4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapies in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer in the Canadian Health Care System

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 586-592

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.002

关键词

advanced pancreatic cancer; Bayesian network meta-analysis; chemotherapy; cost-effectiveness analysis; economic evaluation; gemcitabine

资金

  1. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute [2015-703549]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine (G), G + 5fluorouracil, G + capecitabine, G + cisplatin, G + oxaliplatin, G + erlotinib, G + nab-paclitaxel (GnP), and FOLFIRINOX in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer from a Canadian public health payer's perspective, using data from a recently published Bayesian network meta-analysis. Methods: Analysis was conducted through a three state Markov model and used data on the progression of disease with treatment from the gemcitabine arms of randomized controlled trials combined with estimates from the network meta-analysis for the newer regimens. Estimates of health care costs were obtained from local providers, and utilities were derived from the literature. The model estimates the effect of treatment regimens on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) discounted at 5% per annum. Results: At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of greater than $30,666 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX would be the most optimal regimen. For a WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY, the probability that FOLFIRINOX would be optimal was 57.8%. There was no price reduction for nab-paclitaxel when GnP was optimal. Conclusions: From a Canadian public health payer's perspective at the present time and drug prices, FOLFIRINOX is the optimal regimen on the basis of the cost-effectiveness criterion. GnP is not cost-effective regardless of the WTP threshold. Copyright (C) 2017, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.6
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