Source:European Journal of Cancer, Volume 79
Author(s): R.J.W. van Kampen, B.L.T. Ramaekers, D.J.A. Lobbezoo, M. de Boer, M.W. Dercksen, F. van den Berkmortel, T.J. Smilde, A.J. van de Wouw, F.P.J. Peters, J.M.G. van Riel, N.A.J.B. Peters, V.C.G. Tjan-Heijnen, M.A. Joore
IntroductionThe aim of our analysis was to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment versus taxane monotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer compared with the cost-effectiveness based on the efficacy results from a trial.MethodsA state transition model was built to estimate costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatments. Two scenarios were examined: a real-world scenario and a trial-based scenario in which transition probabilities were primarily based on a real-world cohort study and the E2100 trial, respectively. In both scenarios, costs and utility parameter estimates were extracted from the real-world cohort study. Moreover, the Dutch health care perspective was adopted.ResultsIn both the real-world and trial scenarios, bevacizumab-taxane is more expensive (incremental costs of €56,213 and €52,750, respectively) and more effective (incremental QALYs of 0.362 and 0.189, respectively) than taxane monotherapy. In the real-world scenario, bevacizumab-taxane compared to taxane monotherapy led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €155,261 per QALY gained. In the trial scenario, the ICER amounted to €278,711 per QALY gained.ConclusionAccording to the Dutch informal threshold, bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment was not considered cost-effective for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer both in a real-world and in a trial scenario.
http://ift.tt/2riqZJH
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου