scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of Palliative Care Interventions: A Review of the Evolution of Methods From 2011 to 2019

2021 ◽  
pp. 104990912110111
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Karishini Ramamoorthi ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Previous Literature ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Life Years

Background: End-of-life care is a driver of increasing healthcare costs; however, palliative care interventions may significantly reduce these costs. Economic evaluations that measure the incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY) are warranted to inform cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to a comparator and permit evaluation of investment against other therapeutic interventions. Evidence from the literature up to 2011 indicates a scarcity of cost-utility studies in palliative care research. Aim: This literature review evaluates economic studies published between 2011 and 2019 to determine whether the methods of economic evaluations have evolved since 2011. Design and Data Sources: A literature search was completed using CENTRAL, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and other sources for publications between 2011 and 2019. Study characteristics, methodology and key findings of publications that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Quality of studies were assessed using indicators developed by authors of the previous literature review. Results: 46 papers were included for qualitative synthesis. Among them only 6 studies conducted formal cost-effectiveness evaluations-of these 5 measured QALYs and 1 employed probabilistic analyses. In addition, with the exception of 1 costing analysis, all other economic evaluations undertook a healthcare payer perspective. Quality of evidence were comparable to the previous literature review published in 2011. Conclusion: Despite the small increase in the number of cost-utility studies, the methods of palliative care economic evaluations have not evolved significantly since 2011. More probabilistic cost-utility analyses of palliative care interventions from a societal perspective are necessary to truly evaluate the value for money.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Economic Analyses Studying Rituximab in R-CHOP Therapy in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna L. Yoder ◽  
Khalid M. Kamal
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Non Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Economic Studies ◽  
Chop Therapy

Objectives: To explore the use of pharmacoeconomic principles through examination of economic evaluations pertaining to the combination of the monoclonal antibody rituximab with conventional CHOP (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/ vincristine/ prednisone) or CHOP-like chemotherapy regimens in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted using Evidence-Based Medical Reviews (EBMR), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Medline databases to identify all economic studies relating to rituximab in combination with CHOP or CHOP-like regimens. The systematic evaluation also utilized the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess the quality of each study that was included in the final review. Results: Initially, eight studies were retrieved which included the use of rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma treatment. Of these, four studies were excluded as rituximab was used as a stand-alone treatment option. The remaining four studies involved conventional CHOP therapy versus the combination with rituximab (R-CHOP) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. One study employed a cost-effectiveness analysis while the remaining three studies used a cost-utility analysis and reported the outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness evaluation illustrated the dominance of R-CHOP over CHOP-alone in terms of both lower costs and increased life years gained. The cost-utility of R-CHOP in terms of costs/QALYs were below the accepted threshold of 50,000 in international monetary units. Through examination of evaluation principles employed, it is found that valid results are highly dependent on the input data, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses. Clinical decisionmakers must take into account specific inclusions of costs relevant to their own practice setting.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Feng Xie ◽  
Gord Blackhouse ◽  
Jennifer Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of treatment optimisation with biomarkers for immunotherapy in solid tumours: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e048141
Author(s):  
Sara Mucherino ◽  
Valentina Lorenzoni ◽  
Valentina Orlando ◽  
Isotta Triulzi ◽  
Marzia Del Re ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Solid Tumours ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit

IntroductionThe combination of biomarkers and drugs is the subject of growing interest both from regulators, physicians and companies. This study protocol of a systematic review is aimed to describe available literature evidences about the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or net-monetary benefit of the use of biomarkers in solid tumour as tools for customising immunotherapy to identify what further research needs.Methods and analysisA systematic review of the literature will be carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be queried from June 2010 to June 2021. The PICOS model will be applied: target population (P) will be patients with solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the interventions (I) will be test of the immune checkpoint predictive biomarkers; the comparator (C) will be any other targeted or non-targeted therapy; outcomes (O) evaluated will be health economic and clinical implications assessed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net health benefit, net monetary benefit, life years gained, quality of life, etc; study (S) considered will be economic evaluations reporting cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, net-monetary benefit. The quality of the evidence will be graded according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will assess the cost-effectiveness implications of using biomarkers in the immunotherapy with ICIs, which may help to understand whether this approach is widespread in real clinical practice. This research is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol in a related peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020201549.

