Cost-benefit evaluation of advanced therapy lines in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in Germany.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Pub Date : 2024-03-08 DOI:10.1186/s12962-024-00528-1
Amelie Wickmann, Melina Sophie Kurte, Julia Jeck, Luisa Camacho, Dennis Klinkhammer, Florian Kron, Robert Dengler
{"title":"Cost-benefit evaluation of advanced therapy lines in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in Germany.","authors":"Amelie Wickmann, Melina Sophie Kurte, Julia Jeck, Luisa Camacho, Dennis Klinkhammer, Florian Kron, Robert Dengler","doi":"10.1186/s12962-024-00528-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is responsible for 10-20% cases of breast cancer and is resulting in rising healthcare costs. Thus, health-economic evaluations are needed to relate clinical outcomes and costs of treatment options and to provide recommendations of action from a health-economic perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We investigated the cost-benefit-ratio of approved treatment options in metastatic TNBC in Germany by applying the efficiency frontier approach. These included sacituzumab-govitecan (SG), eribulin, vinorelbine, and capecitabine. Clinical benefit was measured as (i) median overall survival (mOS) and (ii) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in terms of time to symptom worsening (TSW). To assess medical benefits, literature was systematically reviewed in PubMed for (i) and (ii), respectively. Treatment costs were calculated considering annual direct outpatient treatment costs from a statutory healthcare payer perspective. It was intended that both, (i) and (ii), yield an efficiency frontier.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Annual direct outpatient treatment costs amounted to EUR 176,415.21 (SG), EUR 47,414.14 (eribulin), EUR 13,711.35 (vinorelbine), and EUR 3,718.84 (capecitabine). Systematic literature review of (i) and statistical analysis resulted in OS values of 14.3, 9.56, 9.44, and 7.46 months, respectively. Capecitabine, vinorelbine, and SG are part of the efficiency frontier including OS. The highest additional benefit per additional cost was determined for vinorelbine, followed by SG. Systematic review of (ii) revealed that no TSW data of TNBC patients receiving vinorelbine were available, preventing the presentation of an efficiency frontier including HRQoL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Vinorelbine is most cost-effective, followed by SG. Health-economic evaluations support decision-makers to assess treatment options within one indication area. In Germany, the efficiency frontier can provide decision support for the pricing of innovative interventions. Results of our analysis may thus guide reimbursement determination.</p>","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":"22 1","pages":"21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10924420/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00528-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is responsible for 10-20% cases of breast cancer and is resulting in rising healthcare costs. Thus, health-economic evaluations are needed to relate clinical outcomes and costs of treatment options and to provide recommendations of action from a health-economic perspective.

Methods: We investigated the cost-benefit-ratio of approved treatment options in metastatic TNBC in Germany by applying the efficiency frontier approach. These included sacituzumab-govitecan (SG), eribulin, vinorelbine, and capecitabine. Clinical benefit was measured as (i) median overall survival (mOS) and (ii) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in terms of time to symptom worsening (TSW). To assess medical benefits, literature was systematically reviewed in PubMed for (i) and (ii), respectively. Treatment costs were calculated considering annual direct outpatient treatment costs from a statutory healthcare payer perspective. It was intended that both, (i) and (ii), yield an efficiency frontier.

Results: Annual direct outpatient treatment costs amounted to EUR 176,415.21 (SG), EUR 47,414.14 (eribulin), EUR 13,711.35 (vinorelbine), and EUR 3,718.84 (capecitabine). Systematic literature review of (i) and statistical analysis resulted in OS values of 14.3, 9.56, 9.44, and 7.46 months, respectively. Capecitabine, vinorelbine, and SG are part of the efficiency frontier including OS. The highest additional benefit per additional cost was determined for vinorelbine, followed by SG. Systematic review of (ii) revealed that no TSW data of TNBC patients receiving vinorelbine were available, preventing the presentation of an efficiency frontier including HRQoL.

Conclusions: Vinorelbine is most cost-effective, followed by SG. Health-economic evaluations support decision-makers to assess treatment options within one indication area. In Germany, the efficiency frontier can provide decision support for the pricing of innovative interventions. Results of our analysis may thus guide reimbursement determination.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德国对转移性三阴性乳腺癌晚期治疗方案的成本效益评估。
背景:三阴性乳腺癌(TNBC三阴性乳腺癌(TNBC)占乳腺癌病例的10%-20%,并导致医疗费用不断上升。因此,需要进行健康经济评估,将临床结果与治疗方案的成本联系起来,并从健康经济的角度提供行动建议:方法:我们采用效率前沿方法调查了德国已批准的治疗转移性 TNBC 方案的成本效益比。这些治疗方案包括:sacituzumab-govitecan (SG)、eribulin、vinorelbine 和 capecitabine。临床获益以(i)中位总生存期(mOS)和(ii)健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)(症状恶化时间(TSW))来衡量。为评估医疗效益,分别在 PubMed 上对(i)和(ii)进行了系统的文献综述。治疗成本的计算考虑了法定医疗支付方的年度直接门诊治疗成本。目的是使(i)和(ii)都产生效率前沿:年度直接门诊治疗费用分别为 176,415.21 欧元(SG)、47,414.14 欧元(埃里布林)、13,711.35 欧元(维诺雷滨)和 3,718.84 欧元(卡培他滨)。对(i)进行系统文献回顾和统计分析后得出的OS值分别为14.3个月、9.56个月、9.44个月和7.46个月。卡培他滨、维诺雷滨和 SG 属于包括 OS 在内的效率前沿。维诺雷宾的每额外成本额外收益最高,其次是 SG。对(ii)的系统回顾显示,没有接受长春瑞滨治疗的TNBC患者的TSW数据,因此无法提出包括HRQoL在内的效率边界:结论:长春瑞滨最具成本效益,其次是 SG。健康经济评估有助于决策者评估某一适应症领域的治疗方案。在德国,效率前沿可为创新干预措施的定价提供决策支持。因此,我们的分析结果可以为确定报销提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
59
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis, including conceptual or methodological work, economic evaluations, and policy analysis related to resource allocation at a national or international level. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is aimed at health economists, health services researchers, and policy-makers with an interest in enhancing the flow and transfer of knowledge relating to efficiency in the health sector. Manuscripts are encouraged from researchers based in low- and middle-income countries, with a view to increasing the international economic evidence base for health.
期刊最新文献
Assessing diagnosis-related groups based direct medical expenditures of chronic disease patients in general hospital of lower southern Thailand. Health system efficiency and equity in ASEAN: an empirical investigation. Coverage and distributional benefit-cost of rotavirus vaccine in Uganda: an analysis of routine health facility aggregated data. Cost-effectiveness of fenofibrate for preventing diabetic complications in Australia. Cost-effectiveness of high-dose vitamin D supplementation to reduce the occurrence of repeat episodes of pneumonia in children.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1