Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Value Health ; 23(12): 1613-1621, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33248517

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Partitioned survival models (PSMs) are routinely used to inform reimbursement decisions for oncology drugs. We discuss the appropriateness of PSMs compared to the most common alternative, state transition models (STMs). METHODS: In 2017, we published a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technical Support Document (TSD 19) describing and critically reviewing PSMs. This article summarizes findings from TSD 19, reviews new evidence comparing PSMs and STMs, and reviews recent NICE appraisals to understand current practice. RESULTS: PSMs evaluate state membership differently from STMs and do not include a structural link between intermediate clinical endpoints (eg, disease progression) and survival. PSMs directly consider clinical trial endpoints and can be developed without access to individual patient data, but limit the scope for sensitivity analyses to explore clinical uncertainties in the extrapolation period. STMs facilitate these sensitivity analyses but require development of robust survival models for individual health-state transitions. Recent work has shown PSMs and STMs can produce substantively different survival extrapolations and that extrapolations from STMs are heavily influenced by specification of the underlying survival models. Recent NICE appraisals have not generally included both model types, reviewed individual clinical event data, or scrutinized life-years accrued in individual health states. CONCLUSIONS: The credibility of survival predictions from PSMs and STMs, including life-years accrued in individual health states, should be assessed using trial data on individual clinical events, external data, and expert opinion. STMs should be used alongside PSMs to support assessment of clinical uncertainties in the extrapolation period, such as uncertainty in post-progression survival.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/economia , Cobertura do Seguro/organização & administração , Neoplasias/mortalidade , Análise de Sobrevida , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Tomada de Decisões Gerenciais , Humanos , Cobertura do Seguro/economia , Cobertura do Seguro/estatística & dados numéricos , Modelos Econômicos , Modelos Estatísticos , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias/economia , Intervalo Livre de Progressão
2.
Eur Urol Oncol ; 1(6): 449-458, 2018 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31158087

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy. INTERVENTION: SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available. PATIENT SUMMARY: Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Neoplasias da Próstata/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Próstata/mortalidade , Idoso , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Docetaxel/administração & dosagem , Docetaxel/economia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/tratamento farmacológico , Prognóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/economia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Padrão de Cuidado , Reino Unido
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA