Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Oct;36(10):1273-1284. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0678-6.
Treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer include monotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM); combinations of GEM with oxaliplatin (OX + GEM), cisplatin (CIS + GEM), capecitabine (CAP + GEM), or nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P + GEM); and the non-GEM combination FOLFIRINOX. Combination therapies have yielded better survival outcomes than GEM alone. A sponsor-independent economic evaluation of these regimens has not been conducted for USA.
The objective of this study was to estimate the cost utility and cost effectiveness of these regimens from the payer perspective for USA.
A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed disease, death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years; life-years) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility and cost-effectiveness ratios. FOLFIRINOX clinical data were obtained from trial and indirect estimates were obtained from network meta-analyses. Lifetime horizon and 3%/year discount rates were used.
FOLFIRINOX was the most expensive regimen and GEM the least costly regimen. Compared to GEM, all but one (CIS + GEM) regimen were found to be more effective in quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. Compared to GEM, the incremental cost-utility ratios for CAP + GEM, OX-GEM, NAB-P + GEM, and FOLFIRINOX, were US$180,503, US$197,993, US$204,833, and US$265,718 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, respectively; and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were US$88,181, US$87,620, US$135,683, and US$167,040 per additional life-year, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis.
This sponsor-independent economic evaluation for USA found that OX + GEM, CAP + GEM, FOLFIRINOX, and NAB-P + GEM, but not CIS + GEM, were more expensive but also more effective than GEM alone in terms of quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. The NAB-P + GEM regimen appears to be the most cost effective in USA at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$200,000/quality-adjusted life-year.
转移性胰腺癌的治疗方法包括吉西他滨(GEM)单药治疗;吉西他滨联合奥沙利铂(OX+GEM)、顺铂(CIS+GEM)、卡培他滨(CAP+GEM)或nab-紫杉醇(NAB-P+GEM);以及非 GEM 联合 FOLFIRINOX。联合治疗方案的生存结果优于 GEM 单药治疗。尚未在美国进行这些方案的独立于赞助商的经济评估。
本研究旨在从支付者的角度估计这些方案在美国的成本效用和成本效果。
开发了一个三状态马尔可夫模型(无进展、疾病进展、死亡),模拟总费用和健康结果(质量调整生命年;生命年),以估计增量成本效用和成本效果比。FOLFIRINOX 的临床数据来自试验,间接估计来自网络荟萃分析。使用终生和 3%/年贴现率。
FOLFIRINOX 是最昂贵的方案,GEM 是最便宜的方案。与 GEM 相比,除一种方案(CIS+GEM)外,所有方案在质量调整生命年和生命年方面都更有效。与 GEM 相比,CAP+GEM、OX-GEM、NAB-P+GEM 和 FOLFIRINOX 的增量成本效用比分别为每增加 1 个质量调整生命年 180503 美元、197993 美元、204833 美元和 265718 美元;增量成本效果比分别为每增加 1 个生命年 88181 美元、87620 美元、135683 美元和 167040 美元。概率敏感性分析证实了基础病例分析。
这项针对美国的独立于赞助商的经济评估发现,OX+GEM、CAP+GEM、FOLFIRINOX 和 NAB-P+GEM,但不是 CIS+GEM,在质量调整生命年和生命年方面比 GEM 单独使用更昂贵,但也更有效。在支付意愿阈值为 200000 美元/质量调整生命年时,NAB-P+GEM 方案在美国似乎最具成本效益。