Chemotherapy for ovarian cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study on treatment patterns and outcomes.

Information on treatment patterns for ovarian cancer (OC) is limited. The aim of this study was to describe current patterns of chemotherapy and other systemic treatments for OC in the Netherlands and evaluate survival outcomes following subsequent lines of treatment. Data from the Eindhoven Cancer Registry, including on newly diagnosed cancer patients, were linked to the PHARMO Database Network, including information on in- and out-patient drug use. Patients diagnosed with OC between January 2000 and December 2010 were selected. An algorithm was used to identify separate lines of treatment. Data were studied descriptively. Detailed data on systemic drug use were available for 261 patients (17%) with OC. In first-line treatment, 87% of the patients (227/261) received platinum-based chemotherapy. Of the 161 patients receiving second-line treatment, 101 patients (63%) received platinum-based chemotherapy. In third line, this was 51% (53/103). The median number of treatment lines received by patients was two (interquartile range 1-3), and eight or more lines of chemotherapy were identified for 12 patients. Median survival from diagnosis onwards was 47 months from the end of first-line treatment, median survival was 32 months, and from the end of second-line treatment, it was 14 months. Predominantly beyond second-line treatment, there is much variety in treatment patterns with chemotherapy for OC. Although uncertainty remains regarding the desirability of this observed treatment variation, there seems a need for detailed clinical guidance, assuring that physicians can properly choose the most suitable treatment for each patient.

How to select the right cost-effectiveness model? : A systematic review and stepwise approach for selecting a transferable health economic evaluation model for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: In the current study, we propose an approach for selection of a model that is transferable to a specific decision-making context (in this case, the Netherlands), using the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objectives of this study were (a) to perform a systematic literature review to identify existing health economic evaluation models for economic evaluation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA; and (b) to test the appropriateness of a stepwise model-selection process. METHODS: First, we searched Medline and Embase to identify relevant studies in the English language, published between 1 January 2002 and 31 August 2012. From the included studies, all unique models were identified. Second, we applied a multi-step approach to model selection. Models that did not meet all minimal methodological and structural requirements based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) criteria were excluded. Next, models were assessed on the basis of their fit when transferred to the Dutch health care setting. The criteria for model fit were transferability factors, as published by Welte et al., after exclusion of those that were deemed transferable by simple adaptation. Finally, the remaining models underwent a general quality check using the Philips checklist. Models showing good fit and high quality were considered to be transferable to the Dutch health care setting, using simple adaptation. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 498 articles, which included 33 unique health economic evaluation models. Only six models passed the minimal methodological and structural requirements. Two of these models had an imperfect transferability fit to the Dutch health care setting, according to the Welte method. The remaining four models were, according to the Philips method, of good quality and were expected to be transferable by a simple adaptation. CONCLUSION: This study introduces a stepwise approach for selecting health economic evaluation models that are transferable by a simple adaptation. The approach seems feasible and can be applied in various therapeutic areas, provided that the minimal methodological and structural requirements are defined accordingly. Availability of health economic evaluation models coupled with structured model selection could improve the efficiency, quality and comparability of health economic research.

Gastroprotective strategies in chronic NSAID users: a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-tablet formulations with individual components.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of competing gastroprotective strategies, including single-tablet formulations, in the prevention of gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients with chronic arthritis taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare eight gastroprotective strategies including NSAIDs, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists, misoprostol, and single-tablet formulations. We derived estimates for outcomes and costs from medical literature. The primary outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of GI complications, compliance rates, and drug costs. RESULTS: For average-risk patients, NSAID + PPI cotherapy was most cost-effective. The NSAID/PPI single-tablet formulation became cost-effective only when its price decreased from €0.78 to €0.56 per tablet, or when PPI compliance fell below 51% in the NSAID + PPI strategy. All other strategies were more costly and less effective. The model was highly sensitive to the GI complication risk, costs of PPI and NSAID/PPI single-tablet formulation, and compliance to PPI. In patients with a threefold higher risk of GI complications, both NSAID + PPI cotherapy and single-tablet formulation were cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: NSAID + PPI cotherapy is the most cost-effective strategy in all patients with chronic arthritis irrespective of their risk for GI complications. For patients with increased GI risk, the NSAID/PPI single-tablet formulation is also cost-effective.

Gastroprotection in low-dose aspirin users for primary and secondary prevention of ACS: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis including compliance.

PURPOSE: Low-dose aspirin (ASA) increases the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce these upper GI side effects, yet patient compliance to PPIs is low. We determined the cost-effectiveness of gastroprotective strategies in low-dose ASA users considering ASA and PPI compliance. METHODS: Using a Markov model we compared four strategies: no medication, ASA monotherapy, ASA+PPI co-therapy and a fixed combination of ASA and PPI for primary and secondary prevention of ACS. The risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), upper GI bleeding and dyspepsia was modeled as a function of compliance and the relative risk of developing these events while using medication. Costs, quality adjusted life years and number of ACS events were evaluated, applying a variable risk of upper GI bleeding. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: For our base case patients using ASA for primary prevention of ACS no medication was superior to ASA monotherapy. PPI co-therapy was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] €10,314) compared to no medication. In secondary prevention, PPI co-therapy was cost-effective (ICER €563) while the fixed combination yielded an ICER < €20,000 only in a population with elevated risk for upper GI bleeding or moderate PPI compliance. PPI co-therapy had the highest probability to be cost-effective in all scenarios. PPI use lowered the overall number of ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Considering compliance, PPI co-therapy is likely to be cost-effective in patients taking low dose ASA for primary and secondary prevention of ACS, given low PPI prices. In secondary prevention, a fixed combination seems cost-effective in patients with elevated risk for upper GI bleeding or in those with moderate PPI compliance. Both strategies reduced the number of ACS compared to ASA monotherapy.