IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i11d10.1007_s40273-018-0684-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation for the UK of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Mahdi Gharaibeh

    (University of Arizona)

  • Ali McBride

    (University of Arizona Cancer Center
    Banner University Medical Center-Tucson
    University of Arizona)

  • David S. Alberts

    (University of Arizona Cancer Center)

  • Brian Erstad

    (University of Arizona
    University of Arizona)

  • Marion Slack

    (University of Arizona
    University of Arizona)

  • Nimer Alsaid

    (University of Arizona
    University of Arizona)

  • J. Lyle Bootman

    (University of Arizona
    University of Arizona)

  • Ivo Abraham

    (University of Arizona
    University of Arizona Cancer Center
    University of Arizona
    University of Arizona)

Abstract

Background Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK. Objective Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK. Methods A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results. Results FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively. Conclusions At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahdi Gharaibeh & Ali McBride & David S. Alberts & Brian Erstad & Marion Slack & Nimer Alsaid & J. Lyle Bootman & Ivo Abraham, 2018. "Economic Evaluation for the UK of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1333-1343, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0684-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0684-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0684-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-018-0684-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angela Stainthorpe & Janette Greenhalgh & Adrian Bagust & Marty Richardson & Angela Boland & Sophie Beale & Rui Duarte & Eleanor Kotas & Lindsay Banks & Daniel Palmer, 2018. "Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(10), pages 1153-1163, October.
    2. Unknown, 2014. "Department Publications 2013," Publications Lists 206935, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim Loader, 2018. "Small- and medium-sized enterprises and public procurement: A review of the UK coalition government's policies and their impact," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 47-66, February.
    2. Jacopo Arpetti & Antonio Iovanella, 2019. "Towards more effective consumer steering via network analysis," Papers 1903.11469, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2019.
    3. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2017. "Family Economics Writ Large," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1346-1434, December.
    4. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2022. "Capital Raising and Management of Vietnamese Small and Medium Sized Enterprises after Integrating into Global Economy," OSF Preprints dv68m, Center for Open Science.
    5. Kate Golebiowska, 2016. "Are Peripheral Regions Benefiting from National Policies Aimed at Attracting Skilled Migrants? Case Study of the Northern Territory of Australia," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 947-971, August.
    6. Andrew Cleves & Paul Dimmock & Neil Hewitt & Grace Carolan-Rees, 2016. "The TURis System for Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 267-279, June.
    7. Oliveira, Victor & Frazao, Elizabeth, 2015. "The WIC Program: Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2015 Edition," Economic Information Bulletin 197543, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Böhm, Sebastian & Grossmann, Volker & Strulik, Holger, 2021. "R&D-driven medical progress, health care costs, and the future of human longevity," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    9. Mehri , N. & Messkoub, M. & Kunkel, S., 2019. "Trends, determinants and the implications of population aging in Iran," ISS Working Papers - General Series 646, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    10. Paul Cheshire & Stephen Gibbons & Jemma Mouland, 2017. "Social Tenants' Health: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Landlord Interventions," SERC Discussion Papers 0219, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    11. Robert Koulish, 2016. "Using Risk to Assess the Legal Violence of Mandatory Detention," Laws, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-20, July.
    12. Liao, Kenneth & Pouliot, Sebastien, 2015. "Econometric Analysis of Motorists’ Preference for Ethanol in Motor Fuel," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205473, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Karen S Palmer & Thomas Agoritsas & Danielle Martin & Taryn Scott & Sohail M Mulla & Ashley P Miller & Arnav Agarwal & Andrew Bresnahan & Afeez Abiola Hazzan & Rebecca A Jeffery & Arnaud Merglen & Ahm, 2014. "Activity-Based Funding of Hospitals and Its Impact on Mortality, Readmission, Discharge Destination, Severity of Illness, and Volume of Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-1, October.
    14. Vuyokazi Magungxu & Philani Moyo, 2014. "Prisoner-warder ratio parity in a South African Correctional Centre: Repercussions on prison work environment and correctional security personnel," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 6(5), pages 411-417.
    15. Molina, Oswaldo & Saldarriaga, Victor, 2017. "The perils of climate change: In utero exposure to temperature variability and birth outcomes in the Andean region," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 111-124.
    16. Michael Freeman & Nicos Savva & Stefan Scholtes, 2021. "Economies of Scale and Scope in Hospitals: An Empirical Study of Volume Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 673-697, February.
    17. Fiscalis Tax Gap Project Group, 2016. "The concept of tax gaps - Report on VAT Gap Estimations," Taxation Studies 0065, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    18. Catrin Treharne & Frank Liu & Murat Arici & Lydia Crowe & Usman Farooqui, 2014. "Peritoneal Dialysis and In-Centre Haemodialysis: A Cost-Utility Analysis from a UK Payer Perspective," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 409-420, August.
    19. Mothemba Mokoena & Merwe Oberholzer, 2017. "Analyzing Biographical Differences on Employees' Perception of Safety Control Measures with Special Emphasis on the Cost Thereof at a Colliery," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 8(6), pages 68-81.
    20. repec:cbh:journl:v:14:y:2015:i:2:p:89-127 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Cicero Augusto Silveira Braga & Lorena Vieira Costa, 2020. "Food insecurity and nutrition index: Disaggregation and evidence for Brazilian states," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(6), pages 1749-1771, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0684-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.