Limits...
Cost-effectiveness of adding rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide for treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Ukraine.

Mandrik O, Corro Ramos I, Knies S, Al M, Severens JL - Cancer Manag Res (2015)

Bottom Line: While utilities were generalized from UK data, local resource utilization and disease-associated treatment, hospitalization, and side effect costs were applied.Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analyses have shown that for refractory/relapsed patients the probability of FCR being cost-effective is higher than for treatment-naïve patients and is close to one if the threshold is higher than US$15,000.State coverage of rituximab treatment may be considered a cost-effective treatment for the Ukrainian population under conditions of economic stability, cost-effectiveness threshold growth, or rituximab price negotiations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness, from a health care perspective, of adding rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide scheme (FCR versus FC) for treatment-naïve and refractory/relapsed Ukrainian patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. A decision-analytic Markov cohort model with three health states and 1-month cycle time was developed and run within a life time horizon. Data from two multinational, prospective, open-label Phase 3 studies were used to assess patients' survival. While utilities were generalized from UK data, local resource utilization and disease-associated treatment, hospitalization, and side effect costs were applied. The alternative scenario was performed to assess the impact of lower life expectancy of the general population in Ukraine on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for treatment-naïve patients. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. The ICER (in US dollars) of treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with FCR versus FC is US$8,704 per quality-adjusted life year gained for treatment-naïve patients and US$11,056 for refractory/relapsed patients. When survival data were modified to the lower life expectancy of the general population in Ukraine, the ICER for treatment-naïve patients was higher than US$13,000. This value is higher than three times the current gross domestic product per capita in Ukraine. Sensitivity analyses have shown a high impact of rituximab costs and a moderate impact of differences in utilities on the ICER. Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analyses have shown that for refractory/relapsed patients the probability of FCR being cost-effective is higher than for treatment-naïve patients and is close to one if the threshold is higher than US$15,000. State coverage of rituximab treatment may be considered a cost-effective treatment for the Ukrainian population under conditions of economic stability, cost-effectiveness threshold growth, or rituximab price negotiations.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Cost-effectiveness plane: adding rituximab to treatment of naïve and refractory/relapsed patients.Abbreviations: QALYs, quality-adjusted life years; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555968&req=5

f1-cmar-7-279: Cost-effectiveness plane: adding rituximab to treatment of naïve and refractory/relapsed patients.Abbreviations: QALYs, quality-adjusted life years; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Mentions: The results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a high probability for FCR treatment to be cost-effective for both treatment-naïve patients (cost difference US$13,118, standard deviation [SD] US$8,079; QALYs difference 2.21, SD 1.78; ICER US$5,938) and refractory/relapsed patients (cost difference US$14,290, SD US$2,455; QALYs difference 1.68, SD 0.45; ICER US$8,485) with the threshold of US$11,000 (Figure 1). As the threshold value increases, the probability of FCR being cost-effective is higher for refractory/relapsed patients. In particular, when the threshold is higher than US$15,000, the probability of FCR being cost-effective converges to one for refractory/relapsed patients and to 0.80 for treatment-naïve patients (Figure 2).


Cost-effectiveness of adding rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide for treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Ukraine.

Mandrik O, Corro Ramos I, Knies S, Al M, Severens JL - Cancer Manag Res (2015)

Cost-effectiveness plane: adding rituximab to treatment of naïve and refractory/relapsed patients.Abbreviations: QALYs, quality-adjusted life years; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555968&req=5

f1-cmar-7-279: Cost-effectiveness plane: adding rituximab to treatment of naïve and refractory/relapsed patients.Abbreviations: QALYs, quality-adjusted life years; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
Mentions: The results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a high probability for FCR treatment to be cost-effective for both treatment-naïve patients (cost difference US$13,118, standard deviation [SD] US$8,079; QALYs difference 2.21, SD 1.78; ICER US$5,938) and refractory/relapsed patients (cost difference US$14,290, SD US$2,455; QALYs difference 1.68, SD 0.45; ICER US$8,485) with the threshold of US$11,000 (Figure 1). As the threshold value increases, the probability of FCR being cost-effective is higher for refractory/relapsed patients. In particular, when the threshold is higher than US$15,000, the probability of FCR being cost-effective converges to one for refractory/relapsed patients and to 0.80 for treatment-naïve patients (Figure 2).

Bottom Line: While utilities were generalized from UK data, local resource utilization and disease-associated treatment, hospitalization, and side effect costs were applied.Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analyses have shown that for refractory/relapsed patients the probability of FCR being cost-effective is higher than for treatment-naïve patients and is close to one if the threshold is higher than US$15,000.State coverage of rituximab treatment may be considered a cost-effective treatment for the Ukrainian population under conditions of economic stability, cost-effectiveness threshold growth, or rituximab price negotiations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness, from a health care perspective, of adding rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide scheme (FCR versus FC) for treatment-naïve and refractory/relapsed Ukrainian patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. A decision-analytic Markov cohort model with three health states and 1-month cycle time was developed and run within a life time horizon. Data from two multinational, prospective, open-label Phase 3 studies were used to assess patients' survival. While utilities were generalized from UK data, local resource utilization and disease-associated treatment, hospitalization, and side effect costs were applied. The alternative scenario was performed to assess the impact of lower life expectancy of the general population in Ukraine on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for treatment-naïve patients. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. The ICER (in US dollars) of treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with FCR versus FC is US$8,704 per quality-adjusted life year gained for treatment-naïve patients and US$11,056 for refractory/relapsed patients. When survival data were modified to the lower life expectancy of the general population in Ukraine, the ICER for treatment-naïve patients was higher than US$13,000. This value is higher than three times the current gross domestic product per capita in Ukraine. Sensitivity analyses have shown a high impact of rituximab costs and a moderate impact of differences in utilities on the ICER. Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analyses have shown that for refractory/relapsed patients the probability of FCR being cost-effective is higher than for treatment-naïve patients and is close to one if the threshold is higher than US$15,000. State coverage of rituximab treatment may be considered a cost-effective treatment for the Ukrainian population under conditions of economic stability, cost-effectiveness threshold growth, or rituximab price negotiations.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus