An Italian cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel albumin (nab-paclitaxel) + gemcitabine vs gemcitabine alone for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients: the APICE study

References

• Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM) [Internet]. Milan (Italy): AIOM. I numeri del cancro in Italia; 2015. [cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: http://www.registri-tumori.it/PDF/AIOM2015/I_numeri_del_cancro_2015.pdf Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Ervik M, Lam F, Ferlay Jet A [Internet]. Cancer Today. Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer; [cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: http://gco.iarc.fr/today
   Google Scholar
• Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1691–1703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(6):2403–2413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss RB, Donehower RC, Wiernik PH, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions from taxol. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8(7):1263–1268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelderblom H, Verweij J, Nooter K, et al. Cremophor EL: the drawbacks and advantages of vehicle selection for drug formulation. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37(13):1590–1598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ten Tije AJ, Verweij J, Loos WJ, et al. Pharmacological effects of formulation vehicles: implications for cancer chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42(7):665–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winer E, Berry D, Duggan D, et al. Failure of higher-dose paclitaxel to improve outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer: cancer and leukemia group B trial 9342. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(11):2061–2068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gradishar WJ. Albumin-bound paclitaxel: a next-generation taxane. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2006;7(8):1041–1053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai NP, Trieu V, Hwang LY, et al. Improved effectiveness of albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel versus polysorbate-based docetaxel in multiple xenografts as a function of HER2 and SPARC status. Anticancer Drugs. 2008;19(9):899–909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai N, Trieu V, Damascelli B, et al. SPARC expression correlates with tumor response to albumin-bound paclitaxel in head and neck cancer patients. Transl Oncol. 2009;2(2):59–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yardley DA. Nab-paclitaxel mechanisms of action and delivery. J Control Release. 2013;170(3):365–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Hoff DD, Ramanathan RK, Borad MJ, et al. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is an active regimen in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase I/II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(34):4548–4554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frese KK, Neesse A, Cook N, et al. Nab-paclitaxel potentiates gemcitabine activity by reducing cytidine deaminase levels in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(3):260–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N, et al. Phase III trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(31):7794–7803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazzaro C, Bordonaro R, Cognetti F, et al. An Italian cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel albumin (nab-paclitaxel) versus conventional paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer patients: the Costanza study. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;11(5):125–135.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) [Internet]. Phase III Study of ABI-007 (albumin-bound paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine in metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. NLM identifier: NCT00844649. Bethesda (MD): U.S. NLM; [updated 2017 Mar 1; cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00844649
   Google Scholar
• Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod CM, editor. Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York (NY): Columbia University Press; 1949. p. 196.
   Google Scholar
• Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, et al. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the national cancer institute of Canada clinical trials group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(15):1960–1966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1817–1825.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA) [Internet]. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Summary of opinion (post authorisation). Abraxane paclitaxel. London (UK): EMA. EMA/627632/2013; [updated 2013 Nov 21; cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Summary_of_opinion/human/000778/WC500155465.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Determina 26 gennaio 2015. Regime di rimborsabilita’ e prezzo a seguito di nuove indicazioni terapeutiche del medicinale per uso umano «Abraxane» (paclitaxel-albumina). (Determina n. 57/2015). (15A00779). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, Serie Generale, n. 30 del 6 Febbraio 2015; [cited 2015 Feb 6]; Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Schulper MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13(4):322–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Schulper M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 1974;19(6):716–723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 1978;6(2):461–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romanus D, Kindler HL, Archer L, et al. Does health-related quality of life improve for advanced pancreatic cancer patients who respond to gemcitabine? Analysis of a randomized phase III trial of the cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB 80303). J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;43(2):205–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle S, Lloyd A, Walker M. Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2008;62(3):374–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Nathan P, et al. Elicitation of health state utilities in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(5):1091–1096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J, et al. Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006;95(6):683–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S, et al. Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;21(6):84.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Slejko JF, Sculpher MJ, et al. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(6):800–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tam VC, Ko YJ, Mittmann N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(2):e90–e106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copley V, Pickett K, Cooper K, et al. Rivaroxaban for the treatment of pulmonary embolism and the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism: a single technology appraisal. Southampton (UK): Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC); 2012. [cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta287/resources/rivaroxaban-for-treating-pulmonary-embolism-and-preventing-recurrent-venous-thromboembolism-pdf-82600677963205
   Google Scholar
• Tolley K, Goad C, Yi Y, et al. Utility elicitation study in the UK general public for late-stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(5):749–759.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohr SL. Sampling: design and analysis. 2nd ed. Boston (MA): Brooks/Cole; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Ministero della Salute. Decreto 8 febbraio 2013. Criteri per la composizione e il funzionamento dei comitati etici. (13A03474). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, Serie Generale, n. 96 del 24 aprile 2013. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Estratto determinazione n. 203/2013 del 21 Febbraio 2013. Autorizzazione all’immissione in commercio del medicinale per uso umano «Gemcitabina Fresenius». (13A02067). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n.63 del 15 Marzo 2013 - Supplemento Ordinario n. 17; [cited 2013 Marzo 15]; Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Ministero della Salute. Decreto 18 ottobre 2012. Remunerazione prestazioni di assistenza ospedaliera per acuti, assistenza ospedaliera di riabilitazione e di lungodegenza post acuzie e di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale. (13A00528). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, Serie Generale, n. 23 del 28 gennaio 2013. Allegato 3 Prestazioni di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Conferenza Permanente per i Rapporti tra lo Stato le Regioni e le Province Autonome di Trento e Bolzano. Tariffa unica convenzionale per le prestazioni di assistenza ospedaliera regole e tariffe valide per l’anno 2013. Rome: Conferenza Permanente per i Rapporti tra lo Stato le Regioni e le Province Autonome di Trento e Bolzano; [cited 2014 maggio 29]. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Torrinomedica S.r.l. [Internet]. Rome (Italy): Torrinomedica S.r.l.; [updated 2017 Dec 18; cited 2017 Dec 18; cited 2017 Dec 18; cited 2017 Dec 18; cited 2017 Dec 22]. Ricerca Farmaci. Available from: http://www.torrinomedica.it/farmaci/ricercadbfarmaci/RisultatiIndiceFarmaciAuto.asp Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Presidente della Repubblica. Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 28 luglio 2000, n. 270. Regolamento di esecuzione dell’accordo collettivo nazionale per la disciplina dei rapporti con i medici di medicina generale. Supplemento ordinario N. 165/L alla Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n. 230 del 2 Ottobre 2000, Serie Generale; Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato; 2000. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Regione Lombardia [Internet]. Milan (Italy): Regione Lombardia. Il Consiglio. Sanità: cure palliative e terapie per i malati terminali. Piano delle Ricerche; 2012 [updated 2013 Jan 29; cited 2013 Jan 29; cited 2017 Jan 29; cited 2017 Dec 29; cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: http://www.consiglio.regione.lombardia.it/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=7c16d90c-b546-47db-ba31-72e82d8b8fe8&groupId=38960:%20page%2090 Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Ministero della Salute. Progetto Mattoni SSN. Pronto Soccorso e sistema 118. Proposta metodologica per la valutazione dei costi dell’emergenza; [cited 2007 Gennaio 23]; Rome: Ministero della Salute. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Regione Lombardia [Internet]. Deliberazione n. IX/2946. Precisazioni in ordine alla DGR n. IX/2633 del 6 Dicembre 2011. Determinazioni in ordine alla gestione del Servizio Socio Sanitario Regionale per l’esercizio 2012. Milan: Regione Lombardia. La Giunta; [updated 2012 Jan 25; cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: http://www.consultazioniburl.servizirl.it/ConsultazioneBurl/ElencoBurl?pag=29 Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Fattore G per Gruppo di lavoro Associazione Italiana di Economia Sanitaria (AIES). Proposta di linee guida per la valutazione economica degli interventi sanitari in Italia [A proposal for guidelines for the economic evaluation of health interventions in Italy]. Pharmacoecon – Italian Res Articles. 2009;11(2):83–93. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292(6522):746–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia(PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 1990;10(3):212–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willan AR, Briggs AH. Statistical analysis of cost-effectiveness data. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. The logrank test. BMJ. 2004;328(7447):1073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 172–214.
