A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer

Lange, Ansgar; Prenzler, Anne; Frank, Martin; Kirstein, Martha M.; Vogel, Arndt; Schulenburg, Johann-Matthias Graf von der

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2013.08.008

Cited by 53 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…22 Cetuximab (C/-chemotherapy) was mainly considered not cost-effective for metastatic colorectal cancer when compared to conventional chemotherapy or BSC. 23,24 Bevacizumab (plus chemotherapy) was considered not cost-effective for mCRC when compared to chemotherapy alone. 24 Panitumumab was also considered not cost-effective for mCRC when compared to BSC alone.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 In brief, our phase I search ( Figure 1) identified five systematic reviews of economic evaluations for five drugs: trastuzumab, rituximab, cetuximab, bevacizumab, and panitumumab. [20][21][22][23][24] The second-phase search excluded the above five agents and focused on the following eleven drugs: alemtuzumab, brentuximab vedotin, catumaxomab, ibritumomab tiuxetan, ipilimumab, obinutuzumab, ofatumumab, pertuzumab, sipuleucel-T, tositumomab, and trastuzumab emtansine. As shown in Figure 2, we identified 91 studies in our initial screening from the phase II search.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: A systematic review

Geynisman

Chien

Smieliauskas³

et al. 2014

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer immunotherapy is a rapidly growing field in oncology. One attractive feature of cancer immunotherapy is the purported combination of minimal toxicity and durable responses. However such treatments are often very expensive. Given the wide-spread concern over rising health care costs, it is important for all stakeholders to be wellinformed on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies. We performed a comprehensive literature review of cost and cost-effectiveness research on therapeutic cancer vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the economic impacts of these treatments. We summarized our literature searches into three tables by types of papers: systematic review of economic studies of a specific agent, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our review showed that out of the sixteen immunotherapy agents approved, nine had relevant published economic studies. Five out of the nine studied immunotherapy agents had been covered in systematic reviews. Among those, only one (rituximab for non-Hodgkin lymphoma) was found to be costeffective. Of the four immunotherapy drugs not covered in systematic reviews (alemtuzumab, ipilimumab, sipuleucel-T, ofatumumab), high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported for each. Many immunotherapies have not had economic evaluations, and those that have been studied show high ICERs or frank lack of cost-effectiveness. One major hurdle in improving the cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies is to identify predictive biomarkers for selecting appropriate patients as recipients of these expensive therapies. We discuss the implications surrounding the economic factors involved in cancer immunotherapies and suggest that further research on cost and costeffectiveness of newer cancer vaccines and immunotherapies are warranted as this is a rapidly growing field with many new drugs on the horizon.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: A systematic review

Geynisman

Chien

Smieliauskas³

et al. 2014

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The cost of molecularly-targeted anticancer agents in particular is expensive. Therefore, the number of reports on cost effectiveness analysis and cost utility analysis are rapidly increasing (10)(11)(12)(13)(14). In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the rate of second-line chemotherapy enforcement in PRIME study, OPUS study, NO16966 study and FIRE-3 study was 62, <50, 53 and 69.9%, respectively (39)(40)(41)(42).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, second-line chemotherapy must be abandoned in certain cases due to disease progression and adverse effects. In addition, high medical costs have been reported to be a significant problem (10)(11)(12)(13)(14). Therefore, a more effective regimen should be selected as first-line chemotherapy treatment in a clinical setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the individualization of the first‑line chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer based on collagen gel droplet‑embedded drug sensitivity test

Ochiai¹,

Nishimura²,

Watanabe³

et al. 2017

Oncol Lett

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Leucovorin (FOL) and fluorouracil (5-FU) plus oxaliplatin (l-OHP; FOLFOX) or FOL and 5-FU plus irinotecan FOLFIRI) are widely used as first-line chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). However, second-line chemotherapy must be abandoned in certain cases due to disease progression, adverse effects or high medical cost. Therefore, the most effective regimen should be selected as first-line chemotherapy. We reported that individualization of first-line treatment (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI/Dual/Poor responder) was possible using the collagen gel droplet-embedded culture drug sensitivity test (CD-DST) and that individualized first-line chemotherapy with CD-DST may improve the prognosis of patients with unresectable CRC. The aim of the present prospective cohort study was to evaluate the individualization of first-line chemotherapy using CD-DST, with a focus on prognosis. Between March 2008 and December 2015, tumor specimens were obtained from 120 patients with CRC who had not received preoperative chemotherapy. CD-DST was performed and the growth inhibition rate (IR) was determined by exposure for 24 h with 5-FU and l-OHP (6.0 and 3.0 µg/ml, respectively) and 5-FU and SN-38 (6.0 and 0.2 µg/ml, respectively). The cumulative distribution of IR values under each condition was evaluated on the basis that the clinical response to FOLFOX and FOLFIRI is equivalent (~50%). The prognosis of dual responder was improved compared with that of poor responders, however this difference was identified to be significant. There was no different prognosis between patients treated with an appropriate first-line regimen and patients treated with an inappropriate first-line regimen in dual responders. However, in poor responders, there were significant differences of prognosis between patients treated with an appropriate first-line regimen and patients treated with an inappropriate first-line regimen (P= 0.036). In conclusion, the results from the present study suggest that administration of the recommended first-line regimen using CD-DST for patients with unresectable CRC is important for the improvement of prognosis, particularly in poor responders.