scholarly journals The Methodological Quality and Challenges in Conducting Economic Evaluations of Newborn Screening: A Scoping Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
Pasquale Cacciatore ◽  
Laurenske A. Visser ◽  
Nasuh Buyukkaramikli ◽  
Catharina P. B. van der Ploeg ◽  
M. Elske van den Akker-van Marle
Keyword(s):  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Newborn Screening ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Methodological Challenges ◽  
Life Years

Cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost–utility analyses (CUA) have become popular types of economic evaluations (EE) used for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare resource allocation. Newborn screening programs (NBS) can have significant clinical benefits for society, and cost-effectiveness analysis may help to select the optimal strategy among different screening programs, including the no-screening option, on different conditions. These economic analyses of NBS, however, are hindered by several methodological challenges. This study explored the methodological quality in recent NBS economic evaluations and analyzed the main challenges and strategies adopted by researchers to deal with them. A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA methodology to identify CEAs and CUAs of NBS. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies was assessed quantitatively using a specific guideline for the quality assessment of NBS economic evaluations, by calculating a general score for each EE. Challenges in the studies were then explored using thematic analysis as a qualitative synthesis approach. Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The quantitative analysis showed that the methodological quality of NBS economic evaluations was heterogeneous. Lack of clear description of items related to results, discussion, and discounting were the most frequent flaws. Methodological challenges in performing EEs of neonatal screenings include the adoption of a long time horizon, the use of quality-adjusted life years as health outcome measure, and the assessment of costs beyond the screening interventions. The results of this review can support future economic evaluation research, aiding researchers to develop a methodological guidance to perform EEs aimed at producing solid results to inform decisions for resource allocation in neonatal screening.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of palliative care in patients with advanced cancer: a retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Wu ◽  
Ping Lin ◽  
Shujuan Yang ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Wenjuan Tao
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Aging population and other factors have led to a rapid rise in cancer incidence in China. However, under the influence of traditional perception of diseases, deaths and economic factors, many patients who are unresponsive to radical treatment are still adherent to excessive and unnecessary treatment, which may lead to poor quality of life (QoL) and increase unnecessary medical burden. Aim Compare the difference of the quality of life and cost-utility value between patients who received palliative care (PC) and patients who were adherent to conventional anticancer treatment (CAT) and provides empirical evidence of clinical and economic value for hospital-based PC. Methods Chinese Quality of Life Questionnaire (CQLQ) Scale was used to collect advanced cancer patients’ QoL on admission and discharge days. Paired and independent samples’ statistical analysis were used to compare inter- and intra- QoL between PC and CAT group. Delphi and Analytic Hierarchy Process were used to weight QoL scores and converted the QoL to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Propensity Score Matching (PSM) for 1:1 was used to compare average hospitalization expenses between two groups. The expense per QALYs was used for Cost-Utility analysis between the two treatments. Results A total of 248 hospitalized patients diagnosed with metastatic disease at stage IV were recruited from West China Fourth Hospital between January 2018 and August 2018, including 128 patients receiving PC and 120 patients receiving CAT. Although both treatments had positive effects on improving QoL for patients, the QoL in the PC group were significantly higher than that in the CAT group (55.90 ± 18.80 vs 24.00 ± 8.60, t = 7.51, p < 0.05). The QALY (days) of pre- and post- treatment increased by 55.9 and 24.0 days in PC and CAT group respectively. Compared average hospitalization expense in 613 pairs of advanced cancer inpatients after PSM 1:1, the per capita expense of PC group was higher (13,743.5 ± 11,574.1 vs 11,689.0 ± 8876.8, t = 3.44, p < 0.05), while each unit of QALYs paid by PC group was only 50% of that paid by those receiving CAT. Conclusions PC played a positive role in improving the QoL for patients diagnosed with advanced cancer and alleviating economic burdens of both patient families and the society from the viewpoint of cost-utility. Our findings imply that PC should be recognized as a proactive care model in China that helps patients with some terminal diseases.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the hospital-based palliative care program at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 23-23
Author(s):  
Sarina Isenberg ◽  
David R Holtgrave ◽  
Chunhua Lu ◽  
John P McQuade ◽  
Brian Weir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Palliative Care Unit ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

