Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel versus Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine for HER2-Negative Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer

Wu, Qiuji; Wang, Xinyuan; Zhang, Mengxi; Liao, Wei‐Ting; Wang, Feng; Li, Qiu

doi:10.1159/000505932

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After removing duplicates, we screened 226 records and assessed 138 full-text articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eventually, 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations were included in the review and underwent data extraction (figure 1), detailed information on included studies can be found in online supplemental table 2 19–110…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

He,

Huang,

Chen

et al. 2023

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChina’s National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.MethodsWe searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017–2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study’s FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors’ disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.ResultsWe identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).ConclusionThe study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study’s economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

He,

Huang,

Chen

et al. 2023

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The crucial role of VEGF‐A in angiogenesis, which is a process involved in tumor growth and metastasis, led to the development and use of anti‐VEGF drugs in the treatment of colorectal, breast, cervical, brain, and lung cancer 27‐34 . Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that targets VEGF‐A, inhibits the VEGF‐VEGFR interaction, and the VEGF‐induced proliferative effect on endothelial cells 35 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The anti‐adhesive effect of anti‐VEGF agents in experimental models: A systematic review

Giannis

Geropoulos

Ziogas

et al. 2020

Wound Repair Regeneration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adhesions constitute a major problem in abdominal‐pelvic and thoracic surgery with significant impact in the postoperative quality of life and healthcare services utilization. Adhesiogenesis is the result of increased fibrin formation, impaired fibrinolysis, angiogenesis, and fibrosis. Despite the recent advancements, the ideal anti‐adhesive agent remains to be determined. To this end, we performed a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases to identify studies investigating the antiadhesive role of anti‐VEGF agents in peritoneal, pleural, and pericardial experimental adhesion models. Fifteen studies were eligible for inclusion with a total population of 602 animals (334 rats, 180 rabbits, and 88 mice). The majority of included studies (11/15) used bevacizumab, while three studies used other anti‐VEGF antibodies and one study used an anti‐VEGFR‐antibody. A rat model was used in nine studies, while rabbit (n = 3) or mouse (n = 3) models were used less frequently. Eleven studies used peritoneal models, three studies used pleural models, and one study used a pericardial model. The scales (n = 12) and interval (Range: 1‐42 days) used for the evaluation of adhesions varied between the studies. All studies demonstrated a significant decrease in adhesion scores between the anti‐VEGF and control groups up to 42 days postprocedure. VEGF blockade resulted in decreased fibrosis in four out of five studies that used peritoneal models, while the effect on pleural models depended on the pleurodesis agent and was significant between 7 and 28 days. The effect of anti‐VEGF agents on anastomosis integrity depends on the dose and the model that is used (inconclusive results).Current data support the anti‐adhesive role of Anti‐VEGF agents in all three serosal surfaces up to 6 weeks postprocedure. Further studies are needed to confirm the anti‐adhesive role of anti‐VEGF agents in pleural and pericardial adhesion experimental models and investigate any effect on anastomosis integrity in peritoneal models.

show abstract

Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Understanding the cost of delivering breast cancer (BC) care in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) is critical to guide effective care delivery strategies. This scoping review summarizes the scope of literature on the costs of BC care in LMICs and characterizes the methodological approaches of these economic evaluations. Materials and Methods. A systematic literature search was performed in five databases and gray literature up to March 2020. Studies were screened to identify original articles that included a cost outcome for BC diagnosis or treatment in an LMIC. Two independent reviewers assessed articles for eligibility. Data related to study characteristics and methodology were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond et al. checklist.Results. Ninety-one articles across 38 countries were included. The majority (73%) of studies were published between 2013 and 2020. Low-income countries (2%) and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (9%) were grossly underrepresented. The majority of studies (60%) used a health care system perspective. Time horizon was not reported in 30 studies (33%). Of the 33 studies that estimated the cost of multiple steps in the BC care pathway, the majority (73%) were of high quality, but studies varied in their inclusion of nonmedical direct and indirect costs. Conclusion.There has been substantial growth in the number of BC economic evaluations in LMICs in the past decade, but there remain limited data from low-income countries, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa. BC economic evaluations should be prioritized in these countries. Use of existing frameworks for economic evaluations may help achieve comparable, transparent costing analyses. The Oncologist 2021;26:1-12 Implications for Practice: There has been substantial growth in the number of breast cancer economic evaluations in lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) in the past decade, but there remain limited data from low-income countries. Breast cancer economic evaluations should be prioritized in low-income countries and in Sub-Saharan Africa. Researchers should strive to use and report a costing perspective and time horizon that captures all costs relevant to the study objective, including those such as direct nonmedical and indirect costs. Use of existing frameworks for economic evaluations in LMICs may help achieve comparable, transparent costing analyses in order to guide breast cancer control strategies.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel versus Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine for HER2-Negative Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer

Cited by 5 publications

References 20 publications

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

The anti‐adhesive effect of anti‐VEGF agents in experimental models: A systematic review

Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About