| Title |
Economic Evaluation for the UK of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-018-0684-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mahdi Gharaibeh, Ali McBride, David S. Alberts, Brian Erstad, Marion Slack, Nimer Alsaid, J. Lyle Bootman, Ivo Abraham |
| Abstract |
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. Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK. 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. 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. 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Mexico | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 16% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,348,986
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#848
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,186
of 342,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#14
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.