4.3 Article

Out-of-pocket payment and cost-effectiveness of XELOX and XELOX plus bevacizumab therapy: from the perspective of metastatic colorectal cancer patients in Japan

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 256-262

出版社

SPRINGER TOKYO
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-010-0045-x

关键词

Cost sharing; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Capecitabine; Bevacizumab; Colorectal neoplasms

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of our study was to estimate the out-of-pocket payment and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) or XELOX plus bevacizumab from the perspective of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Based on the NO16966 and NO16967 trials, the mean out-of-pocket payment was calculated from patient-level data. Out-of-pocket payments for 16 cycles (11 months) of first-line chemotherapy and 8 cycles (5 months) of second-line chemotherapy were included. In addition, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for first-line bevacizumab were calculated by dividing the difference of the out-of-pocket payment by the difference of the mean number of progression-free survival (PFS) years or quality-adjusted PFS (QAPFS) years. The mean out-of-pocket payments for middle-income patients under 70 years of age were JPY 328,000 for 16 cycles of first-line XELOX and JPY 376,000 for XELOX plus bevacizumab. The mean out-of-pocket payment for 8 cycles of second-line XELOX was calculated to be JPY 175,000. Middle-income patients over 70 years of age were required to pay JPY 61,000 and JPY 72,000 for first-line XELOX and XELOX plus bevacizumab, respectively. The ICERs of middle-income patients < 70 years of age were JPY 430,000/PFS-year and JPY 720,000/QAPFS-year, and those of middle-income patients > 70 years of age were JPY 100,000/PFS-year and JPY 170,000/QAPFS-year. We clarified the out-of-pocket payment and cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy of MCRC patients in Japan. Our previous survey shows it is highly possible that many patients prefer to pay that incremental out-of-pocket payment to gain one additional QAPFS year. However, our cost-effectiveness analysis was not conducted from the perspective of society or healthcare payers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据