Cost-effectiveness of treating patients with advanced progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor with everolimus versus sunitinib in the United States.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 226-226
Author(s):  
Roman Casciano ◽  
Maruit Chulikavit ◽  
Allison Perrin ◽  
Zhimei Liu ◽  
Xufang Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

226 Background: Everolimus and sunitinib were recently approved to treat patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). This analysis examines the projected cost-effectiveness of everolimus versus sunitinib in this setting from a US payer perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of advanced, progressive pNET patients and to estimate the cost per incremental life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained when treating with everolimus as compared to sunitinib. Absent head-to-head trials, efficacy data were based on a weight-adjusted indirect comparison of the two agents using the respective phase 3 trial data. Disease or health states considered in the model included: stable disease without adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Costs of anti-tumor therapies, symptomatic care drugs, and post-progression therapy were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs including physician visits, tests, infusions, hospitalizations, adverse event costs, and end-of-life care costs were obtained from literature and/or standard sources such as the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and Medicare reimbursement rates. Utility inputs were based on a UK time trade-off study. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model’s robustness. Results: In the base case analysis, the estimated gain of everolimus over sunitinib was 0.448 LYs (0.304 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $12,673, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $28,281/LYG ($41,702/QALY gained), which fell within the cost per QALY range for many other widely used oncology drugs. The analysis was sensitive to the uncertainty of the sunitinib trial results; however, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the results were consistent across simulations. Conclusions: While the analysis is limited by its reliance on an indirect comparison of two phase 3 studies rather than a single head-to-head trial, everolimus is expected to be cost-effective relative to sunitinib in advanced pNET.

Cost-effectiveness of treating patients with advanced progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with everolimus versus sunitinib in the United States.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14525-e14525
Author(s):  
Maruit Chulikavit ◽  
Roman Casciano ◽  
Allison Perrin ◽  
Zhimei Liu ◽  
Xufang Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
The Cost

e14525 Background: Everolimus and sunitinib were recently approved to treat patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). This analysis examined the projected cost-effectiveness of everolimus versus sunitinib in this disease setting from a US payer perspective. Methods: A lifetime (20-year) Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of advanced, progressive pNET patients and to estimate the cost per life-year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when treating with everolimus as compared to sunitinib. Absent head-to-head trials, efficacy data were based on a weight-adjusted indirect comparison of the two agents using the respective phase 3 trial data. Disease or health states considered in the model included: stable disease with no adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Costs of anti-tumor therapies, symptomatic care drugs, and post-progression therapy were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs including physician visits, tests, infusions, hospitalizations, adverse event costs, and end-of-life care costs were obtained from literature and/or standard sources such as the Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project and Medicare reimbursement rates. Utility inputs were based on a time trade-off study conducted in the United Kingdom. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model’s robustness. Results: In the base case analysis, the estimated gain of everolimus over sunitinib was 0.448 LYs (0.304 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $12,673, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $28,281/LY ($41,702/QALY gained), which fell within the cost per QALY range for many other widely used oncology drugs. The ICER was most sensitive to the uncertainty of the sunitinib trial outcomes: however, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis found consistent results across simulations. Conclusions: While the analysis is limited by its reliance on an indirect comparison of two phase 3 studies rather than a single head-to-head trial, everolimus is projected to be cost-effective relative to sunitinib in advanced pNET.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of eribulin (E) versus treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in patients (pts) with pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16525-e16525
Author(s):  
Alberto J. Montero ◽  
Kiran Kumar Venkata Raja Avancha ◽  
Stefan Gluck ◽  
Gilberto de Lima Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Liposomal Doxorubicin ◽  
Drug Acquisition ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Drug Acquisition Cost ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

