IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0195134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

First- and second-line bevacizumab in ovarian cancer: A Belgian cost-utility analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mattias Neyt
  • Joan Vlayen
  • Stephan Devriese
  • Cécile Camberlin

Abstract

Background: Currently, in Belgium, bevacizumab is reimbursed for ovarian cancer patients, based on a contract between the Minister and the manufacturer including confidential agreements. This reimbursement will be re-evaluated in 2018. Objective: To support the reimbursement reassessment by calculating the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab: (1) in addition to first-line chemotherapy; (2) in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer (platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant). Methods: A health economic model has been developed for the Belgian situation according to the Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations. The lifetime Markov model was set up from the perspective of the health care payer (government and patient), including direct healthcare related costs. Results are expressed as the extra costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Calculations were based on results of four international trials. Both probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of first-line bevacizumab are on average 158 000/QALY (GOG-0218 trial) and 443 000/QALY (ICON7 trial). The most favourable scenario is based on the stage IV subgroup of the GOG-0218 trial (€52 000/QALY). Since subgroup findings are often exploratory and require confirmatory studies, results of the economic evaluation based on this subgroup analysis should be considered with caution. For second-line bevacizumab, ICERs are on average €587 000/QALY (OCEANS trial) and €172 000/QALY (AURELIA trial). Sensitivity analysis shows that results are most sensitive to the price of bevacizumab. Conclusion: From a health economic perspective, ICERs of bevacizumab are relatively high. The most favourable results are found for first-line treatment of stage IV ovarian cancer patients. Price reductions have a major impact on the estimated ICERs. It is recommended to take these findings into account when re-evaluating the reimbursement of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Mattias Neyt & Joan Vlayen & Stephan Devriese & Cécile Camberlin, 2018. "First- and second-line bevacizumab in ovarian cancer: A Belgian cost-utility analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0195134
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195134
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195134&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0195134?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    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. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    3. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    4. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    7. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    8. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    11. Abualbishr Alshreef & Michelle Jenks & William Green & Simon Dixon, 2016. "Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 623-634, December.
    12. Yue Yin & Yusi Tu & Mingye Zhao & Wenxi Tang, 2022. "Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.
    13. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    15. repec:plo:pone00:0151073 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    17. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.
    18. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    19. repec:osf:osfxxx:w5xj6_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Jason Madan & Meghan Bruce Kumar & Miriam Taegtmeyer & Edwine Barasa & Swaran Preet Singh, 2020. "SEEP-CI: A Structured Economic Evaluation Process for Complex Health System Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-12, September.
    21. Jesse Elliott & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2020. "Economic Evaluation of Cannabinoid Oil for Dravet Syndrome: A Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(9), pages 971-980, September.
    22. Manal H. El-Hamamsy & Gihan H. Elsisi & Randa Eldessouki & Mohamed M. Elmazar & Ahmed S. Taha & Basma F. Awad & Hossam Elmansy, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of the Combined Use of Warfarin and Low-dose Aspirin Versus Warfarin Alone in Mechanical Valve Prostheses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 431-440, August.

    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:plo:pone00:0195134. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.