Liposomal Cytarabine (DepoCyte™Injection) Is Cost-Effective Compared with Standard Cytarabine for the Intrathecal Treatment of Patients with Lymphomatous Meningitis.

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 267-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Moeremans ◽  
Lieven Annemans ◽  
James Morris

Abstract Background and Objective : The clinical benefit of liposomal cytarabine (DepoCyteTM injection) for the intrathecal treatment of lymphomatous meningitis has been demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial (Glantz M. et al. J Clin Oncol 1999;3110-3116 ). Liposomal cytarabine has recently become available in the UK at a cost considerably above that of standard cytarabine (1,250GBP per dose compared to 4GBP). A cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing liposomal cytarabine versus standard cytarabine was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service to determine whether or not liposomal cytarabine is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with lymphomatous meningitis. Methods: Using data from the clinical trial, each patient’s survival time was partitioned according to the presence of progressive neurological disease. Utility estimates for two health states, progression and non-progression, were derived from clinical experts using a time-tradeoff exercise and assigned to each patient according to the period of time they remained in each health state. Observed response rates from the clinical trial were used to model expected quality adjusted life year (QALY) estimates for each treatment arm. Health care costs were estimated using resource data from the clinical trial and unit costs from the literature. Probabilistic analyses were used to estimate the expected cost per QALY gained with liposomal cytarabine, taking into account the uncertainty surrounding model input parameters. Results: From a total of 33 randomised patients, response status was available for 29. 13 of 16 patients treated with liposomal cytarabine responded to treatment compared to 3 of 13 patients treated with standard cytarabine (81 vs. 23%; p=0.003). The mean total expected healthcare cost per patient was estimated to be 8,275GBP (+/−796) for patients treated with liposomal cytarabine and 3,238GBP (+/−494) for those treated with standard cytarabine. Patients treated with liposomal cytarabine accrued on average 0.27 (+/−0.027) QALYs compared to 0.15 (+/−0.025) QALYs in the standard cytarabine arm. The mean expected incremental cost per QALY gained with liposomal cytarabine was 47,764GBP (95%CI = 22,921–95,676). This estimate of cost-effectiveness was particularly sensitive to the health state utilities for progression and non-progression. Conclusion : The results of this analysis suggest that liposomal cytarabine is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with lymphomatous meningitis. Although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is close to the probable willingness-to-pay threshold, the results of this analysis should be evaluated in the context of a severe disease with few effective treatment options. Further research into patient preferences for the health states modelled here would be valuable given the sensitivity of QALY estimates to this variable.

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 121 (6) ◽  
pp. 996-1007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanjing Ding ◽  
Hiroyuki Shimada ◽  
Lin Li ◽  
Rahul Mittal ◽  
Xiaokun Zhang ◽  
...  

Key PointsNeutrophils mobilized by Am80 display greater bactericidal activity than those by G-CSF. These findings suggest a molecular rationale for developing new therapy for neutropenia by using Am80 as a cost-effective treatment option.


2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (14) ◽  
pp. 3019-3031 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Koeser ◽  
V. Donisi ◽  
D. P. Goldberg ◽  
P. McCrone

Background.The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales recommends the combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for the treatment of moderate to severe depression. However, the cost-effectiveness analysis on which these recommendations are based has not included psychotherapy as monotherapy as a potential option. For this reason, we aimed to update, augment and refine the existing economic evaluation.Method.We constructed a decision analytic model with a 27-month time horizon. We compared pharmacotherapy with cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) and combination treatment for moderate to severe depression in secondary care from a healthcare service perspective. We reviewed the literature to identify relevant evidence and, where possible, synthesized evidence from clinical trials in a meta-analysis to inform model parameters.Results.The model suggested that CBT as monotherapy was most likely to be the most cost-effective treatment option above a threshold of £22 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). It dominated combination treatment and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £20 039 per QALY compared with pharmacotherapy. There was significant decision uncertainty in the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.Conclusions.Contrary to previous NICE guidance, the results indicated that even for those patients for whom pharmacotherapy is acceptable, CBT as monotherapy may be a cost-effective treatment option. However, this conclusion was based on a limited evidence base, particularly for combination treatment. In addition, this evidence cannot easily be transferred to a primary care setting.


BJGP Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen17X101097
Author(s):  
Susannah Sadler ◽  
Michael Holmes ◽  
Shijie Ren ◽  
Stephen Holden ◽  
Swati Jha ◽  
...  

BackgroundUrinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common reasons for women to attend primary care. There are four different antibiotics currently recommended in England for treatment of uncomplicated UTI but little evidence on their comparative cost-effectiveness.AimTo assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the four antibiotics currently recommended in England for treatment of uncomplicated UTI in adult women.Design & settingA cost-effectiveness model in adult women with signs and symptoms of uncomplicated UTI in primary care in England treated with fosfomycin, nitrofurantoin, pivmecillinam, or trimethoprim.MethodA decision tree economic model of the treatment pathway encompassed up to two rounds of treatment, accounting for different resistance levels. End points included recovery, persistence, pyelonephritis, and/or hospitalisation. Prescription, primary and secondary care treatment, and diagnostic testing costs were aggregated. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per UTI resolved.ResultsTrimethoprim 200 mg twice daily (for 3 or 7 days) was estimated to be the most cost-effective treatment (£70 per UTI resolved) when resistance was <30%. However, if resistance to trimethoprim was ≥30%, fosfomycin 3 g once became more cost-effective; at resistance levels of ≥35% for trimethoprim, both fosfomycin 3 g once and nitrofurantoin 100 mg twice daily for 7 days were shown to be more cost-effective.ConclusionKnowing local resistance levels is key to effective and cost-effective empirical prescribing. Recent estimates of trimethoprim resistance rates are close to 50%, in which case a single 3 g dose of fosfomycin is likely to be the most cost-effective treatment option.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document