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

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Med Econ ; 21(5): 525-536, 2018 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29480139

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives. METHODS: The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters. LIMITATIONS: Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. CONCLUSION: Denosumab's efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.


Assuntos
Conservadores da Densidade Óssea/administração & dosagem , Doenças Ósseas/etiologia , Doenças Ósseas/prevenção & controle , Denosumab/administração & dosagem , Difosfonatos/administração & dosagem , Imidazóis/administração & dosagem , Mieloma Múltiplo/complicações , Conservadores da Densidade Óssea/economia , Neoplasias Ósseas/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias Ósseas/secundário , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Análise Custo-Benefício , Denosumab/efeitos adversos , Denosumab/economia , Difosfonatos/efeitos adversos , Difosfonatos/economia , Feminino , Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Imidazóis/efeitos adversos , Imidazóis/economia , Masculino , Modelos Econômicos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Análise de Sobrevida , Estados Unidos , Ácido Zoledrônico
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA