Addition of Docetaxel and/or Zoledronic Acid to Standard of Care for Hormone-naive Prostate Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pengfei Zhang ◽  
Feng Wen ◽  
Ping Fu ◽  
Yu Yang ◽  
Qiu Li
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Zoledronic Acid ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Background The effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel and/or zoledronic acid to the standard of care (SOC) for hormone-naive prostate cancer has been evaluated in the STAMPEDE trial. The object of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options in the treatment of advanced hormone-naive prostate cancer in China. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was carried out from the Chinese societal perspective. The efficacy data were obtained from the STAMPEDE trial and health utilities were derived from previous studies. Transition probabilities were calculated based on the survival in each group. The primary endpoint in the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and model uncertainties were explored by 1-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results SOC alone generated an effectiveness of 2.65 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a lifetime cost of $20,969.23. At a cost of $25,001.34, SOC plus zoledronic acid was associated with 2.69 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $100,802.75/QALY compared with SOC alone. SOC plus docetaxel gained an effectiveness of 2.85 QALYs at a cost of $28,764.66, while the effectiveness and cost data in the SOC plus zoledronic acid/docetaxel group were 2.78 QALYs and $32,640.95. Conclusions Based on the results of the analysis, SOC plus zoledronic acid, SOC plus docetaxel, and SOC plus zoledronic acid/docetaxel are unlikely to be cost-effective options in patients with advanced hormone-naive prostate cancer compared with SOC alone.

scholarly journals The utility of a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of degarelix versus leuprolide in the therapy of hormone-dependent advanced prostate cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-146
Author(s):  
Massimo Perachino ◽  
Mario Eandi
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Veneto Region ◽  
Regional Health ◽  
Gnrh Analogues ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is a very common tumor among men: in Italy its prevalence in 2006 was 0.9%. Androgen deprivation therapy is a way to treat hormone-responsive PC by decreasing testosterone levels. GnRH-analogues, including GnRH-agonists and GnRH-antagonists, are effective for this purpose. AIM: This article presents a cost-effectiveness analysis based on a semi-Markov model comparing the GnRH-antagonist degarelix and GnRH-agonist leuprolide in the treatment of hormone-dependent advanced prostate cancer from the perspective of the Regional Health Service in Veneto Region (Italy).MATERIALS AND METHODS: Effectiveness data were retrieved by a 12-month phase III non-inferiority clinical trial, comparing degarelix and 7,5 mg leuprolide in 610 patients treated for hormone-dependent prostate cancer. Epidemiological data came from a national database and were referred to Veneto Region. The values of the healthcare resources were calculated using regional and national prices (€ 2012). The model considers 3 exhaustive and mutually exclusive health status: first-line treatment, further-lines treatment and death. It lasts 10 years, with 28 days per cycle. The entry in the model is hypothesized at the age of 70 (the age with most PCs in Veneto Region). Effectiveness endpoints were life years saved and quality-adjusted life years, using 3% social discount rate. The incremental cost per QALY was related to the range of acceptability proposed by the Associazione Italiana di Economia Sanitaria (€ 25,000-40,000). The budget impact was calculated on a 5-year time horizon. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed on every hypothesis of the model.RESULTS: Degarelix resulted in minor costs if compared to 7.5 mg leuprolide (€ 20,511.64 vs 22,256.49). The cost-driver was chemotherapic care (32.45% degarelix vs 44.30% 7.5 mg leuprolide). Life years saved were the same for both the alternatives (5.58), while QALYs obtained were higher in degarelix vs. 7.5 mg leuprolide (4.41 vs. 4.10). QALY better data probably could results from greater delay to disease progression in castrate resistant phase with degarelix than comparator and also due to superior symptoms relief. Therefore degarelix is dominant compared to the agonist. The probability for degarelix to be cost-effective increases with the increasing of the threshold for incremental QALY, being 69.95%, 93.76%, 95.55%, and 97.42% for threshold values equal to € 0, € 25,000, € 40,000, and € 100,000, respectively. The use of degarelix in Veneto Region instead of 7.5 mg leuprolide would result, after a five-year period, in total savings for the Regional Health Service equal to € 4,783, considering the treatment of 259 patients.CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of hormone-dependent advanced prostate cancer PC, degarelix is thought to be an economically rational investment of resources for the Regional Health Service of Veneto Region because it’s dominant, in term of cost-effectiveness, to the comparator (agonist) thanks to superior QALY and reduced costs.

scholarly journals Paricalcitol versus Calcitriol + Cinacalcet for the Treatment of Secondary Hyperparathyroidism in Chronic Kidney Disease in China: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhuolin Zhang ◽  
Lele Cai ◽  
Hong Wu ◽  
Xinglu Xu ◽  
Wenqing Fang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Secondary Hyperparathyroidism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Ckd Stage ◽  
Hospitalization Costs

Background: Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is a global chronic disease with increasing prevalence in recent years, particularly CKD accompanied by Secondary Hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) leads to reduced quality of life, increased mortality, a considerable economic burden for patients and society. The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness analysis of paricalcitol vs. calcitriol + cinacalcet for CKD patients with SHPT in China in 2020.Methods: A Markov model was conducted employing data derived from published literature, clinical trials, official sources, and tertiary public hospital data in China, based on a 10-year horizon from the perspective of the healthcare system. Calcitriol + Cinacalcet was used as the reference group. CKD stage 5 (CKD-5) dialysis patients suffering from SHPT were included in the study. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The discount rate (5%) was applied to costs and effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the robustness of the findings.Results: The base case analysis demonstrated that Patients treated with paricalcitol could gain an increase in utility (0.183 QALYs) and require fewer expenditures (6925.612 yuan). One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to showed that impact factors were the price of cinacalcet, the hospitalization costs of patients with paricalcitol and calcitriol, the costs and utilities of hemodialysis and the costs of calcitriol, the costs of paricalcitol regardless of period. Probabilistic simulation analysis displayed when willingness-to-pay was ¥217113, the probability that Paricalcitol was dominant is 96.20%.Conclusion: The results showed that paricalcitol administrated to treat patients diagnosed with Secondary hyperparathyroidism in Chronic Kidney Disease, compared to calcitriol and cinacalcet, might be dominant in China.

scholarly journals Comparing Prednisone and Methotrexate to Off-label Biologic Infliximab for Management of Ocular Uveitis: A Cost-minimization Analysis

10.36469/9895 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-146
Author(s):  
William V. Padula ◽  
Miguel Cordero-Coma ◽  
Taygan Yilmaz ◽  
William V. Padula ◽  
Michéal J. Gallagher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
The United States ◽  
Posterior Uveitis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Successful Recovery

Background: Approximately 3.75% of cases of blindness in the United States are caused by uveitis. Incurred clinical costs and lost productivity related to vision loss in these cases totals $3.58 billion annually. Objective: To evaluate whether infliximab, a modern off-label biologic, is cost-effective for treating posterior uveitis and panuveitis compared to current standards of care, methotrexate and prednisone. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model to simulate a patient cohort with posterior uveitis or panuveitis. The model followed patients’ therapy from the onset of posterior uveitis or panuveitis using the U.S. societal perspective. The lifetime model simulated health states that could lead to successful reversal of uveitis with standard or intensified treatment with prednisone, methotrexate, or infliximab. Probabilities, health utilities, and costs were included in the model based on findings from the literature. We conducted univariate sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian multivariate probablistic sensitivity analysis to estimate uncertainty in results. Outcomes were measured in terms of costs ($US, 2010) and effects (qualityadjusted life years; QALYs) discounted at 3% per year were estimated for each simulated treatment. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pairwise results was interpretted assuming a predetermined willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: Average lifetime costs and QALYs for each drug were ($306.95; 15.80 QALYs) for prednisone, methotrexate ($36,232.24; 16.21 QALYs), and inflixmab ($74,762.63; 15.04 QALYs). Methotrexate was on average compared to prednisone, with an ICER of $86,901.16/QALY. Prednisone and methotrexate dominated infliximab. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the model was most sensitive to the utility for successful recovery from uveitis. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis returned results similar to the base case. Conclusion: This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that despite advances in the use of biologics for treating sight-threatening posterior uveitis and panuveitis, infliximab had lower effectiveness and higher costs compared to both prednisone and methotrexate. As compared to prednisone, methotrexate was associated with increased costs and QALYs and was found to be a good value. Clinical trials of infliximab in the uveitis population are needed to reduce the uncertain estimates of inflixmab treatment success and the drug’s cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of caplacizumab in the new standard of care for immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura in Italy

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Giovanni Di Minno ◽  
Roberto Ravasio
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
The Cost