e16525 Background: Eribulin was FDA approved in 2010 for pts previously receiving >2 prior chemotherapeutic regimens for MBC. This approval was based on the phase 3 trial (EMBRACE) which demonstrated that E significantly improved median overall survival (OS) relative to different TPC by 2.5 months [HR 0.81; p=0.041]. Methods: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of E versus the 3 most commonly selected TPC in EMBRACE. We also evaluated the cost effectiveness of E compared to other approved drugs for MBC. We created a decision-analytical model using clinical data from the EMBRACE trial. Health utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs for drug acquisition, physician visits, and laboratory tests were obtained from Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2011 USD. Life-years saved (LY), Quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were calculated using the EMBRACE median OS data. TPC cost was calculated with 3 most commonly used drugs: vinorelbine (V), gemcitabine (G), and capecitabine (X), comprising 60% of pts in the TPC arm. Other drugs analyzed included liposomal doxorubicin (D), nab-paclitaxel (A), and ixabepilone (I). Greater GCSF use with E vs. TPF was also accounted for in our model. Results: E added 0.208 LY and 0.119 QALY with an incremental cost over TPC of $24,035; and therefore a cost of $115,369/LY and an ICER of $201,790/QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug acquisition cost, OS, and health utility values. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Because of the very low cost of V and G, we looked at the cost-effectiveness of E relative to several other drugs commonly used in this setting, but used in fewer pts in the pivotal trial. Relative to ixabepilone, liposomal doxorubicin, nab-paclitaxel, and capecitabine the ICER for E was $85,130, $98,538, $119,029, and $154,591, respectively. Conclusions: Using commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, E appears to be cost effective in the treatment of MBC relative to D, A, X, and I; with marginal cost effectiveness for less expensive drugs such as V and G.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic gastric and esophageal tumors.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sassan Ostvar ◽  
Jin G. Choi ◽  
Jacqueline N. Chu ◽  
Michael Lawrence Dougan ◽  
Justin F. Gainor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibition ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibition ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

56 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibition has shown early promising results in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic or advanced tumors of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, and stomach. We explore the cost-effectiveness of checkpoint inhibitors as second-line treatment agents for this group of patients using a decision analytic approach. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the course of a virtual cohort of patients treated by (i) nivolumab 3 mg/kg, (ii) combination of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and nivolumab 1 mg/kg, and (iii) best supportive care (BSC). Patients in the hypothetical cohort were 55-year-olds in an advanced/metastatic stage who had received at least one prior line of chemotherapy. Patients who remained stable in treatment were monitored for adverse events until death. Rates of cancer-specific mortality, disease progression, and drug-related adverse events were estimated using results from the CheckMate 032 clinical trial. The primary endpoints were survival, measured in life-years (LY), quality adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from a US-payer perspective considering costs of drugs, treatment, and management of immune-related adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was defined with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded the highest effectiveness (QALYs = 0.47, LYs = 1.09) in our base case modeling results, compared with nivolumab (QALYs = 0.43, LYs = 1.03), and BSC (QALYs = 0.19, LYs = 0.42). Nivolumab had an incremental cost of $84,555/QALY compared with BSC, while nivolumab with ipilimumab resulted in an incremental cost of $1.1M/QALY compared with nivolumab alone. The cost gap between the two was associated with the higher price of ipilimumab, and costs of managing increased toxicity. Conclusions: Our modeling analysis finds that combination therapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab is the most effective, but from a cost-effectiveness perspective, it is expensive, making nivolumab monotherapy the cost-effective option. Additional clinical data are needed to confirm our modeling results.

The cost-effectiveness of one-time opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation in different age cohorts of inhabitants in Denmark aged 65 years and above: a Markov modelled analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucca Katrine Sciera ◽  
Lars Frost ◽  
Lars Dybro ◽  
Peter Bo Poulsen
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Population Data ◽  
National Registry ◽  
Opportunistic Screening ◽  
Age Cohorts ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Aims The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-time opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in general practice in citizens aged ≥65 years in Denmark compared to a no-screening alternative following current Danish practice. Methods and results A decision tree and a Markov model were designed to simulate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in a hypothetical cohort of citizens aged ≥65 years equivalent to the Danish population (1 M citizens) over the course of 19 years, using a healthcare and societal perspective. Share of detected AF patients following opportunistic screening was retrieved from a recent Danish screening study, whereas the risk stroke and bleedings in AF patients were based on population data from national registries and their associated costs was obtained from published national registry studies. The present study showed that one-time opportunistic screening for AF was more costly, but also more effective compared to a no-screening alternative. The analysis predicts that one-time opportunistic screening of all Danes aged ≥65 years potentially can identify an additional 10 300 AF patients and prevent 856 strokes in the period considered. The incremental cost of such a screening programme is €56.4 M, with a total gain of 6000 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9400 per QALY gained. Conclusion Opportunistic screening in general practice in citizens aged ≥65 years in Denmark is cost-effective compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22 000. The study and its findings support a potential implementation of opportunistic screening for AF at the general practitioner level in Denmark.

