V F Fragoulakis1, A G Pallis2, D K Kaitelidou3, N M Maniadakis1, V G Georgoulias2. 1. Department of Health Services Management, National School of Public Health, Athens. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, Voutes Crete, Greece. 3. Center for Health Services Management and Evaluation, Department of Nursing, University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: An economic evaluation was conducted in conjunction with a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, to compare pemetrexed with erlotinib in pretreated patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Greece. METHODS: The effectiveness of treatments examined was comparable; thus, cost minimization analysis was conducted to evaluate which option is less costly. Patient-level resource utilization data were combined with unit cost data, which were aggregated to compute the total treatment cost for each patient. The analysis was conducted with respect to the individual incurring the cost. Due to the limited life-expectancy of the patients, discounting was unnecessary. Since data were right censored, the Bang and Tsiatis method was employed to identify unbiased estimators of the mean cost per treatment arm, while other methods were employed for sensitivity analysis. To analyze uncertainty and to construct uncertainty intervals (UI), stochastic analysis was performed based on 5000 bootstrap replications. RESULTS: The one-year survival rate was 28.3% in the pemetrexed arm and 31.7% in the erlotinib arm, while the corresponding median survival over the follow-up period was 7.1 and 6.7 months, respectively (P = 0.765). Total cost in the pemetrexed arm was €10508 (95% UI: €9552-€11488), while in the erlotinib arm the cost was €9563 (95% UI: €8499-€10711); thus, no statistically significant difference was found between the comparators (P = 0.206). Results remained constant for all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There is no survival or cost difference between erlotinib and pemetrexed; thus, these therapies are equivalent. Further studies are needed to determine whether other parameters, such as quality of life, differ among treatment options.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: An economic evaluation was conducted in conjunction with a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, to compare pemetrexed with erlotinib in pretreated patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Greece. METHODS: The effectiveness of treatments examined was comparable; thus, cost minimization analysis was conducted to evaluate which option is less costly. Patient-level resource utilization data were combined with unit cost data, which were aggregated to compute the total treatment cost for each patient. The analysis was conducted with respect to the individual incurring the cost. Due to the limited life-expectancy of the patients, discounting was unnecessary. Since data were right censored, the Bang and Tsiatis method was employed to identify unbiased estimators of the mean cost per treatment arm, while other methods were employed for sensitivity analysis. To analyze uncertainty and to construct uncertainty intervals (UI), stochastic analysis was performed based on 5000 bootstrap replications. RESULTS: The one-year survival rate was 28.3% in the pemetrexed arm and 31.7% in the erlotinib arm, while the corresponding median survival over the follow-up period was 7.1 and 6.7 months, respectively (P = 0.765). Total cost in the pemetrexed arm was €10508 (95% UI: €9552-€11488), while in the erlotinib arm the cost was €9563 (95% UI: €8499-€10711); thus, no statistically significant difference was found between the comparators (P = 0.206). Results remained constant for all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There is no survival or cost difference between erlotinib and pemetrexed; thus, these therapies are equivalent. Further studies are needed to determine whether other parameters, such as quality of life, differ among treatment options.
Authors: Scott Ramsey; Richard Willke; Andrew Briggs; Ruth Brown; Martin Buxton; Anita Chawla; John Cook; Henry Glick; Bengt Liljas; Diana Petitti; Shelby Reed Journal: Value Health Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Josh J Carlson; Carolina Reyes; Nina Oestreicher; Deborah Lubeck; Scott D Ramsey; David L Veenstra Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Purvish Parikh; Joachim von Pawel; Bonne Biesma; Johan Vansteenkiste; Christian Manegold; Piotr Serwatowski; Ulrich Gatzemeier; Raghunadharao Digumarti; Mauro Zukin; Jin S Lee; Anders Mellemgaard; Keunchil Park; Shehkar Patil; Janusz Rolski; Tuncay Goksel; Filippo de Marinis; Lorinda Simms; Katherine P Sugarman; David Gandara Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edward S Kim; Vera Hirsh; Tony Mok; Mark A Socinski; Radj Gervais; Yi-Long Wu; Long-Yun Li; Claire L Watkins; Mark V Sellers; Elizabeth S Lowe; Yan Sun; Mei-Lin Liao; Kell Osterlind; Martin Reck; Alison A Armour; Frances A Shepherd; Scott M Lippman; Jean-Yves Douillard Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-11-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A Araújo; B Parente; R Sotto-Mayor; E Teixeira; T Almodôvar; F Barata; H Queiroga; C Pereira; H Pereira; F Negreiro; C Silva Journal: Rev Port Pneumol Date: 2008 Nov-Dec