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

    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.
    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.

      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.