ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2018
Cost-effectiveness analysis of treating transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients in Macedonia.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conceptual Framework and Methodological Challenges for Modeling Effectiveness in Oncology Treatment Sequence Models.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA decision-analytic model was developed to study the impact of induction regimens vincristine, adriamycin, dexamethasone (VAD); thalidomide, dexamethasone (TD); and bortezomib, dexamethasone (BorD), followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for treating multiple myeloma (MM) patients in Macedonia. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of treatment sequences to predict health effects and costs of different treatment sequences was performed.
methodsModel strategies were based on a previously published study for treating patients with MM in Macedonia. The data on disease progression and treatment effectiveness were obtained from the published reports of randomized clinical trials (GIMEMA M-B02005, IFM 2005-01). Utility parameters were extracted from the literature. To compare treatment combinations, a decision tree model was developed. Additionally, a cost analysis for one-time per-protocol costs was performed from a Macedonian national health care perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for 1-, 10-, and 20-year time horizons were determined. Costs and health outcomes were discounted to evaluate the effects of time in the model.
resultsThe one-time costs of BorD (EUR 5,656) were higher compared to VAD (EUR 303) and TD (EUR 329), increasing the overall costs for BorD. Thus, the BorD combination dominated in the baseline results (1 and 10 years) and the ICER for TD vs. VAD was EUR 7,564/QALY (20 years, undiscounted model). However, in the discounted 20-year model, BorD showed an ICER of EUR 138,747/QALY gained for BorD vs. TD.
conclusionThe CEA performed indicated that considering 1-year time horizon costs, VAD may be a cost-effective alternative vs. TD or BorD. However, for the longer period (10 or 20 years) including the discounting of future costs and outcomes, the TD and BorD combinations showed higher health benefits in terms of QALYs and more cost-effective vs. VAD. These results should be considered as supportive evidence by decision-makers and providers when deciding on the most cost-effective induction treatment strategy prior to ASCT in MM patients.
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.