ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2021
Economic evaluation of orphan drug Lutetium-Octreotate vs. Octreotide long-acting release for patients with an advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumour in the Netherlands.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMultiple studies showed positive effects of Lutetium-Octreotate (LO) treatment in neuroendocrine tumours. LO has been used in the Netherlands since the 1980s and recently received the orphan status shortly after the acquisition by Novartis. Since then, the official list price has increased sixfold. From a value-based pricing perspective, we analysed the impact of the increase in price on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of LO treatment compared to optimal best supportive care, a high dose of Octreotide long-acting release (O-LAR), using the clinical data of the NETTER-1 trial.
methodsA Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for LO treatment compared to O-LAR from the healthcare perspective. A scenario analysis was conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness with the initial and increased price level of the LO-treatment.
resultsAt the increased price level, the cost-effectiveness analysis rendered a deterministic ICER of €53,500 per QALY, while at the initial pricing, the ICER was €19,000 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that LO had a high probability of being cost-effective at both the increased and initial price level, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80,000.
conclusionsEven at the increased price level, LO treatment can still be considered cost-effective using the applicable Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of 80,000 euro per QALY. Considering the public scrutiny in relation to this price increase, these outcomes raise the question whether traditional cost-effectiveness methods are sufficient in fully capturing the societal acceptance of prices of new medicines.
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.