A R Levy1, D Zou2, N Risebrough2, R Buckstein3, T Kim4, N Brereton5. 1. Oxford Outcomes Ltd., Vancouver, BC. ; Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. 2. Oxford Outcomes Ltd., Vancouver, BC. 3. Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON. 4. Celgene Inc., Mississauga, ON. 5. BresMed Health Solutions, Sheffield, U.K.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine the economic value of azacitidine in Canada compared with conventional care regimens (ccrs), including best supportive care (bsc) and low- or standard-dose chemotherapy plus bsc in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (mdss) and acute myeloid leukemia (aml) with 20%-30% blasts. METHODS: The cost-utility model is a lifetime probabilistic Markov model with a 35-day cycle length consisting of 3 health states: mds; transformation to aml with more than 30% blasts; and death. A third-party public payer perspective was adopted. Overall survival was extrapolated beyond the time horizon of the aza-001 trial comparing azacitidine with ccr. Resource use was determined through a questionnaire completed by Canadian hematologists. Utility values were obtained from two studies in which EQ-5D health questionnaire values were mapped from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer qlq-C30 survey, and SF-6D scores were mapped from the Short Form 12, elicited from 191 and 43 patients in two different trials. RESULTS: In the base case, azacitidine had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $86,182 (95% confidence limits: $69,920, $107,157) per quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gained relative to ccr. Comparing azacitidine with bsc, low-dose chemotherapy plus bsc, and standard-dose chemotherapy plus bsc, the icers were, respectively, $86,973, $84,829, and $2,152 per qaly gained. Results were most sensitive to the utility for azacitidine after 6 months of treatment and to overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The prolonged 9-month median overall survival with azacitidine relative to ccr fills a gap w hen treating patients with higher-risk mds and aml with 20%-30% blasts. The economic value of azacitidine is within the threshold of willingness-to-pay for third-party public payers for oncology treatments in Canada.
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine the economic value of azacitidine in Canada compared with conventional care regimens (ccrs), including best supportive care (bsc) and low- or standard-dose chemotherapy plus bsc in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (mdss) and acute myeloid leukemia (aml) with 20%-30% blasts. METHODS: The cost-utility model is a lifetime probabilistic Markov model with a 35-day cycle length consisting of 3 health states: mds; transformation to aml with more than 30% blasts; and death. A third-party public payer perspective was adopted. Overall survival was extrapolated beyond the time horizon of the aza-001 trial comparing azacitidine with ccr. Resource use was determined through a questionnaire completed by Canadian hematologists. Utility values were obtained from two studies in which EQ-5D health questionnaire values were mapped from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer qlq-C30 survey, and SF-6D scores were mapped from the Short Form 12, elicited from 191 and 43 patients in two different trials. RESULTS: In the base case, azacitidine had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $86,182 (95% confidence limits: $69,920, $107,157) per quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gained relative to ccr. Comparing azacitidine with bsc, low-dose chemotherapy plus bsc, and standard-dose chemotherapy plus bsc, the icers were, respectively, $86,973, $84,829, and $2,152 per qaly gained. Results were most sensitive to the utility for azacitidine after 6 months of treatment and to overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The prolonged 9-month median overall survival with azacitidine relative to ccr fills a gap w hen treating patients with higher-risk mds and aml with 20%-30% blasts. The economic value of azacitidine is within the threshold of willingness-to-pay for third-party public payers for oncology treatments in Canada.
Authors: Alice B Kornblith; James E Herndon; Lewis R Silverman; Erin P Demakos; Rosalie Odchimar-Reissig; James F Holland; Bayard L Powell; Carlos DeCastro; John Ellerton; Richard A Larson; Charles A Schiffer; Jimmie C Holland Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pierre Fenaux; Ghulam J Mufti; Eva Hellstrom-Lindberg; Valeria Santini; Carlo Finelli; Aristoteles Giagounidis; Robert Schoch; Norbert Gattermann; Guillermo Sanz; Alan List; Steven D Gore; John F Seymour; John M Bennett; John Byrd; Jay Backstrom; Linda Zimmerman; David McKenzie; Cl Beach; Lewis R Silverman Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sonya Cressman; Aly Karsan; Donna E Hogge; Emily McPherson; Corneliu Bolbocean; Dean A Regier; Stuart J Peacock Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Anna Forsythe; Patricia S Brandt; Mike Dolph; Sachin Patel; Adrian Paul J Rabe; Gabriel Tremblay Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2018-01-25