show abstract

“…In this study, a review of the pharmacoeconomic evaluations for the use of Levodopa in Parkinson's disease was carried out, based on the QHES instrument [22], which qualifies methodological quality and has been used by other authors previously [45][46][47][48][49].Only the articles that met inclusion criteria and were considered of cost-utility were taken, finding that the five articles analyzed obtained an overall average score of 77.2 out of 100. This reflects that these studies are of good quality, and this is probably attributable to the fact that they were recently carried out following the current guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The assessment of pharmacoeconomic studies quality of Levodopa’s use for the management of Parkinson’s diseases, 2010-2015

Gutiérrez

Becerra

Rojas

2017

Rev. colomb. cienc. quim. farm.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryLevodopa (LD) has been the first choice in the management of Parkinson's disease (PD), since its introduction in the drug market; however, its prolonged use is related to the occurrence of motor complications, affecting the functionality and quality of life. Parkinson's disease is one of the most frequent among the neurodegenerative diseases in the world, and it is expected that the number of people who suffer it, will increase due to global population aging. The PD represents, nowadays and for the future, a high economic burden from all perspectives, including patients, payers, and society. So it is necessary to know about the use of LD in its treatment and to realize the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in the past five years, to identify reliable sources of information related to the costs and benefits of this medication to contribute in making decisions. The aim of this paper is to assess the methodological quality of pharmacoeconomic studies related to the use of LD in PD, specifically those that are identified as cost-utility studies, applying the QHES instrument. A total of 19 articles were found, of which 5 met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to examination. The average overall score obtained after the evaluation was 77.2 out of 100, making evident a good quality of studies according to the method used.Keywords: Levodopa, Parkinson's disease, cost-utility, methodological quality, QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies). La Levodopa (LD) ha sido desde su introducción en el mercado la primera elección en el manejo de la enfermedad de Parkinson (EP); sin embargo, su uso prolongado está relacionado con la aparición de complicaciones motoras, afectándose la funcionalidad y calidad de vida. La EP es una de las enfermedades neurodegenerativas que se presenta con mayor frecuencia en el mundo y se espera que el número de personas que la padecen aumente, debido al envejecimiento poblacional a nivel mundial. La EP representa, actualmente y a futuro, una alta carga económica desde todas las perspectivas, incluyendo: pacientes, pagadores y la sociedad; por lo cual es necesario conocer el uso de la LD en el tratamiento de la misma y lograr determinar la calidad de los estudios farmacoeconómicos realizados en los últimos cinco años, para identificar fuentes fiables de información relacionadas con los costos y los beneficios de este medicamento que aporten en la toma de decisiones. El objetivo de este artículo es evaluar la calidad metodológica de los estudios farmacoeconómicos relacionados con el uso de la LD en la EP, específicamente aquellos que se cataloguen como estudios de costo-utilidad, aplicando el instrumento QHES. Se encontraron en total 19 artículos, de los cuales cinco cumplieron los criterios de inclusión y fueron sometidos al respectivo análisis. El puntaje global promedio obtenido posterior a la evaluación fue de 77,2 sobre 100, haciendo evidente una buena calidad de los estudios de acuerdo con el método utilizado.Palabras clave: Levodopa, enfermedad de Parkinson, costo-utilidad, ca...

show abstract

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer

Cited by 53 publications

References 22 publications

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: A systematic review

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: A systematic review

Impact of the individualization of the first‑line chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer based on collagen gel droplet‑embedded drug sensitivity test

The assessment of pharmacoeconomic studies quality of Levodopa’s use for the management of Parkinson’s diseases, 2010-2015

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About