Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective.
Shao, Hanqiao; Fang, Hongshu; Li, Yuan; Jiang, Yunlin; Zhao, Mingye; Tang, Wenxi.
Afiliación
  • Shao H; School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
  • Fang H; Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Department of Public Affairs Management, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
  • Li Y; School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
  • Jiang Y; Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Department of Public Affairs Management, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
  • Zhao M; School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
  • Tang W; Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Department of Public Affairs Management, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Cost Eff Resour Alloc ; 22(1): 70, 2024 Sep 18.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39294689
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX as a potential new standard of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) has yet to be established. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in this indication from the perspective of U.S. public payers.

METHODS:

A partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of U.S. public payers, drawing on baseline patient characteristics and vital clinical data from the NAPOLI-3 trial. Costs and utilities were sourced from publicly accessible databases and literature. A lifetime horizon was applied, with an annual discount rate of 3%. We calculated and compared cumulative costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To evaluate the model's robustness, sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses were carried out. Additionally, a price simulation for the costly liposomal irinotecan was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness to pay (WTP) threshold.

RESULTS:

In the base-case analysis, NALIRIFOX provided an additional 0.29 QALYs with an ICER of $206,340.69 /QALY compared to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, indicating it is not cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed the model was most sensitive to the costs of liposomal irinotecan, capecitabine, and post-progression care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 17.66% probability of NALIRIFOX being cost-effective at $150,000/QALY, rising to 47.48% at $200,000/QALY. Pricing simulations suggested NALIRIFOX could become cost-effective at $150,000/QALY if the price of irinotecan liposome drops to $53.24/mg (a 14.8% reduction).

CONCLUSIONS:

NALIRIFOX may not be cost-effective at its current price as a first-line treatment for patients with mPDAC in the long term. The cost of liposomal irinotecan has the greatest impact. It may become cost-effective only if its cost is reduced by 14.8%, with a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Reino Unido