Cost-Effectiveness: Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Vascular Dementia

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 735-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla L. Wong ◽  
Nick Bansback ◽  
Philip E. Lee ◽  
Aslam H. Anis
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Vascular Dementia ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cholinesterase Inhibitors ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

Background:Several randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in mild to moderate vascular dementia have demonstrated the efficacy of these treatments. However, given these drugs incur considerable cost, the economic argument for their use is less clear.Objective:To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for mild to moderate vascular dementia.Design:A decision analysis model using a 24-28 week time horizon was developed. Outcomes of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine and probabilities of adverse events were extracted from a systematic review. Costs of adverse events, medications, and physician visits were obtained from local estimates. Robustness was tested with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation.Interventions:Donepezil 5 mg daily, donepezil 10 mg daily, galantamine 16-24 mg daily, rivastigmine flexible dosing up to 6 mg twice daily, or memantine 10 mg twice daily versus standard care.Main Outcome Measures:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per unit decrease in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive (ADAS-cog) subscale.Results:Donepezil 10 mg daily was found to be the most cost-effective treatment with an ICER of $400.64 (95%CI, $281.10-$596.35) per unit decline in the ADAS-cog subscale. All other treatments were dominated by donepezil 10 mg, that is, more costly and less effective.Conclusion:From a societal perspective, treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine was more effective but also more costly than standard care for mild to moderate vascular dementia. The donepezil 10 mg strategy was the most cost-effective and also dominated the other alternatives.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF IVABRADINE IN TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE IN IRAN

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 576-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saeed Taheri ◽  
Elham Heidari ◽  
Mohammad Ali Aivazi ◽  
Mehran Shams-Beyranvand ◽  
Mehdi Varmaghani
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Drug Acquisition ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Baseline Heart Rate ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ivabradine plus standard of care (SoC) in comparison with current SoC alone from the Iranian payer perspective.Methods:A cohort-based Markov model was developed to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a 10-year time horizon in a cohort of 1,000 patients. The baseline transition probabilities between New York Heart Association (NYHA), mortality rate, and hospitalization rate were extracted from the literature. The effect of ivabradine on mortality, hospitalization, and NYHA improvement or worsening were retrieved from the SHIFT study. The effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the utility values derived from Iranian Heart Failure Quality of Life study. Direct medical costs were obtained from hospital records and national tariffs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to show the robustness of the model.Results:Ivabradine therapy was associated with an incremental cost per QALY of USD $5,437 (incremental cost of USD $2,207 and QALYs gained 0.41) versus SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ivabradine is expected to have a 60 percent chance of being cost-effective accepting a threshold of USD $6,550 per QALY. Furthermore, deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the model is sensitive to the ivabradine drug acquisition cost.Conclusions:The cost-effectiveness model suggested that the addition of ivabradine to SoC therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes along with increased costs. The analysis indicates that the clinical benefit of ivabradine can be achieved at a reasonable cost in eligible heart failure patients with sinus rhythm and a baseline heart rate ≥ 75 beats per minute (bpm).

Abstract 200: Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan L Limone ◽  
William L Baker ◽  
Craig I Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Newer Anticoagulants ◽  
The Cost

