Chiara Bini, Martina Paoletti, Andrea Marcellusi, Carlo Tomino, Francesco Saverio Mennini
{"title":"造血干细胞异源移植患者对treosulfan的经济评价。","authors":"Chiara Bini, Martina Paoletti, Andrea Marcellusi, Carlo Tomino, Francesco Saverio Mennini","doi":"10.33393/grhta.2022.2412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Economic evaluation of treosulfan in patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness and economic sustainability of treosulfan plus fludarabine compared with busulfan plus fludarabine as a conditioning treatment for malignant disease prior to allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) in adult patients in Italy. Method: The two theoretical cohorts of patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were pooled and followed over time using a partitioned survival model with cycles of 28 days. Patients can transition between a post-HSCT recovery/remission state (Event-Free Survival state, EFS state), a relapsed/progressed disease state, and a death state. A lifetime horizon for cost-effectiveness analysis and a 5-years’ time horizon for budget impact analysis were used. The perspective of the Italian National Health Service was adopted. Utility values were obtained from published sources. Costs included: drug acquisition, HSCT procedure, management and treatment of adverse reactions, graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and health states, end of life treatment. Discounting of 3% per year was applied for both costs and outcomes according to Italian guidelines. Sensitivity was tested through both one-way and probabilistic analyses. Results: Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treosulfan is both more effective and less expensive compared with busulfan (+1.08 life-years, +0.95 quality-adjusted life-years per patient and –€ 41,388 per patient). On the side of economic sustainability, the introduction of treosulfan in the market could generate a cumulative decrement of the expense incurred by NHS of about –€ 212,063 over five years. Conclusion: Treosulfan could represent a cost-effective and sustainable treatment alternative from the perspective of the NHS.","PeriodicalId":12627,"journal":{"name":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b9/34/grhta-9-105.PMC9768594.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Valutazione economica di treosulfan in pazienti sottoposti a trapianto allogenico di cellule staminali ematopoietiche.\",\"authors\":\"Chiara Bini, Martina Paoletti, Andrea Marcellusi, Carlo Tomino, Francesco Saverio Mennini\",\"doi\":\"10.33393/grhta.2022.2412\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Economic evaluation of treosulfan in patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness and economic sustainability of treosulfan plus fludarabine compared with busulfan plus fludarabine as a conditioning treatment for malignant disease prior to allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) in adult patients in Italy. Method: The two theoretical cohorts of patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were pooled and followed over time using a partitioned survival model with cycles of 28 days. Patients can transition between a post-HSCT recovery/remission state (Event-Free Survival state, EFS state), a relapsed/progressed disease state, and a death state. A lifetime horizon for cost-effectiveness analysis and a 5-years’ time horizon for budget impact analysis were used. The perspective of the Italian National Health Service was adopted. Utility values were obtained from published sources. Costs included: drug acquisition, HSCT procedure, management and treatment of adverse reactions, graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and health states, end of life treatment. Discounting of 3% per year was applied for both costs and outcomes according to Italian guidelines. Sensitivity was tested through both one-way and probabilistic analyses. Results: Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treosulfan is both more effective and less expensive compared with busulfan (+1.08 life-years, +0.95 quality-adjusted life-years per patient and –€ 41,388 per patient). On the side of economic sustainability, the introduction of treosulfan in the market could generate a cumulative decrement of the expense incurred by NHS of about –€ 212,063 over five years. Conclusion: Treosulfan could represent a cost-effective and sustainable treatment alternative from the perspective of the NHS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12627,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b9/34/grhta-9-105.PMC9768594.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2022.2412\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2022.2412","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Valutazione economica di treosulfan in pazienti sottoposti a trapianto allogenico di cellule staminali ematopoietiche.
Economic evaluation of treosulfan in patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness and economic sustainability of treosulfan plus fludarabine compared with busulfan plus fludarabine as a conditioning treatment for malignant disease prior to allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) in adult patients in Italy. Method: The two theoretical cohorts of patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were pooled and followed over time using a partitioned survival model with cycles of 28 days. Patients can transition between a post-HSCT recovery/remission state (Event-Free Survival state, EFS state), a relapsed/progressed disease state, and a death state. A lifetime horizon for cost-effectiveness analysis and a 5-years’ time horizon for budget impact analysis were used. The perspective of the Italian National Health Service was adopted. Utility values were obtained from published sources. Costs included: drug acquisition, HSCT procedure, management and treatment of adverse reactions, graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and health states, end of life treatment. Discounting of 3% per year was applied for both costs and outcomes according to Italian guidelines. Sensitivity was tested through both one-way and probabilistic analyses. Results: Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treosulfan is both more effective and less expensive compared with busulfan (+1.08 life-years, +0.95 quality-adjusted life-years per patient and –€ 41,388 per patient). On the side of economic sustainability, the introduction of treosulfan in the market could generate a cumulative decrement of the expense incurred by NHS of about –€ 212,063 over five years. Conclusion: Treosulfan could represent a cost-effective and sustainable treatment alternative from the perspective of the NHS.
期刊介绍:
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment (GRHTA) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal which aims to promote health technology assessment and economic evaluation, enabling choices among alternative therapeutical paths or procedures with different clinical and economic outcomes. GRHTA is a unique journal having three different editorial boards who focus on their respective geographical expertise.