Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1186/s12962-024-00578-5
Hanqiao Shao, Hongshu Fang, Yuan Li, Yunlin Jiang, Mingye Zhao, Wenxi Tang
{"title":"Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective.","authors":"Hanqiao Shao, Hongshu Fang, Yuan Li, Yunlin Jiang, Mingye Zhao, Wenxi Tang","doi":"10.1186/s12962-024-00578-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX as a potential new standard of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) has yet to be established. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in this indication from the perspective of U.S. public payers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of U.S. public payers, drawing on baseline patient characteristics and vital clinical data from the NAPOLI-3 trial. Costs and utilities were sourced from publicly accessible databases and literature. A lifetime horizon was applied, with an annual discount rate of 3%. We calculated and compared cumulative costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To evaluate the model's robustness, sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses were carried out. Additionally, a price simulation for the costly liposomal irinotecan was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness to pay (WTP) threshold.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base-case analysis, NALIRIFOX provided an additional 0.29 QALYs with an ICER of $206,340.69 /QALY compared to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, indicating it is not cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed the model was most sensitive to the costs of liposomal irinotecan, capecitabine, and post-progression care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 17.66% probability of NALIRIFOX being cost-effective at $150,000/QALY, rising to 47.48% at $200,000/QALY. Pricing simulations suggested NALIRIFOX could become cost-effective at $150,000/QALY if the price of irinotecan liposome drops to $53.24/mg (a 14.8% reduction).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>NALIRIFOX may not be cost-effective at its current price as a first-line treatment for patients with mPDAC in the long term. The cost of liposomal irinotecan has the greatest impact. It may become cost-effective only if its cost is reduced by 14.8%, with a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY.</p>","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412000/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00578-5","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: The cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX as a potential new standard of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) has yet to be established. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in this indication from the perspective of U.S. public payers.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of U.S. public payers, drawing on baseline patient characteristics and vital clinical data from the NAPOLI-3 trial. Costs and utilities were sourced from publicly accessible databases and literature. A lifetime horizon was applied, with an annual discount rate of 3%. We calculated and compared cumulative costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To evaluate the model's robustness, sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses were carried out. Additionally, a price simulation for the costly liposomal irinotecan was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness to pay (WTP) threshold.

Results: In the base-case analysis, NALIRIFOX provided an additional 0.29 QALYs with an ICER of $206,340.69 /QALY compared to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, indicating it is not cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed the model was most sensitive to the costs of liposomal irinotecan, capecitabine, and post-progression care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 17.66% probability of NALIRIFOX being cost-effective at $150,000/QALY, rising to 47.48% at $200,000/QALY. Pricing simulations suggested NALIRIFOX could become cost-effective at $150,000/QALY if the price of irinotecan liposome drops to $53.24/mg (a 14.8% reduction).

Conclusions: NALIRIFOX may not be cost-effective at its current price as a first-line treatment for patients with mPDAC in the long term. The cost of liposomal irinotecan has the greatest impact. It may become cost-effective only if its cost is reduced by 14.8%, with a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY.

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
从美国的角度对NALIRIFOX与纳布-紫杉醇和吉西他滨方案一线治疗转移性胰腺导管腺癌的经济性进行评估。
背景:NALIRIFOX 作为治疗转移性胰腺导管腺癌 (mPDAC) 患者的潜在新标准,其成本效益尚未确定。我们的目标是从美国公共付费者的角度评估 NALIRIFOX 与纳布-紫杉醇和吉西他滨在该适应症中的成本效益:方法:根据 NAPOLI-3 试验中的患者基线特征和重要临床数据,从美国公共付费者的角度构建了一个分区生存模型。成本和效用来源于可公开访问的数据库和文献。我们采用了终身视角,年贴现率为 3%。我们计算并比较了累积成本、生命年数、质量调整生命年数 (QALY) 和增量成本效益比 (ICER)。为了评估模型的稳健性,我们进行了敏感性分析、情景分析和亚组分析。此外,还对成本较高的脂质体伊立替康进行了价格模拟,以了解在给定的支付意愿(WTP)阈值下的定价策略:在基础案例分析中,与纳布-紫杉醇和吉西他滨相比,NALIRIFOX 额外增加了 0.29 QALYs,ICER 为 206340.69 美元/QALY,这表明在 150,000 美元/QALY 临界值下,NALIRIFOX 不具成本效益。敏感性分析表明,该模型对脂质体伊立替康、卡培他滨和进展后护理的成本最为敏感。概率敏感性分析表明,当成本为 150,000 美元/QALY 时,NALIRIFOX 具有成本效益的概率为 17.66%,当成本为 200,000 美元/QALY 时,该概率上升至 47.48%。定价模拟表明,如果伊立替康脂质体的价格降至 53.24 美元/毫克(降幅为 14.8%),NALIRIFOX 在 15 万美元/QALY 时可能具有成本效益:结论:以目前的价格作为 mPDAC 患者的一线治疗,NALIRIFOX 可能不具有长期成本效益。脂质体伊立替康的成本影响最大。只有当其成本降低 14.8%(WTP 临界值为 150,000 美元/QALY)时,它才可能具有成本效益。
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
Exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of a new computerised decision support tool for identifying fetal compromise during monitored term labours: an early health economic model. Financial incentives in the management of diabetes: a systematic review. Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective. The costs of implementing anaemia reduction interventions among women fish processors in Ghana. Global bibliometric analysis of cost effectiveness analysis in healthcare research from 2013 to 2023.
×
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