abemaciclib联合内分泌治疗高危HR+/ her2早期乳腺癌的成本-效果

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Pub Date : 2023-11-27 DOI:10.1186/s12962-023-00499-9
Qiran Wei, YuTing Xu, Wei Liu, Xin Guan
{"title":"abemaciclib联合内分泌治疗高危HR+/ her2早期乳腺癌的成本-效果","authors":"Qiran Wei, YuTing Xu, Wei Liu, Xin Guan","doi":"10.1186/s12962-023-00499-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ABE + ET) vs. ET as adjuvant treatment for high-risk hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From the perspective of the Chinese health care system, a 5-state Markov model was developed with a lifetime horizon. Data of the monarchE phase III clinical trial were used to model the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and standard parameters models were used for data extrapolation. Costs were obtained from national data sources, expert opinions and published literature using 2023 US dollars and discounted by 5%. The results were evaluated in terms of life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the basic results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base-case analysis result, the model projected improved outcomes (by 0.65 LYs and 0.72 QALYs) and increased costs (by $16,057.72) for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $24,841/LY and $22,385/QALY for ABE + ET vs. ET patients. The results in scenario analysis estimated the ICERs of ABE + ET treatment to be $16,959/LY and $15,264/QALY in a mixture cure model, and $13,560/LY and $12,191/QALY in a non-mixture cure model. The model was sensitive to outcome discount rate and utility of iDFS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ABE + ET might not have an economic advantage over ET at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of one time the per capita GDP in China, but was expected to be more cost-effective at a WTP threshold of three times the per capita GDP. Further analysis will be conducted once data from longer-term studies become available.</p>","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":"21 1","pages":"91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10683222/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in high-risk HR+/HER2-early breast cancer in China.\",\"authors\":\"Qiran Wei, YuTing Xu, Wei Liu, Xin Guan\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12962-023-00499-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ABE + ET) vs. ET as adjuvant treatment for high-risk hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From the perspective of the Chinese health care system, a 5-state Markov model was developed with a lifetime horizon. Data of the monarchE phase III clinical trial were used to model the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and standard parameters models were used for data extrapolation. Costs were obtained from national data sources, expert opinions and published literature using 2023 US dollars and discounted by 5%. The results were evaluated in terms of life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the basic results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base-case analysis result, the model projected improved outcomes (by 0.65 LYs and 0.72 QALYs) and increased costs (by $16,057.72) for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $24,841/LY and $22,385/QALY for ABE + ET vs. ET patients. The results in scenario analysis estimated the ICERs of ABE + ET treatment to be $16,959/LY and $15,264/QALY in a mixture cure model, and $13,560/LY and $12,191/QALY in a non-mixture cure model. The model was sensitive to outcome discount rate and utility of iDFS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ABE + ET might not have an economic advantage over ET at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of one time the per capita GDP in China, but was expected to be more cost-effective at a WTP threshold of three times the per capita GDP. Further analysis will be conducted once data from longer-term studies become available.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10683222/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-023-00499-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-023-00499-9","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

摘要

目的:本文旨在评价阿贝马昔利布联合内分泌治疗(ABE + ET)与ET作为中国高危激素受体阳性和人表皮生长因子受体2阴性(HR+/HER2-)早期乳腺癌辅助治疗的成本-效果。方法:从中国医疗卫生系统的角度出发,建立了具有生命视界的五态马尔可夫模型。采用monarchE III期临床试验数据对侵袭性无病生存期(invasive disease-free survival, iDFS)进行建模,采用标准参数模型进行数据外推。成本来源于国家数据来源、专家意见和已发表文献,使用2023美元,折后5%。用生命年(LYs)和质量调整生命年(QALYs)对结果进行评价。进行敏感性分析和情景分析,检验基本结果的稳健性。结果:在基本病例分析结果中,该模型预测ABE + ET与ET患者的增量成本-效果比(ICERs)分别为24,841美元/LY和22,385美元/QALY,改善了结果(0.65 LYs和0.72 QALY),增加了成本(16,057.72美元)。情景分析结果估计,在混合治疗模式下,ABE + ET治疗的ICERs为16,959美元/LY和15,264美元/QALY,而在非混合治疗模式下,ICERs为13,560美元/LY和12,191美元/QALY。该模型对结果贴现率和iDFS的效用敏感。结论:在中国,如果支付意愿(WTP)阈值为人均GDP的1倍,ABE + ET可能不会比ET具有经济优势,但如果WTP阈值为人均GDP的3倍,预计ABE + ET更具成本效益。一旦获得长期研究的数据,将进行进一步的分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in high-risk HR+/HER2-early breast cancer in China.

Objective: The aim of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ABE + ET) vs. ET as adjuvant treatment for high-risk hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer in China.

Methods: From the perspective of the Chinese health care system, a 5-state Markov model was developed with a lifetime horizon. Data of the monarchE phase III clinical trial were used to model the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and standard parameters models were used for data extrapolation. Costs were obtained from national data sources, expert opinions and published literature using 2023 US dollars and discounted by 5%. The results were evaluated in terms of life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the basic results.

Results: In the base-case analysis result, the model projected improved outcomes (by 0.65 LYs and 0.72 QALYs) and increased costs (by $16,057.72) for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $24,841/LY and $22,385/QALY for ABE + ET vs. ET patients. The results in scenario analysis estimated the ICERs of ABE + ET treatment to be $16,959/LY and $15,264/QALY in a mixture cure model, and $13,560/LY and $12,191/QALY in a non-mixture cure model. The model was sensitive to outcome discount rate and utility of iDFS.

Conclusion: ABE + ET might not have an economic advantage over ET at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of one time the per capita GDP in China, but was expected to be more cost-effective at a WTP threshold of three times the per capita GDP. Further analysis will be conducted once data from longer-term studies become available.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
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. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tocilizumab compared to Adalimumab in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis in Iran.
×
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