evidence supporting its use for this indication is limited. We compared the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy with TAS-102 monotherapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Method Markov decision modeling using treatment costs, disease-free survival, and overall survival was performed to examine the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy and TAS-102 monotherapy. The Japanese health care payer’s perspective was adopted. The outcomes were modeled on the basis of published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment regimens was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analysis was performed and the effect of uncertainty on the model parameters were investigated. Results TAS-102 plus bevacizumab had an ICER of $21,534 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with TAS-102 monotherapy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that TAS-102 monotherapy was more cost-effective than TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay of under $50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective option for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer in the Japanese health care system.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Venous Thromboembolism in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke-Xin Sun ◽  
Bin Cui ◽  
Shan-Shan Cao ◽  
Qi-Xiang Huang ◽  
Ru-Yi Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Background: The drug therapy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a significant economic burden to the health-care system in low- and middle-income countries. To understand which anticoagulation therapy is most cost-effective for clinical decision-making , the cost-effectiveness of apixaban (API) versus rivaroxaban (RIV), dabigatran (DAB), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), followed by vitamin K antagonist (VKA), in the treatment of VTE in China was assessed.Methods: To access the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed using a Markov model with 5 health states. The Markov model was developed using patient data collected from the Xijing Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2021. The time horizon was set at 30 years, and a 6-month cycle length was used in the model. Costs and ICERs were reported in 2020 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to test the uncertainties. A Chinese health-care system perspective was used.Results: In the base case, the data of 231 VTE patients were calculated in the base case analysis retrospectively. The RIV group resulted in a mean VTE attributable to 95% effective treatment. API, DAB, and VKA have a negative ICER (−187017.543, −284,674.922, and −9,283.339, respectively) and were absolutely dominated. The Markov model results confirmed this observation. The ICER of the API and RIV was negative (−216176.977), which belongs to the absolute inferiority scheme, and the ICER value of the DAB and VKA versus RIV was positive (110,577.872 and 836,846.343). Since the ICER of DAB and VKA exceeds the threshold, RIV therapy was likely to be the best choice for the treatment of VTE within the acceptable threshold range. The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that the model output varied mostly with the cost in the DAB on-treatment therapy. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 1,000 patients for 30 years, RIV has 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with other regimens when the WTP is $10973 per QALY. When WTP exceeded $148,000, DAB was more cost-effective than RIV.Conclusions: Compared with LMWH + VKA and API, the results proved that RIV may be the most cost-effective treatment for VTE patients in China. Our findings could be helpful for physicians in clinical decision-making to select the appropriate treatment option for VTE.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628482110023
Author(s):  
Robert Benamouzig ◽  
Stéphanie Barré ◽  
Jean-Christophe Saurin ◽  
Henri Leleu ◽  
Alexandre Vimont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Familial History ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

Background and aims: Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population. Methods: Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually. Results: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY ( versus no screening) and €3100/QALY ( versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy ( versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening. Conclusion: At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives. Plain Language Summary Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history. Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years. Colonoscopy every 3–5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost–effectiveness ratio. Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colon cancer screening strategies in the context of the French national screening program

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175628482095336
Author(s):  
Stéphanie Barré ◽  
Henri Leleu ◽  
R. Benamouzig ◽  
Jean-Christophe Saurin ◽  
Alexandre Vimont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Real World ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Stool Dna ◽  
The Cost

Background: A nationwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was set up in France from 2009 for average-risk, asymptomatic people aged 50–74 years based on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test [faecal immunochemical test (FIT)] every 2 years, followed by colonoscopy if positive. The European standard recommends a participation rate of 45% for the program to be cost-effective, yet the latest published rate in France was 34%. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives taking real-world participation rates into account. Methods: Eight screening strategies were compared, based either on a screening test (Guaiac or FIT testing, blood-based, stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy) followed by full colonoscopy if positive or direct colonoscopy. A microsimulation model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness associated with each strategy. Results: Compared with no screening, FIT was associated with a 14.0 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increase of €50,520 per 1000 individuals, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3600/QALY. Only stool DNA and blood-based testing were associated with a QALY increase compared with FIT, with stool DNA weakly dominated by blood-based testing, and the latter associated with an ICER of €154,600/QALY compared with FIT. All other strategies were dominated by FIT. Conclusion: FIT every 2 years appears to be the most cost-effective CRC screening strategy when taking into account a real-world participation rate of 34%.

scholarly journals Acknowledging patient heterogeneity in colorectal cancer screening: An example from Norway

2018 ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
Mathyn A.M. Vervaart ◽  
Emily A. Burger ◽  
Eline Aas
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Patient Heterogeneity ◽  
The Cost

Abstract: Different sources of patient heterogeneity or personal characteristics may contribute to differential cost-effectiveness profiles of national screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC). To motivate the use of subgroup analyses when individual level data are unavailable, we provide a stylized example of the potential economic value of capturing patient heterogeneity in CRC screening. We developed a Markov model to capture the impacts of patient heterogeneity on the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening involving once-only sigmoidoscopy compared to no screening. We simulated cohorts of Norwegian men, women, and six comorbidity subgroups that differentially influenced the relative treatment effect, the risks of developing CRC, dying from CRC, dying from background mortality or screening-related adverse events and baseline quality of life. We calculated the discounted (4%) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and the net monetary benefit (NMB) gained by stratification, from a societal perspective. Screening in men was cost-effective at any threshold value, while screening in women only provides good value for money from threshold values of €50,000 per QALY gained and above. Comorbidities unrelated to CRC development yielded generally less attractive cost-effectiveness ratios (i.e., increased the ICER), while related comorbidities improved the cost-effectiveness profiles of screening for CRC. A stratified policy that accounts for different screening outcomes between men and women could potentially improve the value of screening by €5.8 million annually. Accounting for patient heterogeneity in CRC screening will likely improve the value of screening strategies, as a single screening approach for the entire population can result in inefficient use of resources.Published: Online December 2018.

