Although efforts have been made to develop new antibacterial agents and techniques, the challenge of bacterial infection remains unresolved, and even escalating. Sonodynamic therapy (SDT) driven by ultrasound (US) has...
AimTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of palbociclib plus fulvestrant in the second-line treatment of women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer based on the latest published follow-up data from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.MethodsIn view of the PALOMA-3 trial, a Markov model was built for this purpose, which included three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressed disease (PD), and death. The cost and health utilities were mainly derived from the published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were carried out to verify the robustness of the model.ResultsIn the base case analysis, compared with the placebo plus fulvestrant arm, the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm yielded an additional 0.65 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (2.56 QALYs vs. 1.90 QALYs) with an incremental cost of $36,139.94 ($55,482.06 vs. $19,342.12), resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $55,224.90/QALY, which was deeply higher than a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $34,138.28 per QALY in China. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the utility of PFS, cost of palbociclib, and cost of neutropenia had a great influence on the ICER.ConclusionsPalbociclib plus fulvestrant is unlikely to be cost-effective in comparison with placebo plus fulvestrant as second-line therapy of women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.
Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility of eribulin versus capecitabine in the treatment of HER-2 negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer(AMBC).
Methods: Based on the data of a phase III trial, a partition survival modelwas constructed with a study duration of 10 years. Uncertainty analysis were used to evaluate the robustness of the results.
Results: The results showed that compared with capecitabine group, the eribulin group obtained 0.24 more QALY, spent $5287.11 more, and ICUR was $22084.93/QALY, which was less than the threshold. uncertainty analysis showed that the results were robust, and the probability of eribulin being cost-utility is 69.28% at the threshold of $33881.17.
Conclusions: Eribulin is cost-utility than capecitabine in the treatment of HER-2 negative AMBC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.