Thilo Welsch1, Benjamin Müssle2, Marius Distler2, Holger Knoth3, Jürgen Weitz2, Dennis Häckl4. 1. Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. thilo.welsch@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 3. Pharmacy Department, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 4. Faculty of Economics, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major determinant of pancreatic surgery outcome, and prevention of POPF is a relevant clinical challenge. The aim of the present study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of octreotide and pasireotide for POPF prophylaxis. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis and a retrospective patient cohort provided the data. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and by decision tree modelling of hospital stay duration. RESULTS: Six randomised trials on octreotide (1255 patients) and one trial on pasireotide (300 patients) were included. The median POPF incidence without prophylaxis was 19.6 %. The relative risks for POPF after octreotide or pasireotide prophylaxis were 0.54 or 0.45. Octreotide prophylaxis (21 × 0.1 mg) costs were 249.69 Euro, compared with 728.84 Euro for pasireotide (14 × 0.9 mg) resulting in an ICER of 266.19 Euro for an additional 1.8 % risk reduction with pasireotide. Decision tree modelling revealed no significant reduction of median hospital stay duration if pasireotide was used instead of octreotide. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic octreotide is almost as effective as pasireotide but incurs significantly fewer drug costs per case. However, the data quality is limited, because the effect of octreotide on clinically relevant POPF is unclear. Together with the lack of multicentric data on pasireotide and its effectiveness, a current off-label use of pasireotide does not appear to be justified.
PURPOSE:Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major determinant of pancreatic surgery outcome, and prevention of POPF is a relevant clinical challenge. The aim of the present study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of octreotide and pasireotide for POPF prophylaxis. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis and a retrospective patient cohort provided the data. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and by decision tree modelling of hospital stay duration. RESULTS: Six randomised trials on octreotide (1255 patients) and one trial on pasireotide (300 patients) were included. The median POPF incidence without prophylaxis was 19.6 %. The relative risks for POPF after octreotide or pasireotide prophylaxis were 0.54 or 0.45. Octreotide prophylaxis (21 × 0.1 mg) costs were 249.69 Euro, compared with 728.84 Euro for pasireotide (14 × 0.9 mg) resulting in an ICER of 266.19 Euro for an additional 1.8 % risk reduction with pasireotide. Decision tree modelling revealed no significant reduction of median hospital stay duration if pasireotide was used instead of octreotide. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic octreotide is almost as effective as pasireotide but incurs significantly fewer drug costs per case. However, the data quality is limited, because the effect of octreotide on clinically relevant POPF is unclear. Together with the lack of multicentric data on pasireotide and its effectiveness, a current off-label use of pasireotide does not appear to be justified.
Authors: Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; Meghan A Arnold; David C Chang; Joann Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Ralph H Hruban; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Emre F Yekebas; Lars Wolfram; Guellue Cataldegirmen; Christian R Habermann; Dean Bogoevski; Alexandra M Koenig; Jussuf Kaifi; Paulus G Schurr; Michael Bubenheim; Claus Nolte-Ernsting; Gerhard Adam; Jakob R Izbicki Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Daniel E Abbott; Jeffrey M Sutton; Peter L Jernigan; Alex Chang; Patrick Frye; Shimul A Shah; Daniel P Schauer; Mark H Eckman; Syed A Ahmad; Jeffrey J Sussman Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Andreas Volk; Philipp Nitschke; Franziska Johnscher; Nuh Rahbari; Thilo Welsch; Christoph Reißfelder; Jürgen Weitz; Marius Distler; Soeren Torge Mees Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 3.445