ArticleCancer medicine2021
Cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab versus high-dose interferon as an adjuvant therapy in resected high-risk melanoma.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma - cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for BRAF 600 mutated tumors.Health economics review · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab versus high-dose interferon as an adjuvant therapy in resected high-risk melanoma.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdjuvant ipilimumab was found to improve the overall survival and reduce toxicity compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) in patients with resected, high-risk melanoma. However, the cost of ipilimumab is substantially higher than HDI. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab as an adjuvant treatment in melanoma from a healthcare perspective.
methodsWe designed a Markov model simulating resected, high-risk melanoma patients receiving either ipilimumab or HDI. Transition probabilities, including risks of survival, disease progression, and toxicity, were ascertained from clinical trial data. Costs and quality of life measurements (health utilities) were extracted from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), assessed cost-effectiveness. ICERs <$100,000/QALY were deemed cost-effective. We measured model uncertainty with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsIn our base case model, ipilimumab increased costs by $107,100 and increased effectiveness by 0.43 QALY, yielding an ICER of $392,600/QALY. Our model was moderately sensitive to the costs of ipilimumab, though the cost of ipilimumab would need to decrease by 44% for ipilimumab to become cost-effective compared to HDI. The model was not sensitive to survival, toxicity, or other costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that HDI would remain the cost-effective treatment option 96.2% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.
conclusionsAdjuvant ipilimumab increases the survival and decreases the toxicity compared to HDI in resected, high-risk melanoma patients, though this would not be considered cost-effective due to the high price of ipilimumab.
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.