Background: A number of new anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) have gained regulatory approval or are in late-stage development. We sought to conduct a systematic review of economic models of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for SPAF. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database along with the Tuft’s Registry through October 10, 2012. Included models assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (150mg, 110mg, sequential), rivaroxaban or apixaban for SPAF using a Markov model or discrete event simulation and were published in English. Results: Eighteen models were identified. All models utilized a lone randomized trial (or an indirect comparison utilizing a single study for any given direct comparison), and these trials were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous. Dabigatran 150mg was assessed in 9 of models, dabigatran 110mg in 8, sequential dabigatran in 9, rivaroxaban in 4 and apixaban in 4. Adjusted-dose warfarin (either trial-like, real-world prescribing or genotype-dosed) was a potential first-line therapy in 94% of models. Models were conducted from the perspective of the United States (44%), European countries (39%) and Canada (17%). In base-case analyses, patients typically were at moderate-risk of ischemic stroke, initiated anticoagulation between 65 and 73 years of age, and were followed for or near a lifetime. All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and while 22% of models reported using a societal perspective, no model included costs of lost productivity. Four models reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a newer anticoagulant (dabigatran 110mg (n=4)/150mg (n=2); rivaroxaban (n=1)) vs. warfarin above commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. ICERs (in 2012US$) vs. warfarin ranged from $3,547-$86,000 for dabigatran 150mg, $20,713-$150,000 for dabigatran 110mg, $4,084-$21,466 for sequentially-dosed dabigatran and $23,065-$57,470 for rivaroxaban. In addition, apixaban was demonstrated to be an economically dominant strategy compared to aspirin and to be dominant or cost-effective ($11,400-$25,059) vs. warfarin. Based on separate indirect treatment comparison meta-analyses, 3 models compared the cost-effectiveness of these new agents and reported conflicting results. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness models of newer anticoagulants for SPAF have been extensively published. Models have frequently found newer anticoagulants to be cost-effective, but due to the lack of head-to-head trial comparisons and heterogeneity in clinical characteristic of underlying trials and modeling methods, it is currently unclear which of these newer agents is most cost-effective.

Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatininb in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as second-line treatment.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21104-e21104
Author(s):  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Life Years

e21104 Background: Crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib are approved as second line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor for first line therapy approved by Food and Drug Administration (2011) then ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015), and brigatinib (2017) were approved as second line drugs. Following more data, these agents were approved as the first line therapy (2017 for ceritinib and alectinib; 2020 for brigatinib). These remain as a treatment option in patients who fail the first line therapy. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted to assess clinical efficacy with varying costs of the agents. Methods: A three state Markov model were assumed (progression free, progression and death). Progression free survival (PFS) curves were digitized and fitted with exponential function. US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were Redbook wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs included were monitoring, adverse events and disease progression from published data (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported >5% in patients were included. Measured outcomes were PFS life years (PFSLY) and quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY). Crizotinib was the reference drug. Incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) and lost were estimated. Base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug for the following outcomes. For alectinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,653 (-$14,712), the incremental PFSLY of 0.16 (0.16) and PFSQALY of 0.05 (0.05) resulted in an ICER / PFSLYG of -$89,337 (-$88,604) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$269,835 (-$266,510). For brigatinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,975 (-$14,954), the incremental PFSLY of 0.01 (0.01) and PFSQALY of ̃0.01 (0.02) yielded an ICER / PFSLYG of -$1,982,962 (-$1,431,631) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$2,140,534 (-$570,538). For ceritinib, with the incremental cost of $7,590 ($7,514), there were decremental PFSLY of -0.01 (-0.01) and PFSQALY of -0.03 (-0.03). Conclusions: As second line treatment, crizotinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib had comparable PFSLYs and PFSQALYs while alectinib had the most PFSLY and PFSQALY and the lowest cost. Therefore, alectinib is the most cost-effective treatment for treating ALK+ NSCLC as the second line therapy.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Innovative Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth F P Peterse ◽  
Reinier G S Meester ◽  
Lucie de Jonge ◽  
Amir-Houshang Omidvari ◽  
Fernando Alarid-Escudero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Computed Tomographic Colonography ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Colonoscopy Screening ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Stool Dna ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Methods The previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG. Results Among the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy. Conclusions This study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost–effectiveness analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 553-562
Author(s):  
Hongfu Cai ◽  
Longfeng Zhang ◽  
Na Li ◽  
Bin Zheng ◽  
Maobai Liu
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To investigate the cost–effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with nonresected hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Materials & methods: Markov model was used to simulate the direct medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data were derived from the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population. Results: Sorafenib treatment resulted in 1.794 QALYs at a cost of $43,780.73. Lenvatinib treatment resulted in 2.916 QALYs for patients weighing <60 and ≥60 kg at a cost of $57,049.43 and $75,900.36, The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio to the sorafenib treatment group was $11,825.94/QALY and $28,627.12/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: According to WHO’s triple GDP per capita, the use of lenvatinib by providing drugs is a cost-effective strategy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document