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of caplacizumab in combination with plasmapheresis (PEX) and immunosuppression compared to PEX and immunosuppression in the treatment of acute episodes of iTTP. Methods: A Markov model was used to conduct the CEA from the perspective of the hospital, over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data derived from HERCULES trial and a systematic literature review. Economic input included direct costs only. Utility and disutility values were obtained from literature. Data on healthcare resources and costs were retrieved from HERCULES trial, literature, TTP guidelines and Italian tariffs. A sensitivity analysis was conducted. The cost-effectiveness probability was tested for several options of discount levels considering a suggested willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 60,000 in Italy. Results: The use of caplacizumab in combination with PEX and immunosuppression is associated with a positive difference in survival of 3.27 life years (24.53 vs 21.26) and in quality of life of 3.06 QALY (22.01 vs 18.96) when compared to PEX and immunosuppression. Caplacizumab leads to an ICER per life years of € 41,653 and an ICER per QALY of € 44,572. For the suggested WTP threshold, the probability of caplacizumab being cost-effective is 82.4% (no discount), 92.8% (15% discount), 95.3% (20% discount), 96.9% (25% discount) and 98.2% (30% discount). Conclusions: Caplacizumab in addition to PEX and immunosuppression is cost-effective, allowing the hospital to achieve greater efficiency in managing the burden of a life-threatening disease such as iTTP.

scholarly journals Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Voigt ◽  
Michael Mosier ◽  
Ian M. Gralnek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
List Price ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract Background The objective of this Markov model lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate a new medical device technology which minimizes redo colonoscopies on the outcomes of cost, quality of life, and aversion of colorectal cancers (CRC). Methods A new technology (PureVu® System) which cleans inadequately prepped colons was evaluated using TreeAge 2019 software in patients who presented with inadequate prep in outpatient settings in the US. PureVu was compared to the standard of care (SOC). Peer reviewed literature was used to identify the CRC incidence cancers based on missing polyps. Costs for procedures were derived from 2019 Medicare and from estimated private payer reimbursements. Base case costs, sensitivity analysis and incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) were evaluated. The cost of PureVu was $750. Results Assuming a national average compliance rate of 60% for colonoscopy, the use of PureVu saved the healthcare system $833–$992/patient depending upon the insurer when compared to SOC. QALYs were also improved with PureVu mainly due to a lower incidence of CRCs. In sensitivity analysis, SOC becomes less expensive than PureVu when compliance to screening for CRC using colonoscopy is ≤ 28%. Also, in order for SOC to be less expensive than PureVu, the list price of PureVu would need to exceed $1753. In incremental cost effectiveness analysis, PureVu dominated SOC. Conclusion Using the PureVu System to improve bowel prep can save the healthcare system $3.1–$3.7 billion per year, while ensuring a similar quality of life and reducing the incidence of CRCs.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Portable Electrocardiogram for Screening Cardiovascular Diseases at a Primary Health Center in Ahmedabad District, India

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Komal Shah ◽  
Apurvakumar Pandya ◽  
Priya Kotwani ◽  
Somen Saha ◽  
Chintan Desai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cardiovascular Diseases ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Cardiac Abnormality ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background: District Health Authority in Ahmedabad, Gujarat has introduced Project Lifeline, 12-lead portable ECG devices across all primary health centers (PHC) in the district to screen cardiac abnormalities among high-risk and symptomatic adults for providing primary management and proper timely referral. The prime purpose of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of portable ECG for the screening of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) among high-risk and symptomatic adults at the PHC in Ahmedabad, Gujarat.Methods: Cost-effective analysis was conducted using a societal perspective. An incremental costing approach was adapted, and cost-effectiveness analysis was done using a decision-analytic model. We surveyed 73 patients who screened positive for cardiac abnormality, documented the type of ECG abnormalities, and diagnosed CVD. The program cost was obtained from the implementers. Transition probabilities were derived from primary data supported by expert opinion for the intervention arm, while a systematic search of the literature was undertaken to derive transition probabilities for the control arm.Results: The ECG screening at PHC saves 2.90 life years at an incremental cost of 89.97 USD (6657.47 INR), yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of 31.07 USD (2,299.06 INR) per life-year saved, which is below the willingness to pay threshold. The budget impact analysis was also performed. Results are sensitive to the relative risk reduction associated with the non-participation and the cost of initial screening.Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness analysis clearly shows that the facility to screen cardiac abnormality at the PHC level is highly recommended for high-risk adults and symptomatic cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document