scholarly journals Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan LI ◽  
Lingbin Du ◽  
Youqing Wang ◽  
Yuxuan Gu ◽  
Xuemei Zhen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Endoscopic Screening ◽  
Lugol’S Iodine ◽  
Iodine Staining ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of one-time standard endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining for esophageal cancer (EC) in China. Methods: A Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Individuals aged 40 to 69 years were classified into six age groups in five-year intervals. Three different strategies were adopted for each cohort: (1) no screening; (2) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining with an annual follow-up for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN); and (3) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining without follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) indicated the effectiveness of the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation indicator. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: One-time screening with follow-up was the undominated strategy for individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49 years, which saved USD 10,942.57 and USD 6,611.73 per QALY gained compared to nonscreening strategy. For those aged 50-69 years, the nonscreening scenarios were undominated. One-time screening without follow-up was the extended dominated strategy. Compared to screening strategies without follow-up, all the screening strategies with follow-up were more cost-effective, with the ICER increasing from 299.57 USD/QALY for individuals aged 40-44 years to 1617.72 USD/QALY for individuals aged 65-69 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) supported the results of the base case analysis. Conclusions: One-time EC screening with follow-up targeting individuals aged 40-49 years was the most cost-effective strategy.

scholarly journals Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan Li ◽  
Lingbin Du ◽  
Youqing Wang ◽  
Yuxuan Gu ◽  
Xuemei Zhen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Endoscopic Screening ◽  
Lugol’S Iodine ◽  
Iodine Staining ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of one-time standard endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining for esophageal cancer (EC) in China. Methods A Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Individuals aged 40 to 69 years were classified into six age groups in five-year intervals. Three different strategies were adopted for each cohort: (1) no screening; (2) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining with an annual follow-up for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN); and (3) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining without follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) indicated the effectiveness of the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation indicator. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results One-time screening with follow-up was the undominated strategy for individuals aged 40–44 and 45–49 years, which saved USD 10,942.57 and USD 6611.73 per QALY gained compared to nonscreening strategy. For those aged 50–69 years, the nonscreening scenarios were undominated. One-time screening without follow-up was the extended dominated strategy. Compared to screening strategies without follow-up, all the screening strategies with follow-up were more cost-effective, with the ICER increasing from 299.57 USD/QALY for individuals aged 40–44 years to 1617.72 USD/QALY for individuals aged 65–69 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) supported the results of the base case analysis. Conclusions One-time EC screening with follow-up targeting individuals aged 40–49 years was the most cost-effective strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Community Interventions for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Low-Income Hispanic Population

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 863-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Lairson ◽  
Junghyun Kim ◽  
Theresa Byrd ◽  
Rebekah Salaiz ◽  
Navkiran K. Shokar
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Nonparametric Bootstrap ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Mexico Border ◽  
The Cost

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among low-income uninsured Hispanics in El Paso, Texas. Method: Participants 50 to 75 years old who were due for screening, were uninsured, and had a Texas address were randomized to promotora, video, or promotora and video interventions. High-risk participants were offered colonoscopy, while others were offered fecal immunochemical testing. A nonintervention comparison group was recruited from a similar Texas U.S.–Mexico border county. Screening was determined at 6 months postintervention. Resources were tracked prospectively to determine cost. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were assessed with “intention to treat” methods. Uncertainty in the estimates was analyzed with sensitivity analysis and nonparametric bootstrap methods. Results: The interventions achieved screening rates of between 75% and 87% compared to 10% in the comparison group. The cost per participant ranged from $72 for group sessions to $93 for individual video sessions with video and promotora. The group video sessions cost $104 per additional person screened. Conclusion: The CRC screening interventions were effective for increasing CRC screening. Compared to the experience in the control county, the group-based video-only intervention was the most cost-effective CRC screening promotion intervention.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy in Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Kondo ◽  
Tomoya Tachi ◽  
Takayoshi Sakakibara ◽  
Jun Kato ◽  
Takahito Mizuno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Antiemetic Therapy ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Purpose Olanzapine has been shown to have an additive effect on the three-drug antiemetic therapy, consisting of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone, in a highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Although olanzapine may be more economical than aprepitant or palonosetron, an adequate cost-efficacy analysis has not been conducted. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy among Japanese patients.Methods We simulated model patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and developed a decision-analytical model of patients receiving triple antiemetic therapy with or without olanzapine. The cost, probabilities, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment were calculated from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare payer. The threshold ICER was set at 45,867 United States dollars (USD) (5 million Japanese yen) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The probabilities, utility value, and other costs were obtained from published sources. The robustness of this model was validated by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results The calculated ICER was 5,156 USD/QALY, which was below the threshold. Under the set conditions, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 100% probability that olanzapine was cost-effective. Based on the one-way sensitivity analysis, reducing the cost of olanzapine below 10.78 USD placed the ICER below the threshold. Conclusion Olanzapine was cost-effective in the four-drug antiemetic therapy for Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document