Limits...
Cost-effectiveness of first-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy.

Khan I, Morris S, Hackshaw A, Lee SM - BMJ Open (2015)

Bottom Line: The probability of cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in all patients was <10% at thresholds up to £100,000.However, within the rash subgroup, the incremental cost/QALY was £56,770/QALY with a probability of cost-effectiveness of about 80% for cost-effectiveness thresholds between £50,000 to £60,000.Erlotinib is potentially cost-effective for this population, for which few treatment options apart from best supportive care are available. (ISCRTN): 77383050.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: CRUK & UCL Cancer Trial Centre, University College London, London, UK Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Cost-effectiveness results. (A) Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve (CEAC): ER versus Placebo/SC for rash subgroup. Note: Vertical reference lines are CE threshold values of £50 000 and the observed cost/QALY (£56 770). The horizontal reference line is 0.8. (B) Cost-Effectiveness Plane: ER versus Placebo/SC (rash subgroup). Note: The first vertical reference line is 0. The horizontal and second vertical reference lines are observed incremental effect (0.139) and observed incremental cost (£7891), respectively.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499745&req=5

BMJOPEN2014006733F2: Cost-effectiveness results. (A) Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve (CEAC): ER versus Placebo/SC for rash subgroup. Note: Vertical reference lines are CE threshold values of £50 000 and the observed cost/QALY (£56 770). The horizontal reference line is 0.8. (B) Cost-Effectiveness Plane: ER versus Placebo/SC (rash subgroup). Note: The first vertical reference line is 0. The horizontal and second vertical reference lines are observed incremental effect (0.139) and observed incremental cost (£7891), respectively.

Mentions: Results from one way sensitivity analyses are shown in table 4. The ICER was most sensitive to changes (±20%) in erlotinib costs, and utilities ranged from £45 821/QALY to £67 530/QALY. Most ICERs remained within 5% of the base case after ±20% adjustments. The mean ICER from PSA was £57 120 with 5% and 95% quantiles ranging from £29 438 to £89 550. The estimated probability of cost-effectiveness of erlotinib at CE thresholds between £50 000 to £60 000 was 80% (figure 2A). The CE plane (figure 2B) shows costs and benefits scattered in the north east quadrant where incremental effects are generally positive (erlotinib better), but with higher costs.


Cost-effectiveness of first-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy.

Khan I, Morris S, Hackshaw A, Lee SM - BMJ Open (2015)

Cost-effectiveness results. (A) Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve (CEAC): ER versus Placebo/SC for rash subgroup. Note: Vertical reference lines are CE threshold values of £50 000 and the observed cost/QALY (£56 770). The horizontal reference line is 0.8. (B) Cost-Effectiveness Plane: ER versus Placebo/SC (rash subgroup). Note: The first vertical reference line is 0. The horizontal and second vertical reference lines are observed incremental effect (0.139) and observed incremental cost (£7891), respectively.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499745&req=5

BMJOPEN2014006733F2: Cost-effectiveness results. (A) Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve (CEAC): ER versus Placebo/SC for rash subgroup. Note: Vertical reference lines are CE threshold values of £50 000 and the observed cost/QALY (£56 770). The horizontal reference line is 0.8. (B) Cost-Effectiveness Plane: ER versus Placebo/SC (rash subgroup). Note: The first vertical reference line is 0. The horizontal and second vertical reference lines are observed incremental effect (0.139) and observed incremental cost (£7891), respectively.
Mentions: Results from one way sensitivity analyses are shown in table 4. The ICER was most sensitive to changes (±20%) in erlotinib costs, and utilities ranged from £45 821/QALY to £67 530/QALY. Most ICERs remained within 5% of the base case after ±20% adjustments. The mean ICER from PSA was £57 120 with 5% and 95% quantiles ranging from £29 438 to £89 550. The estimated probability of cost-effectiveness of erlotinib at CE thresholds between £50 000 to £60 000 was 80% (figure 2A). The CE plane (figure 2B) shows costs and benefits scattered in the north east quadrant where incremental effects are generally positive (erlotinib better), but with higher costs.

Bottom Line: The probability of cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in all patients was <10% at thresholds up to £100,000.However, within the rash subgroup, the incremental cost/QALY was £56,770/QALY with a probability of cost-effectiveness of about 80% for cost-effectiveness thresholds between £50,000 to £60,000.Erlotinib is potentially cost-effective for this population, for which few treatment options apart from best supportive care are available. (ISCRTN): 77383050.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: CRUK & UCL Cancer Trial Centre, University College London, London, UK Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus