Mahdi Gharaibeh1, Ali McBride2,3,4, David S Alberts2, Brian Erstad1,4, Marion Slack1,4, Nimer Alsaid1,4, J Lyle Bootman1,4, Ivo Abraham5,6,7,8. 1. Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 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, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. 5. Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 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, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, 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: Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK. OBJECTIVE: Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK. METHODS: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.
BACKGROUND:Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK. OBJECTIVE: Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK. METHODS: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results. RESULTS:FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.
Authors: Doug Coyle; Yoo-Joung Ko; Kathryn Coyle; Ronak Saluja; Keya Shah; Kelly Lien; Henry Lam; Kelvin K W Chan Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 5.725
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: Paul Swinburn; Andrew Lloyd; Paul Nathan; Toni K Choueiri; David Cella; Maureen P Neary Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Giuseppe Colucci; Roberto Labianca; Francesco Di Costanzo; Vittorio Gebbia; Giacomo Cartenì; Bruno Massidda; Elisa Dapretto; Luigi Manzione; Elena Piazza; Mirella Sannicolò; Marco Ciaparrone; Luigi Cavanna; Francesco Giuliani; Evaristo Maiello; Antonio Testa; Paolo Pederzoli; Massimo Falconi; Ciro Gallo; Massimo Di Maio; Francesco Perrone Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Olusola O Faluyi; Joanna L Connor; Madhuchanda Chatterjee; Carl Ikin; Helen Wong; Daniel H Palmer Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Mahdi Gharaibeh; Ali McBride; David S Alberts; Marion Slack; Brian Erstad; Nimer Alsaid; J Lyle Bootman; Ivo Abraham Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.981