Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Mol Diagn ; 24(8): 901-914, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35688357

ABSTRACT

The study evaluated the diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based testing versus various combinations of single-gene tests (SGTs) for selection of first-line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States. A dynamic decision analysis model was developed comparing NGS versus SGT from a payer perspective. Inputs were obtained from published sources and included diagnostic performance, biomarker-positive disease rates, biomarker-directed recommendations for treatment, and survival outcomes. Costs were reported in 2020 US dollars. In the base case, NGS improved the detection of actionable biomarkers by 74.4%, increased the proportion of patients receiving biomarker-driven therapy by 11.9%, and decreased the proportion of patients with biomarker-positive disease receiving non-biomarker-driven first-line treatment by 40.5%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per life-year gained of NGS testing versus SGT was $7224 (excluding post-diagnostic costs); the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NGS-directed therapy was $148,786 versus SGT-directed therapy. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings; survival outcomes and targeted therapy costs had the greatest impact on results. Testing strategies with NGS are more comprehensive in the detection of actionable biomarkers and can improve the proportion of patients receiving biomarker-driven therapies. NGS testing may provide a cost-effective strategy for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer; however, the value of NGS-directed therapy varies by the willingness-to-pay threshold of the decision-maker.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/genetics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Genetic Testing , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/genetics , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , United States
2.
J Med Econ ; 25(1): 324-333, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35172685

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To support reimbursement requests in Canada, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A + CHP) compared with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) as frontline treatment for CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) using results from the ECHELON-2 clinical trial. The PTCL subtypes included were systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL), PTCL-not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states (progression-free survival [PFS], post-progression survival [PPS], and death) was constructed from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system over a lifetime horizon. Efficacy, safety, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were obtained from ECHELON-2. Medical resource use and costs were derived from Canadian literature and standard sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty in key parameters. All costs are reported in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: A + CHP, when compared with CHOP, was associated with an estimated mean gain of 2.90 LYs and 2.38 QALYs and a mean incremental cost of $76,491. The ICER for A + CHP compared with CHOP was estimated at $26,340 per LY gained and $32,177 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICERs remained below $60,000 per QALY gained. Time horizon, patient starting age, and discount rate affected the results, as the ICER was driven by long-term survival gains observed with A + CHP compared with CHOP. LIMITATIONS: Real-world downstream treatments (such as stem cell transplantation) may differ from the treatment protocol followed in the ECHELON-2 trial. CONCLUSIONS: A + CHP compared with CHOP provides a cost-effective treatment option with improved clinical outcomes that are clinically relevant and a comparable safety profile for adults with previously untreated CD30-expressing sALCL, PTCL-NOS, or AITL in Canada.


Subject(s)
Brentuximab Vedotin , Lymphoma, T-Cell, Peripheral , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/economics , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Brentuximab Vedotin/economics , Brentuximab Vedotin/therapeutic use , Canada , Clinical Trials as Topic , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Ki-1 Antigen/metabolism , Lymphoma, T-Cell, Peripheral/drug therapy , Lymphoma, T-Cell, Peripheral/economics
3.
Am J Manag Care ; 26(2): e41-e49, 2020 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32059099

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A+CHP) in the first-line setting for CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). STUDY DESIGN: An economic model was developed using clinical and quality-of-life (QOL) data from the ECHELON-2 trial, in which A+CHP demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP). METHODS: A partitioned survival model, consisting of 3 health states (PFS, postprogression survival, and death), was constructed from a US payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. PFS and OS observed from ECHELON-2 were extrapolated using standard parametric distributions. The best-fitting distributions (log-normal for both arms) were selected based on statistical goodness of fit and clinical plausibility of the long-term projections. Utilities were based on the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensional data collected in ECHELON-2. Medical resource use and costs were from literature and standard sources. RESULTS: The model predicted that A+CHP extended PFS and OS by 2.92 and 3.38 years, respectively, over CHOP. After incorporating QOL and discounting, A+CHP was associated with 1.79 quality-adjusted life-years gained at a total incremental cost of $159,388, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $89,217. Sensitivity analyses provided ICERs ranging approximately from $57,000 to $138,000. The estimated probability that A+CHP is cost-effective compared with CHOP was 82% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the ECHELON-2 trial data, this analysis found A+CHP to be cost-effective for patients with previously untreated CD30-expressing PTCL.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Models, Economic , Survival Analysis , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/economics , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/economics , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Brentuximab Vedotin/economics , Brentuximab Vedotin/therapeutic use , Cyclophosphamide/economics , Cyclophosphamide/therapeutic use , Doxorubicin/economics , Doxorubicin/therapeutic use , Humans , Lymphoma, T-Cell, Peripheral/drug therapy , Lymphoma, T-Cell, Peripheral/economics , Prednisone/economics , Prednisone/therapeutic use , Quality of Life , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Vincristine/economics , Vincristine/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...