Dataset Information

Cost implications of new treatments for advanced colorectal cancer.

ABSTRACT: Since 1996, 6 new drugs have been introduced for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Although they are promising, these drugs frequently are given in the palliative and are much more expensive than older treatments. The objective of the current study was to measure the cost implications of treatment with sequential regimens that include chemotherapy and/or monoclonal antibodies.A Markov model was used to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients supposedly received up to 3 lines of treatment before supportive care and subsequent death. Data were obtained from published, multicenter phase 2 and randomized phase 3 clinical trials. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the efficacy, toxicity, and cost.Using drug costs alone, treatment that included new chemotherapeutic agents increased survival at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $100,000 per discounted life-year (DLY). The addition of monoclonal antibodies improved survival at an ICER of >$170,000 per DLY. The results were most sensitive to changes in the initial regimen. Even with significant improvements in clinical characteristics (efficacy and toxicity), treatment with the most effective regimens still had very high ICERs.Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer with the most effective regimens came at very high incremental costs. The authors concluded that cost-effectiveness analyses should be a routine component of the drug-development process, so that physicians and patients are informed appropriately regarding the value of new innovations.

SUBMITTER: Wong YN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2875773 | biostudies-literature | 2009 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost implications of new treatments for advanced colorectal cancer.

Wong Yu-Ning YN Meropol Neal J NJ Speier William W Sargent Daniel D Goldberg Richard M RM Beck J Robert JR

Cancer 20090501 10

<h4>Background</h4>Since 1996, 6 new drugs have been introduced for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Although they are promising, these drugs frequently are given in the palliative and are much more expensive than older treatments. The objective of the current study was to measure the cost implications of treatment with sequential regimens that include chemotherapy and/or monoclonal antibodies.<h4>Methods</h4>A Markov model was used to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patient ...[more]

PMID: 19309745

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFollowing the adoption of the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of NCDs 2013-2020, an update to the Appendix 3 of the action plan was requested by Member States in 2016, endorsed by the Seventieth World Health Assembly in May 2017 and provides a list of recommended NCD interventions. The main contribution of this paper is to present results of analyses identifying how decision makers can achieve maximum health gain using the cancer interventions listed in the Appendix 3. We also present methods used to calculate new WHO-CHOICE cost-effectiveness results for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer in Southeast Asia and eastern sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsWe used "Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis" for our analysis which uses a hypothetical null reference case, where the impacts of all current interventions are removed, in order to identify the optimal package of interventions. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included. Health outcomes are reported as the gain in healthy life years due to a specific intervention scenario and were estimated using a deterministic state-transition cohort simulation (Markov model).ResultsVaccination against human papillomavirus (two doses) for 9-13-year-old girls (in eastern sub-Saharan Africa) and HPV vaccination combined with prevention of cervical cancer by screening of women aged 30-49 years through visual inspection with acetic acid linked with timely treatment of pre-cancerous lesions (in Southeast Asia) were found to be the most cost effective interventions. For breast cancer, in both regions the treatment of breast cancer, stages I and II, with surgery ± systemic therapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. For colorectal cancer, treatment of colorectal cancer, stages I and II, with surgery ± chemotherapy and radiotherapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention.ConclusionThe results demonstrate that cancer prevention and control interventions are cost-effective and can be implemented through a step-wise approach to achieve maximum health benefits. As the global community moves toward universal health coverage, this analysis can support decision makers in identifying a core package of cancer services, ensuring treatment and palliative care for all.

Project description:BackgroundDornase alfa and hypertonic saline are mucoactive therapies that can improve respiratory symptoms in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). A recent randomized control trial showed that participants with well-preserved pulmonary function taking elexacaftor + tezacaftor + ivacaftor (ETI) who discontinued dornase alfa or hypertonic saline for 6 weeks had no clinically meaningful decline in lung function. This may prompt discussions with care providers regarding ongoing use of these medications.ObjectiveTo compare the costs of outpatient medications between people taking ETI who continued or discontinued (1) dornase alfa or (2) hypertonic saline from 2 clinical trials and project cost differences in the US CF population if these 2 medications were used only intermittently for symptom relief instead of chronically.MethodsThe SIMPLIFY study was 2 parallel multicenter trials that randomized participants 1:1 to either continue or discontinue therapy. To estimate costs, we used data from the Merative MarketScan Databases to identify people with CF from 2020 to 2021. Our primary outcomes were differences in costs of outpatient prescription drugs among those who continued vs discontinued dornase alfa and, separately, hypertonic saline. We obtained adjusted differences in median costs. To estimate the annual cost savings if the population of people with CF taking ETI used these medications only intermittently, we multiplied the proportion of people in MarketScan with CF diagnoses who were taking each of these medications by the median cost savings per year and subtracted the cost of "rescue" use.ResultsA total of 392 participants from the dornase alfa trial and 273 from the hypertonic saline trial were included in analyses. The adjusted difference in median medication costs was not significant for the hypertonic saline trial, but we observed a significantly decreased 6-week cost of medications in the dornase alfa trial (adjusted median difference in costs between discontinue and continue of $5,860 (95% CI = $4,870-$6,850); P < 0.0001). We estimated that two-thirds of people with CF use ETI and dornase alfa in the United States; if they discontinued dornase alfa except for intermittent use, the resulting annual savings would be $1.21 billion.ConclusionsAlthough the costs of dornase alfa and hypertonic saline are smaller compared with ETI, reduction in use would lead to substantial prescription drug cost savings and reduce the treatment burden. However, individual benefits of these therapies should be considered, and decisions regarding changes in therapy remain an important discussion between people with CF and their providers. Study registration number: NCT04378153.

Project description:ObjectivesRecent studies showed prolonged survival for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with both monotherapies and combined therapies. However, high costs limit clinical applications. Thus, we conducted this cost-effectiveness analysis to explore an optimal first-line treatment for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients.Materials and methodsSurvival data were extracted from six clinical trials, including ARCHER1050 (dacomitinib vs. gefitinib); FLAURA (osimertinib vs. gefitinib/erlotinib); JO25567 and NEJ026 (bevacizumab +erlotinib vs. erlotinib); NEJ009 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib); and NCT02148380 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib vs. chemotherapy) trials. Cost-related data were obtained from hospitals and published literature. The effect parameter (quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was the reflection of both survival and utility. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), and net benefit were calculated, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $30828/QALY from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the stability of results.ResultsWe compared treatment groups with control groups in each trial. ICERs were $1897750.74/QALY (ARCHER1050), $416560.02/QALY (FLAURA), -$477607.48/QALY (JO25567), -$464326.66/QALY (NEJ026), -$277121.22/QALY (NEJ009), -$399360.94/QALY (gefitinib as comparison, NCT02148380), and -$170733.05/QALY (chemotherapy as comparison, NCT02148380). Moreover, ACER and net benefit showed that the combination of EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy and osimertinib was of more economic benefit following first-generation EGFR-TKIs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the impact of utilities and monotherapy could be cost-effective with a 50% cost reduction.ConclusionFirst-generation EGFR-TKI therapy remained the most cost-effective treatment option for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Our results could serve as both a reference for both clinical practice and the formulation of medical insurance reimbursement.

Dataset Information

Cost implications of new treatments for advanced colorectal cancer.

Publications

Cost implications of new treatments for advanced colorectal cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets