ArticleClinical drug investigation2017
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe management of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has been modified considerably by the availability of costly tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); however, the best therapeutic sequence in terms of cost and effectiveness remains unknown.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare four potential strategies (reflecting the potential daily practice), each including imatinib 400 mg/day, as first-line treatment: S1 (imatinib
methodsA Markov model was developed with a hypothetical cohort of patients and a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities were estimated from the results of clinical trials. The analysis was performed from the French payer perspective, and only direct medical costs were included. Clinical and economic parameters were discounted, and the robustness of results was assessed.
resultsThe least costly and effective strategy was S1, at a cost of €65,744 for 32.9 life months (reference). S3 was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €48,277/life-year saved (LYS). S2 was dominated, and S4 yielded an ICER of €363,320/LYS compared with S3. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results; however, when taking into account a price reduction of 80 % for imatinib, S2 and S4 become the most cost-effective strategies.
conclusionOur approach is innovative to the extent that our analysis takes into account the sequential application of TKIs. The results suggest that the S1 strategy is the best cost-effective strategy, but a price reduction of imatinib impacts on the results. This approach must continue, including new drugs and their impact on the quality of life of patients with advanced GISTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.