Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment.

ABSTRACT: The treatment of colorectal cancer is rapidly becoming a significant financial burden to health-care systems within economically developed nations. A current challenge for oncologists and health-care payers is to integrate new, often high-cost, biologic therapies into clinical practice. Inherent to this process is the consideration of cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan with an appropriate comparator from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. This economic evaluation is a trial-based study of cetuximab vs active/best supportive care. Effectiveness estimates for the treatment groups were modelled from key clinical trials. Cunningham et al (2004) compared cetuximab/irinotecan with cetuximab monotherapy; Cunningham et al (1998) compared irinotecan monotherapy in a second-line setting with supportive care. Modelling was necessary owing to an absence of head-to-head clinical trial data of cetuximab/irinotecan vs current standard care. Costs were calculated for the study drugs received, associated administration, palliative chemotherapy for patients in the standard care arm and other nonchemotherapy resources. The discounted life-expectancy of patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan was 0.91 life-years, and 0.47 discounted life-years for patients receiving active/best supportive care. Patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan accumulated mean additional costs of 18 901 pounds per patient relative to the comparator arm, with 11 802 pounds attributable to cetuximab. The incremental cost per life-year gained with cetuximab/irinotecan therapy compared with active/best supportive care was 42 975 pounds . The incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained was 57 608 pounds . The incremental cost per life-year gained for cetuximab/irinotecan is relatively high compared with other health-care interventions. However, this result should be considered in the context of a number of factors specific to the treated patient population.

SUBMITTER: Starling N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2359988 | biostudies-other | 2007 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Although oral metronomic chemotherapy is often used in progressive pediatric solid malignant tumors, a literature review reveals that only small single-arm retrospective or phase 1 and 2 studies have been performed. Skepticism abounds because of the lack of level 1 evidence. Objectives:To compare the effect of metronomic chemotherapy on progression-free survival (PFS) with that of placebo in pediatric patients with primary extracranial, nonhematopoietic solid malignant tumors that progress after at least 2 lines of chemotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants:A double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted from October 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, at the cancer center at All India Institute of Medical Sciences in children aged 5 to 18 years with primary extracranial, nonhematopoietic solid malignant tumors that progressed after at least 2 lines of chemotherapy and had no further curative options. Interventions:One arm received a 4-drug oral metronomic regimen of daily celecoxib and thalidomide with alternating periods of etoposide and cyclophosphamide, whereas the other arm received placebo. Disease status was assessed at baseline, 9 weeks, 18 weeks, and 27 weeks or at clinical progression. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point was PFS as defined by the proportion of patients without disease progression at 6 months, and PFS duration and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. Results:A total of 108 of the 123 patients screened were enrolled, with 52 randomized to the placebo group (median age, 15 years; 40 male [76.9%]) and 56 to the metronomic chemotherapy group (median age, 13 years; 42 male [75.0%]). At a median follow-up of 2.9 months, 100% of the patients had disease progression by 6 months in the placebo group vs 96.4% in the metronomic chemotherapy group (P?=?.24). Median PFS and OS in the 2 groups was similar (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-1.03 [P?=?.07] for PFS; and HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50-1.09 [P?=?.13] for OS). In post hoc subgroup analysis, cohorts receiving more than 3 cycles (HR for PFS, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23-0.93; P?=?.03) and those without a bone sarcoma (ie, neither primitive neuroectodermal tumor nor osteosarcoma) (HR for PFS, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P?=?.01) appeared to benefit from metronomic chemotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance:Metronomic chemotherapy does not improve 6-month PFS, compared with placebo, among pediatric patients with extracranial progressive solid malignant tumors . However, patients without bone sarcoma and those able to tolerate therapy for more than 3 cycles (9 weeks) benefit. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01858571.