23 Background: The objectives of the study were to determine whether a Palliative Care Unit (PCU) provides benefits not just from a cost perspective, but from a patient and caregiver quality of life (QOL) perspective. Methods: (1) Calculate the total costs of the PCU; (2) Leverage a threshold analysis to estimate the Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) required for the PCU to be cost effective; and (3) Determine whether it is feasible for the program to yield the required number of QALYs. Setting was the Johns Hopkins Health System Palliative Care Unit (PCU) in Baltimore, MD. Analysis was based on patient volume from March 2013-2014. Results: There were 209 palliative patients. The costs for the societal perspective was $2,044,364 and the required number of QALYs to deem it cost effective were 11.36. The net costs for the hospital perspective was $625,777 (gross cost was $993,528; however, the program generated $367,751 in savings for the hospital through treating patients in the PCU as opposed to other functional units), and the required number of QALYs to deem it cost effective were 3.48. To determine whether the program is able to achieve the number of QALYs required, the study team generated aggregated QALYs based on other studies’ evidence for palliative care’s improvement of quality of life for patients and their caregivers. Combining the QALYs generated from the aggregated calculations for patients (0.12) and caregivers (4.60), the program had the potential to yield a total of 4.73 QALYs. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that the PCU is cost effective from the hospital perspective in the sense that the benefits it provides to patients’ and caregivers’ quality of life outweighs the cost of care. Future studies should continue to evaluate palliative care from a cost effectiveness perspective that incorporates a consideration of the quality of life improvements, rather than just cost-reduction.

Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents: A systematic literature review and model-based cost–utility analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pekka Kuukasjärvi ◽  
Pirjo Räsänen ◽  
Antti Malmivaara ◽  
Pasi Aronen ◽  
Harri Sintonen
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Drug Eluting Stents ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Drug Eluting ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:The aim of this study was to systematically review economic analyses comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention to form an overall view about cost-effectiveness of DES and to construct a simple decision analysis model to evaluate the cost–utility of DES.Methods:Electronic databases searched from January 2004 to January 2006 were Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; DARE, HTA, EED (NHS CRD); MEDLINE(R) In-Process, Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R). References of the papers identified were checked. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) or model-based cost-effectiveness analyses comparing DES to BMS in patients with coronary artery disease. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed by Drummond's criteria. Baseline characteristics and results of the studies were extracted and data synthesized descriptively. A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost–utility of DES in comparison to BMS, where health-related quality of life was measured by the 15D.Results:We identified thirteen good-quality economic evaluations. In two of these based on RCTs, DES was found cost-effective. In six studies, it was concluded that DES might probably be a cost-effective strategy in some circumstances, but not as a single strategy, and four studies concluded that DES is not cost-effective. One study did not draw a clear conclusion. In our analysis, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €98,827 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoiding one revascularization with DES would cost €4,794, when revascularization with BMS costs €3,260.Conclusions:The evidence is inconsistent of whether DES would be a cost-effective treatment compared with BMS in any healthcare system where evaluated. A marked restenosis risk reduction should be achieved before use of DES is justifiable at present prices. When considering adoption of a new health technology with a high incremental cost within a fixed budget, opportunity cost in terms of untreated patients should be seriously considered as a question of collective ethics.

scholarly journals Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy is critical and cost-effective in increasing life expectancy and quality of life in patients suffering from Common Variable Immunodeficiency Disorders (CVID): A health-economic assessment

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0247941
Author(s):  
Philippe van Wilder ◽  
Irina Odnoletkova ◽  
Mehdi Mouline ◽  
Esther de Vries
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Diagnostic Delay ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Health Economic Model ◽  
Simulated Cohort ◽  
Common Variable

Background Common variable immunodeficiency disorders (CVID), the most common form of primary antibody deficiency, are rare conditions associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The clinical benefit of immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgGRT) is substantial: timely treatment with appropriate doses significantly reduces mortality and the incidence of CVID-complications such as major infections and bronchiectasis. Unfortunately, CVID-patients still face a median diagnostic delay of 4 years. Their disease burden, expressed in annual loss of disability-adjusted life years, is 3-fold higher than in the general population. Hurdles to treatment access and reimbursement by healthcare payers may exist because the value of IgGRT is poorly documented. This paper aims to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (on life expectancy and quality) of IgGRT in CVID. Methods and findings With input from a literature search, we built a health-economic model for cost-effectiveness and cost-utility assessment of IgGRT in CVID. We compared a mean literature-based dose (≥450mg/kg/4wks) to a zero-or-low dose (0 to ≤100 mg/kg/4wks) in a simulated cohort of adult patients from time of diagnosis until death; we also estimated the economic impact of diagnostic delay in this simulated cohort. Compared to no or minimal treatment, IgGRT showed an incremental benefit of 17 life-years (LYs) and 11 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €29,296/LY and €46,717/QALY. These results were robust in a sensitivity analysis. Reducing diagnostic delay by 4 years provided an incremental benefit of six LYs and four QALYs compared to simulated patients with delayed IgGRT initiation, resulting in an ICER of €30,374/LY and €47,495/QALY. Conclusions The health-economic model suggests that early initiation of IgGRT compared to no or delayed IgGRT is highly cost-effective. CVID-patients’ access to IgGRT should be facilitated, not only because of proven clinical efficacy, but also due to the now demonstrated cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals The use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years in cost-effectiveness analyses in palliative care: Mapping the debate through an integrative review

