Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Med Econ ; 21(6): 577-586, 2018 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29458286

RESUMO

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs crizotinib and platinum doublet chemotherapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US third-party payer's perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressive disease, death) was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Ceritinib's efficacy inputs (progression-free and overall survival) were estimated from ASCEND-4; parametric survival models extrapolated data beyond the trial period. The relative efficacy of ceritinib vs chemotherapy was obtained from ASCEND-4, the relative efficacy of ceritinib vs crizotinib was estimated using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. Drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and medical costs were obtained from publicly available databases and the literature, and inflated to 2016 US dollars. Treatment-specific stable-state utilities were derived from trials and progressive-state utility from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated for ceritinib vs each comparator. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness. RESULTS: In the base case, first-line ceritinib was associated with total direct costs of $299,777 and 3.28 QALYs (from 4.61 life years gained [LYG]) over 20 years. First-line crizotinib and chemotherapy were associated with 2.73 and 2.41 QALYs, 3.92 and 3.53 LYG, and $263,172 and $228,184 total direct costs, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $66,064 for ceritinib vs crizotinib and $81,645 for ceritinib vs chemotherapy. In the first 2 years following treatment initiation, ceritinib dominated crizotinib by conferring greater health benefits at reduced total costs. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect comparison method was used. CONCLUSIONS: Ceritinib is cost-effective compared to crizotinib and chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated ALK-positive metastatic NCSLC in the US.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Pirazóis/uso terapêutico , Piridinas/uso terapêutico , Pirimidinas/uso terapêutico , Receptores Proteína Tirosina Quinases/biossíntese , Sulfonas/uso terapêutico , Quinase do Linfoma Anaplásico , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Antineoplásicos/economia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Análise Custo-Benefício , Crizotinibe , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Humanos , Modelos Econométricos , Pirazóis/efeitos adversos , Pirazóis/economia , Piridinas/efeitos adversos , Piridinas/economia , Pirimidinas/efeitos adversos , Pirimidinas/economia , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Sulfonas/efeitos adversos , Sulfonas/economia , Análise de Sobrevida , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...