   Google Scholar
• Regione Campania – Giunta Regionale – Seduta del 28 luglio 2006 –Deliberazione N. 1034 – Area Generale di Coordinamento – N. 19 – Piano Sanitario Regionale e Rapporti con le UU.SS.LL. – N. 20 – Assistenza-Sanitaria – Farmaci oncologici ad alto costo: rendicontazione tramite il file F. Napoli: Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Campania, n. 40; [cited 2006 settembre 4]. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Capri S, Morabito A, Carillio C, et al. Valutazione economica di erlotinib, docetaxel e pemetrexed nel trattamento di seconda linea del carcinoma polmonare non a piccole cellule [Economic evaluation of erlotinib, docetaxel and pemetrexed as second-line therapy in non-small cell lung cancer]. Pharmacoecon – Italian Res Articles. 2007;9(2):113–124. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Collett D. Modelling survival data in medical research. 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 1998;7(8):723–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:377–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(Suppl 2):S68–S80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10(8):779–787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approach to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SA, et al. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hagan A, Stevens JW. The probability of cost-effectiveness. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martone N, Lucioni C, Mazzi S, et al. Valutazione di costo-efficacia dei nuovi farmaci oncologici immessi sul mercato Italiano [Cost-effectiveness analysis of new oncological drugs marketed in Italy]. Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment. 2014;1(2):31–43. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Gharaibeh M, McBride A, Bootman JL, et al. Economic evaluation for the UK of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(8):1301–1305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM) [Internet]. Carcinoma del pancreas esocrino. Milan (Italy): AIOM. Linee guida; [updated 2015 Aug; cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: http://www.aiom.it/professionisti/documenti-scientifici/linee-guida/1,413,1,#toplist Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoecon. 2001;19(6):609–621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco [Internet]. Osservatorio Nazionale sull’impiego dei Medicinali. L’uso dei farmaci in Italia. Rapporto Nazionale 2016. Rome (Italy):Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco; [updated 2017 Jul cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: http://www.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/content/presentazione-rapporto-osmed-2016
   Google Scholar
• Banca d’Italia [Internet]. Cambi giornalieri. Rome (Italy): Banca d’Italia; [cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: https://tassidicambio.bancaditalia.it/dailyRates
   Google Scholar
• Carrato A, García P, López R, et al. Cost-utility analysis of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in combination with gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer in Spain: results of the PANCOSTABRAX study. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):579–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium [Internet]. Re-submission. Paclitaxel formulated as albumin bound nanoparticles 5mg/mL powder for suspension for infusion (Abraxane®). SMC No. (968/14). Glasgow (UK): Scottish Medicines Consortium; [updated 2015 Feb 9; cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/SMC_Advice/Advice/968_14_nab_paclitaxel_Abraxane/paclitaxel_albumin_Abraxane_Resubmission
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [Internet]. Paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles in combination with gemcitabine for previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer (TA476). London (UK); [updated 2017 Sep 6; cited 2017 Dec 22]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta476/chapter/3-Committee-discussion#cost-effectiveness-estimates
   Google Scholar
• Gharaibeh M, McBride A, Bootman JL, et al. Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer. J Med Econ. 2017;20(4):345–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gharaibeh M, Bootman JL, McBride A, et al. Economic evaluations of first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer: a critical review. Pharmacoecon. 2017;35(1):83–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Mihaylova B, Sculpher M, et al. For EUROPA trial investigators. Cost effectiveness of perindopril in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease using data from the EUROPA study. Heart. 2007;93(9):1081–1086.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6(3):217–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-2. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):678–689.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. for ISPOR task force on good research practices – modeling studies. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices – modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoecon. 2006;24(1):1–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lien K, Tam VC, Ko YJ, et al. Impact of country-specific EQ-5D-3L tariffs on the economic value of systemic therapies used in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2015;22(6):e443–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mozzi A, Meregaglia M, Lazzaro C, et al. A comparison of EQ-5D health-related utilities using Italian, UK, and US preference weights in a patients sample. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;13(8):267–274.
   Google Scholar