A systematic review of economic analyses of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer.
ABSTRACT Colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer in the Western world. New drugs in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, such as irinotecan and oxaliplatin, have substantially increased the cost of treatment. A systematic literature review on the cost (-effectiveness) of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer was conducted, in which 13 articles were included. The main topics were: orally versus intravenously administered fluoropyrimidine, raltitrexed, irinotecan and oxaliplatin. Additional information was collected on the cost (-effectiveness) of the monoclonal antibodies, cetuximab and bevacizumab. Only five articles had taken the societal perspective, in most articles no data on quality of life was presented, and only two reported the cost per quality-adjusted life year. As only a limited amount of information is available on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer, there is a need for more cost-effectiveness studies. These studies are preferably performed by taking a societal perspective and including quality of life outcomes.
- SourceAvailable from: Joseph Shatzel[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background As novel therapies in oncology and in particular hematological malignancies impose a high financial burden with a limited increase in life expectancy. Therefore, CEA is important to evaluate the value of new therapies. However, there is a dire need to critically evaluate how valid are such studies. Aims To review and critically analyze the methodology used to conduct CEAs within the hematologic malignancies disease. Methods We conducted a PubMed search using the following keywords and combined searches: CEAs, hematological malignancies leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma. Results Available data showed that systemic reviews of CEA of hematological malignancies to assess whether reviewers have not sufficiently cited deficiencies in their methodologies, or stated clearly the impact of sponsorship and publication biases. Conclusion Despite the paucity of the literature, sponsorship bias was found to be a major concern in the validity of these analyses.Journal of Cancer Policy 06/2014; 2(2):40–44.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Since the generalisability of trial-based economic evaluations may be limited, there is an increasing focus on real-world cost-effectiveness. Real-world studies involve evaluating the effects and costs of treatments in daily clinical practice. This study reports on the real-world resource use and costs of adjuvant treatments of stage III colon cancer in a population-based observational study. Analyses were based on a detailed retrospective medical chart review which was conducted for 206 patients with colon cancer treated in 2005 and 2006 in the Netherlands. Mean total costs per patient were €9681 for 5-FU/LV, €9736 for capecitabine, €32 793 for FOLFOX and €18 361 for CAPOX. Drug costs and the costs related to hospitalisations for chemotherapy administration were the main cost drivers. We identified a potential for substantial cost-savings when the 48 h administration of 5FU/LV in the FOLFOX regimen were to take place in an outpatient setting or be replaced by oral capecitabine as in the CAPOX regimen. This analysis based on detailed real-life data clearly indicates that clinical choices made in oncology based on efficacy of therapy have economic consequences. Considering today's reality of finite healthcare resources, these economic consequences deserve a formal role in clinical decision making, for instance in guideline development.European Journal of Cancer Care 12/2013; · 1.31 Impact Factor