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 306-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne B Wichmann ◽  
Eddy MM Adang ◽  
Peep FM Stalmeier ◽  
Sinta Kristanti ◽  
Lieve Van den Block ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Integrative Review ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background: In cost-effectiveness analyses in healthcare, Quality-Adjusted Life Years are often used as outcome measure of effectiveness. However, there is an ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care. Aim: To systematically map pros and cons of using the Quality-Adjusted Life Year to inform decisions on resource allocation among palliative care interventions, as brought forward in the debate, and to discuss the Quality-Adjusted Life Year’s value for palliative care. Design: The integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl was followed. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings were mapped. Data sources: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, in which MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were Palliative Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Findings: Three themes regarding the pros and cons were identified: (1) restrictions in life years gained, (2) conceptualization of quality of life and its measurement, including suggestions to adapt this, and (3) valuation and additivity of time, referring to changing valuation of time. The debate is recognized in empirical studies, but alternatives not yet applied. Conclusion: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year might be more valuable for palliative care if specific issues are taken into account. Despite restrictions in life years gained, Quality-Adjusted Life Years can be achieved in palliative care. However, in measuring quality of life, we recommend to—in addition to the EQ-5D— make use of quality of life or capability instruments specifically for palliative care. Also, we suggest exploring the possibility of integrating valuation of time in a non-linear way in the Quality-Adjusted Life Year.

Polatuzumab vedotin-bendamustine-rituximab (PBR) versus tafasitamab-lenalidomide (TafaL) in ASCT-transplant ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL): Economic evaluation including novel metrics.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19535-e19535
Author(s):  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
Ivo Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years

e19535 Background: PBR and TafaL are two recently regulatory approved regimens that offer treatment options for R/R DLBCL patients who are ASCT ineligible or choose not to undergo ASCT. PBR is administered over 6 cycles, whereas TafaL is sustained until disease progression or death. We report here on an independent, naïve comparative, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of both regimens. Methods: Cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses were performed using a Markov model with 3 health states (progression free survival (PFS), post progression survival (PPS), death) parametrically extrapolated over a 5-year (y) time horizon (US payer perspective; 2020 USD). Cost inputs included main treatment, premedication, drug administration, adverse event management, and physician and laboratory fees. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) estimated the incremental costs to gain 1 unadjusted (LY) or quality adjusted life years (QALY), respectively. A novel metric of the incremental cost per 1% gain in probability of achieving objective response (OR), PFS and overall survival (OS) at trial follow up (̃2y) and PFS and OS at 5y with TafaL over PBR were estimated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses complemented base case analyses (BCA). Willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated. Results: At trial follow up (̃2y), PFS and OS rates were 38% and 63% for TafaL vs rates of 18% and 27.5% for PBR. The corresponding 5y PFS and OS rates were 13% and 32.7% for TafaL vs 5.2% and 11.3% for PBR. In BCAs, 5y TafaL costs ($470,949) exceeded PBR’s ($251,615) by $219,334 for incremental gains of 0.71 LY and 0.32 QALY. This yielded BCA ICER of $307,840/LYg and ICUR of $689,314/QALYg attenuated in PSA estimates of ICER of $280,042/LYg and ICUR of $589,215/QALYg. In DSAs, TafaL PFS utility value and PBR treatment costs were the most influential parameters. In PSAs, TafaL had a 50% probability of being cost effective at WTPs of $278,050/LYg and $560,360/QALYg. The incremental cost per 1% gain in probability to achieve OR, PFS and OS at follow up were $7,714, $5,785 and $3,259; and $28,120 and $10,249 for PFS and OS at 5 years. Conclusions: Considering that economic evaluations are intended to inform (but not set) policy, this independent analysis demonstrated that sustained TafaL treatment is associated with better survival outcomes than PBR though at greater cost. The incremental costs to gain a 1% improvement in 2y and 5y survival outcomes with TafaL over PBR were modest, underscoring the longer-term benefit of TafaL over PBR in pts ineligible for or opting out of ASCT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document