Project description:ObjectivesSpasticity is an incurable chronic condition, and patients with spasticity frequently experience symptoms such as muscle stiffness, restricted mobility, fatigue, spasms, and pain. The study objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone for the early treatment of adult lower limb spasticity following an acute event (e.g. stroke or traumatic brain injury), from an Australian payer perspective.MethodsUsing clinical data from published pivotal trials, an economic model based on a Markov model was developed to capture changes in treatment costs, healthcare resource use costs, functional outcomes, and health-related quality of life over a lifetime horizon. Scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the uncertainty in the model parameters and assumptions used in the base case.ResultsAbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care was cost-effective versus best supportive care, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35,721 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the base case, with most results remaining below the commonly acceptable cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold of $75,000 per quality-adjusted life year for cost-effectiveness in Australia. Inputs and assumptions that produced the top four highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratios include the application of different health resource utilisation source, short time horizon, unweighted regression analyses to determine regression probabilities, and no stopping rule. AbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care has a 74% probability of being cost-effective compared with best supportive care alone at the willingness to pay threshold.ConclusionAbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care treatment is cost-effective in Australia for the management of adult lower limb spasticity in patients treated within 2 years of an acute event.

Project description:In palliative cancer treatment, the choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care may be difficult. In the decision-making process, giving information as well as patients' values and preferences become important issues. Patients, however, may have a treatment preference before they even meet their medical oncologist. An insight into the patient's decision-making process can support clinicians having to inform their patients. Patients (n=207) with metastatic cancer, aged 18 years or older, able to speak Dutch, for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, were eligible for the study. We assessed the following before they consulted their medical oncologist: (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) disease-related variables, (3) quality-of-life indices, (4) attitudes and (5) preferences for treatment, information and participation in decision-making. The actual treatment decision, assessed after it had been made, was the main study outcome. Of 207 eligible patients, 140 patients (68%) participated in the study. At baseline, 68% preferred to undergo chemotherapy rather than wait watchfully. Eventually, 78% chose chemotherapy. Treatment preference (odds ratio (OR)=10.3, confidence interval (CI) 2.8-38.0) and a deferring style of decision-making (OR=4.9, CI 1.4-17.2) best predicted the actual treatment choice. Treatment preference (total explained variance=38.2%) was predicted, in turn, by patients' striving for length of life (29.5%), less striving for quality of life (6.1%) and experienced control over the cause of disease (2.6%). Patients' actual treatment choice was most strongly predicted by their preconsultation treatment preference. Since treatment preference is positively explained by striving for length of life, and negatively by striving for quality of life, it is questionable whether the purpose of palliative treatment is made clear. This, paradoxically, emphasises the need for further attention to the process of information giving and shared decision-making.

Project description:ImportanceCapecitabine maintenance therapy improves survival outcomes in various cancer types, but data are limited on the efficacy and safety of capecitabine maintenance therapy in metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine maintenance therapy in metastatic NPC.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized phase 3 clinical trial was conducted at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from May 16, 2015, to January 9, 2020, among 104 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic NPC who had achieved disease control after 4 to 6 cycles of induction chemotherapy with paclitaxel, cisplatin, and capecitabine. The final follow-up date was May 30, 2021. All efficacy analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat population.InterventionsEligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either capecitabine maintenance therapy (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14) every 3 weeks plus best supportive care (BSC) (capecitabine maintenance group) or BSC alone after 4 to 6 cycles of induction chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresProgression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were objective response rate, duration of response, overall survival, and safety.ResultsThis study included 104 patients (84 men [80.8%]; median age, 47 years [IQR, 38-54 years]), with 52 assigned to the capecitabine maintenance group and 52 assigned to the BSC group. After a median follow-up of 33.8 months (IQR, 22.9-50.7 months), there were 23 events (44.2%) of progression or death in the capecitabine maintenance group and 37 events (71.2%) of progression or death in the BSC group. Median PFS survival was significantly higher in the capecitabine maintenance group (35.9 months [95% CI, 20.5 months-not reached]) than in the BSC group (8.2 months [95% CI, 6.4-10.0 months]), with a hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.26-0.74; P = .002). Higher objective response rates and longer median duration of response were observed in the capecitabine maintenance group (25.0%; 40.0 months) compared with the BSC group (objective response rate, 25.0% [n = 13] vs 11.5% [n = 6]; and median duration of response, 40.0 months [95% CI, not reached-not reached] vs 13.2 months [95% CI, 9.9-16.5 months]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events during maintenance therapy were anemia (6 of 50 [12.0%]), hand-foot syndrome (5 of 50 [10.0%]), nausea and vomiting (3 of 50 [6.0%]), fatigue (2 of 50 [4.0%]), and mucositis (2 of 50 [4.0%]). No deaths in the maintenance group were deemed treatment-related.Conclusions and relevanceIn this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, capecitabine maintenance therapy significantly improved PFS for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic NPC who achieved disease control after capecitabine-containing induction chemotherapy. Capecitabine exhibited manageable toxic effects.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02460419.

