4.6 Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Pemetrexed in Patients with Advanced Nonsquamous-Cell Lung Cancer from the Perspective of the Swiss Health Care System

Journal

VALUE IN HEALTH
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 65-71

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.1737

Keywords

best supportive care; cost-effectiveness; health economics; lung cancer; pemetrexed; maintenance treatment

Funding

  1. Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: A recent randomized study showed switch maintenance with pemetrexed after nonpemetrexed-containing first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer to prolong overall survival by 2.8 months. We examined the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed in this indication, from the perspective of the Swiss health care system, and assessed the influence of the costs of best supportive care (BSC) on overall cost-effectiveness. Methods: A Markov model was constructed based on the pemetrexed maintenance study, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of adding pemetrexed until disease progression was calculated as cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Uncertainties concerning the costs of BSC on the ICER were addressed. Results: The base case ICER for maintenance therapy with pemetrexed plus BSC compared to BSC alone was (sic) 106,202 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Varying the costs for BSC had a marked effect. Assuming a reduction of the costs for BSC by 25% in the pemetrexed arm resulted in an ICER of (sic)47,531 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is below predefined criteria for cost effectiveness in Switzerland. Conclusions: Switch maintenance with pemetrexed in patients with advanced nonsquamous-cell lung cancer after standard first-line chemotherapy is not cost-effective. Uncertainties on the resource use and costs for BSC have a large influence on the cost-effectiveness calculation and should be reported in more detail.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available