ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2024
Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analyses of Selective Internal Radiation Therapy versus Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab from a German Statutory Health Insurance Perspective.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2024. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare personalized dosimetry with yttrium-90 ( Patients and Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA) models were developed in MS Excel. The available key studies (IMbrave150 and DOSISPHERE-01) suggest that both strategies are comparable in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival in HCC, but a difference in severe adverse events (SAE) in favor of SIRT was observed. Accordingly, the CEA model investigates the endpoints "cost per SAE avoided" and "cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained", whereas the BIA simulates the impact of a stepwise re-allocation of current market share to the option which emerges as more cost-effective from the CEA. Results: The model suite estimated a mean annual total per-patient costs of € 29,984 for SIRT, compared to € 75,725 for A+B. SIRT was associated with a lower number of SAE and a higher number of QALYs compared to A+B. Switching additionally 25% of the eligible patients (≈500) from systemic therapy to SIRT could generate annual savings of approximately € 22.6 million Euros to the SHI. Conclusion: SIRT was identified as dominant treatment strategy. SIRT use not only saves SHI expenditure compared to systemic immunotherapy but also yields extra QALYs. This positions SIRT as the dominant and more cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with HCC. The savings to the SHI system, derived from the BIA conducted, become increasingly significant with rising adoption rates of SIRT.
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.