Mahdi Gharaibeh1, Ali McBride2,3,4, David S Alberts2, Marion Slack1,4, Brian Erstad1,4, Nimer Alsaid1, J Lyle Bootman1,4, Ivo Abraham5,6,7,8. 1. Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. 2. University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. 3. Banner University Medical Center-Tucson, Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 5. Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. abraham@pharmacy.arizona.edu. 6. University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. abraham@pharmacy.arizona.edu. 7. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. abraham@pharmacy.arizona.edu. 8. Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine-Tucson, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. abraham@pharmacy.arizona.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer include monotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM); combinations of GEM with oxaliplatin (OX + GEM), cisplatin (CIS + GEM), capecitabine (CAP + GEM), or nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P + GEM); and the non-GEM combination FOLFIRINOX. Combination therapies have yielded better survival outcomes than GEM alone. A sponsor-independent economic evaluation of these regimens has not been conducted for USA. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost utility and cost effectiveness of these regimens from the payer perspective for USA. METHODS: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed disease, death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years; life-years) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility and cost-effectiveness ratios. FOLFIRINOX clinical data were obtained from trial and indirect estimates were obtained from network meta-analyses. Lifetime horizon and 3%/year discount rates were used. RESULTS: FOLFIRINOX was the most expensive regimen and GEM the least costly regimen. Compared to GEM, all but one (CIS + GEM) regimen were found to be more effective in quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. Compared to GEM, the incremental cost-utility ratios for CAP + GEM, OX-GEM, NAB-P + GEM, and FOLFIRINOX, were US$180,503, US$197,993, US$204,833, and US$265,718 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, respectively; and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were US$88,181, US$87,620, US$135,683, and US$167,040 per additional life-year, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This sponsor-independent economic evaluation for USA found that OX + GEM, CAP + GEM, FOLFIRINOX, and NAB-P + GEM, but not CIS + GEM, were more expensive but also more effective than GEM alone in terms of quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. The NAB-P + GEM regimen appears to be the most cost effective in USA at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$200,000/quality-adjusted life-year.
BACKGROUND: Treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer include monotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM); combinations of GEM with oxaliplatin (OX + GEM), cisplatin (CIS + GEM), capecitabine (CAP + GEM), or nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P + GEM); and the non-GEM combination FOLFIRINOX. Combination therapies have yielded better survival outcomes than GEM alone. A sponsor-independent economic evaluation of these regimens has not been conducted for USA. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost utility and cost effectiveness of these regimens from the payer perspective for USA. METHODS: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed disease, death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years; life-years) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility and cost-effectiveness ratios. FOLFIRINOX clinical data were obtained from trial and indirect estimates were obtained from network meta-analyses. Lifetime horizon and 3%/year discount rates were used. RESULTS:FOLFIRINOX was the most expensive regimen and GEM the least costly regimen. Compared to GEM, all but one (CIS + GEM) regimen were found to be more effective in quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. Compared to GEM, the incremental cost-utility ratios for CAP + GEM, OX-GEM, NAB-P + GEM, and FOLFIRINOX, were US$180,503, US$197,993, US$204,833, and US$265,718 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, respectively; and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were US$88,181, US$87,620, US$135,683, and US$167,040 per additional life-year, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This sponsor-independent economic evaluation for USA found that OX + GEM, CAP + GEM, FOLFIRINOX, and NAB-P + GEM, but not CIS + GEM, were more expensive but also more effective than GEM alone in terms of quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. The NAB-P + GEM regimen appears to be the most cost effective in USA at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$200,000/quality-adjusted life-year.
Authors: Mustafa Suker; Berend R Beumer; Eran Sadot; Lysiane Marthey; Jason E Faris; Eric A Mellon; Bassel F El-Rayes; Andrea Wang-Gillam; Jill Lacy; Peter J Hosein; Sing Yu Moorcraft; Thierry Conroy; Florian Hohla; Peter Allen; Julien Taieb; Theodore S Hong; Ravi Shridhar; Ian Chau; Casper H van Eijck; Bas Groot Koerkamp Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Thierry Conroy; Françoise Desseigne; Marc Ychou; Olivier Bouché; Rosine Guimbaud; Yves Bécouarn; Antoine Adenis; Jean-Luc Raoul; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Christelle de la Fouchardière; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Denis Péré-Vergé; Catherine Delbaldo; Eric Assenat; Bruno Chauffert; Pierre Michel; Christine Montoto-Grillot; Michel Ducreux Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mahdi Gharaibeh; Ali McBride; David S Alberts; Brian Erstad; Marion Slack; Nimer Alsaid; J Lyle Bootman; Ivo Abraham Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Seth A Seabury; Dana P Goldman; J Ross Maclean; John R Penrod; Darius N Lakdawalla Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Daniel D Von Hoff; Thomas Ervin; Francis P Arena; E Gabriela Chiorean; Jeffrey Infante; Malcolm Moore; Thomas Seay; Sergei A Tjulandin; Wen Wee Ma; Mansoor N Saleh; Marion Harris; Michele Reni; Scot Dowden; Daniel Laheru; Nathan Bahary; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Josep Tabernero; Manuel Hidalgo; David Goldstein; Eric Van Cutsem; Xinyu Wei; Jose Iglesias; Markus F Renschler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael J Raphael; William Raskin; Steven Habbous; Xiaochen Tai; Jaclyn Beca; Wei F Dai; Jessica Arias; Leta Forbes; Scott Gavura; James J Biagi; Craig C Earle; Kelvin K W Chan Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Ali Tafazzoli; Scott D Ramsey; Alissa Shaul; Ameya Chavan; Weicheng Ye; Anuraag R Kansal; Josh Ofman; A Mark Fendrick Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 4.558