Project description:Background and aimsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) imposes a substantial and ongoing burden on the US healthcare system and society. Molnupiravir is a new oral antiviral for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness profile of molnupiravir versus best supportive care in the treatment of adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at risk of progression to severe disease, from a US payer's perspective.MethodsThe model was developed using a decision tree for the short-term acute phase of COVID-19 and a Markov state transition model for the long-term post-acute phase. This model compared molnupiravir with best supportive care as consistent with the MOVe-OUT trial. Costs were reported in 2021 US dollars. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase III MOVe-OUT trial and the TriNetX real-world electronic health records database. Costs were derived from the TriNetX database and utility values from a de novo, vignette-based utility study. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA/PSA) were conducted. Primary outcomes included proportion hospitalized, proportion who died overall and by highest healthcare setting at the end of the acute phase, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained over a lifetime (100 years) horizon, discounted at 3% annually and assessed at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY.ResultsIn this model, the use of molnupiravir led to an increase in QALYs (0.210) and decrease in direct total medical costs (-$895) per patient across a lifetime horizon, compared with best supportive care in COVID-19 outpatients. Molnupiravir was the dominant intervention when compared with best supportive care. Patients treated with molnupiravir were less likely to be hospitalized (6.38% vs. 9.20%) and more likely to remain alive (99.88% vs. 98.71%) during the acute phase. Through DSA, molnupiravir treatment effect of hospitalization reduction was identified to be the most influential parameter, and through PSA, molnupiravir remained dominant in 84% of the total simulations and, overall, 100% cost effective.ConclusionThis analysis suggests that molnupiravir is cost effective compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult outpatients with COVID-19. However, our study was limited by the unavailability of the most recent information on the rapidly evolving pandemic, including new viral variants, patient populations affected, and changes in standards of care. Further research should explore the impact of vaccination on the cost effectiveness of molnupiravir and other therapies, based on real-world data, to account for these changes, including the impact of vaccination and immunity.

Project description:BackgroundTherapeutic targeting of host-cell factors required for SARS-CoV-2 entry is an alternative strategy to ameliorate COVID-19 severity. SARS-CoV-2 entry into lung epithelium requires the TMPRSS2 cell surface protease. Pre-clinical and correlative data in humans suggest that anti-androgenic therapies can reduce the expression of TMPRSS2 on lung epithelium. Accordingly, we hypothesize that therapeutic targeting of androgen receptor signaling via degarelix, a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonist, will suppress COVID-19 infection and ameliorate symptom severity.MethodsThis is a randomized phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial in 198 patients to compare efficacy of degarelix plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care on improving the clinical outcomes of male Veterans who have been hospitalized due to COVID-19. Enrolled patients must have documented infection with SARS-CoV-2 based on a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction result performed on a nasopharyngeal swab and have a severity of illness of level 3-5 (hospitalized but not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation). Patients stratified by age, history of hypertension, and severity are centrally randomized 2:1 (degarelix: placebo). The composite primary endpoint is mortality, ongoing need for hospitalization, or requirement for mechanical ventilation at 15 after randomization. Important secondary endpoints include time to clinical improvement, inpatient mortality, length of hospitalization, duration of mechanical ventilation, time to achieve a normal temperature, and the maximum severity of COVID-19 illness. Exploratory analyses aim to assess the association of cytokines, viral load, and various comorbidities with outcome. In addition, TMPRSS2 expression in target tissue and development of anti-viral antibodies will also be investigated.DiscussionIn this trial, we repurpose the FDA approved LHRH antagonist degarelix, commonly used for prostate cancer, to suppress TMPRSS2, a host cell surface protease required for SARS-CoV-2 cell entry. The objective is to determine if temporary androgen suppression with a single dose of degarelix improves the clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397718. Registered on May 21, 2020.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets