Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Med Econ ; 26(1): 1009-1018, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37505931

RESUMO

AIMS: The treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma has changed with the introduction of targeted therapies. While the clinical benefit of cabozantinib is well-established for Japanese patients who have received prior treatment, the economic benefit remains unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have failed at least one prior therapy in Japan. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using a partitioned survival approach and a public healthcare payer's perspective. Over a lifetime horizon, clinical and economic implications were estimated according to a three-health-state structure: progression-free, post-progression, and death. Key clinical inputs and utilities were derived from the METEOR trial, and a de novo network meta-analysis and cost data were obtained from publicly available Japanese data sources. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Costs and health benefits were discounted annually at 2%. RESULTS: Cabozantinib was more costly and effective compared with everolimus and axitinib, with deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ¥5,375,559 and ¥2,223,138, respectively. Compared to nivolumab, cabozantinib was predicted to be less costly and more effective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrated that the key drivers of cost-effectiveness results were the estimation of overall survival and treatment duration, relative efficacy, drug costs, and subsequent treatment costs. LIMITATIONS: METEOR was an international trial but did not enroll any patients from Japan. Efficacy and safety data from METEOR were used as a proxy for the Japanese population following validation by clinical experts, and alternative assumptions specific to clinical practice in Japan were evaluated in scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In Japan, cabozantinib is a cost-effective alternative to everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received at least one prior line of therapy.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos , Carcinoma de Células Renais , Neoplasias Renais , Humanos , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Axitinibe/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Análise de Custo-Efetividade , Everolimo/uso terapêutico , Japão , Nivolumabe/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Metanálise como Assunto
2.
J Mark Access Health Policy ; 9(1): 1922163, 2021 Jun 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34122780

RESUMO

Background: Simulation modeling facilitates the estimation of long-term health and economic outcomes to inform healthcare decision-making. Objective: To develop a framework to simulate progression of Parkinson's disease (PD), capturing motor and non-motor symptoms, clinical outcomes, and associated costs over a lifetime. Methods: A patient-level simulation was implemented accounting for individual variability and interrelated changes in common disease progression scales. Predictive equations were developed to model progression for newly diagnosed patients and were combined with additional sources to inform long-term progression. Analyses compared a hypothetical disease-modifying therapy (DMT) with a standard of care to explore the drivers of cost-effectiveness. Results: The equations captured the dependence between the various measures, leveraging prior values and rates of change to obtain realistic predictions. The simulation was built upon several interrelated equations, validated by comparison with observed values for the Movement Disorder Society Unified PD Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) and UPDRS subscales over time. In a case study, disease progression rates, patient utilities, and direct non-medical costs were drivers of cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: The developed equations supported the simulation of early PD. This model can support conducting simulations to inform internal decision-making, trial design, and strategic planning early in the development of new DMTs entering clinical trials.

3.
Clin Ther ; 39(10): 1986-2005.e5, 2017 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28967482

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM-d), daratumumab monotherapy (DARA), and carfilzomib monotherapy (CAR) have been approved for use in the treatment of patients with heavily pretreated relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the US, based on findings from the MM-002, SIRIUS, and PX-171-003-A1 studies, respectively. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of POM-d, DARA, and CAR in this patient population from a US payer's perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate the cost and health outcomes over a 3-year time horizon in 3 health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. The main efficacy data source was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison using data from the aforementioned studies. Direct medical costs were considered, including: treatment acquisition and administration (initial line and subsequent line), pre- and post-medication, prophylaxis treatment, adverse event management, and health care resource utilization. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. A scenario analysis that assumed equal efficacy across all 3 treatments was conducted. Costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated and discounted at 3% per annum. FINDINGS: Over 3 years, the use of POM-d was associated with similar life-years and quality-adjusted life-years gained compared with DARA and CAR (incremental: life-years, +0.02 and +0.07, respectively; quality-adjusted life-years, +0.01 and +0.05), and with a cost less than that of DARA (-$8,919) and similar to that of CAR (-$195). Sensitivity analyses illustrated that the results were sensitive to progression-free survival, treatment duration, and drug costs. An equal efficacy scenario resulted in cost-savings relative to those of both DARA and CAR (-$11,779 and -$12,595). IMPLICATIONS: POM-d may be a cost-effective treatment option relative to DARA or CAR in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM in the US.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais/economia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economia , Dexametasona/economia , Mieloma Múltiplo/economia , Oligopeptídeos/economia , Talidomida/análogos & derivados , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Dexametasona/uso terapêutico , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Custos de Medicamentos , Resistencia a Medicamentos Antineoplásicos , Humanos , Modelos Econômicos , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Oligopeptídeos/uso terapêutico , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Recidiva , Talidomida/economia , Talidomida/uso terapêutico , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA