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

References

• Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet] International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lyon, France; 2013. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr [Last accessed 20 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Estrategias de cáncer del sistema nacional de salud. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Madrid; 2009. Available from: www.msssi.gob.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/cancer.htm [Last accessed 20 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Hartwig W, Hackert T, Hinz U, et al. Pancreatic cancer surgery in the new millennium: better prediction of outcome. Ann Surg 2011;254:311-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo SC, Nathan H, Cameron JL, et al. Conditional survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resected with curative intent. Cancer 2012;118:2674-81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Friess H, et al. A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1200-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrato A, Falcone A, Ducreux M, et al. Proportional Shortfall due to Pancreatic Cancer in Europe: survival and quality of life analysis based on a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2014;32(suppl): abstr e15253
   Google Scholar
• Vincent A, Herman J, Schulick R, et al. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet 2011;378:607-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benavides M, Abad A, Ales I, et al. TTD consensus document on the diagnosis and management of exocrine pancreatic cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2014;16:865-78
   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;25:1960-6
   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;364:1817-25
   PubMed Web of Science ®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;369:1691-703
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein D, El Maraghi RH, Hammel P, et al. Updated survival from a randomized phase III trial (MPACT) of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. J Clin Oncol 2014;32(Suppl 3); abstr 178
   Google Scholar
• López Bastida J, Oliva J, Antoñanzas F, et al. Propuesta de guía para la evaluación económica aplicada a las tecnologías sanitarias. Gac Sanit 2010;24:154-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mar J, Antoñanzas F, Pradas R, et al. Los modelos de Markov probabilísticos en la evaluación económica de tecnologías sanitarias: una guía práctica. Gac Sanit 2010;24:209-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latimer N. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 14: Undertaking survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials - extrapolation with patient-level data. 2011. Available from: www.nicedsu.org.uk [Last accessed 20 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos (CGCOF). Base de datos del medicamento. 2014. Available from: www.portalfarma.com [Last accessed 01 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Boletín Oficial del Estado. Real Decreto de Ley 8/2010, de 20 de Mayo. 2010. Available from: www.boe.es/boe/dias/2010/05/24/pdfs/BOE-A-2010-8228.pdf [Last accessed 01 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005;14:339-47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacristán JA, Oliva J, Del Llano J, et al. ¿Qué es una tecnología sanitaria eficiente en España? Gac Sanit 2002;16:334-43
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization. Cost effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE). Available from: www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_thresholds/en/ Las accessed 20 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Pinto-Prades JL, Sánchez-Martínez FI, Corbacho B, et al. Valuing QALYs at the end of life. Soc Sci Med 2014;113:5-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. 2009. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-tag387/resources/appraising-life-extending-end-of-life-treatments-paper2 [Last accessed 20 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Abellán JM, Navarro J. Utilización de QALY en diferentes situaciones clínicas. Sevilla: Informes de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias AETSA 2009/10. In: Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía, editor. Los determinantes del valor social de las intervenciones sanitarias. Sevilla; 2011. Available from: www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud/servicios/contenidos/nuevaaetsa/up/AETSA_2009-10_QALYs.pdf [Last accessed 20 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Oliva J. ¿Un QALY es un QALY es un? Depende de la oportunidad y del tipo de resultado. Gestión Clínica y Sanitaria 2014;16:23
   Google Scholar
• Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WB, et al. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22:1097-107
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Centre for Health Technology Evaluation: Value Based Assessment of Health Technologies. Consultation Paper, London; 2014.www.nice.org.uk/About/What-we-do/Our-Programmes/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisal-guidance [Last accessed 20 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• van de Wetering EJ, Stolk EA, van Exel NJ, et al. Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. Eur J Health Econ 2013;14:107-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowell W, Gladwell D, Parnaby A. QALY weightings based on the Burden of Illness applied to a UK Cost-effectiveness analysis of Nab-paclitaxel + Gemcitabine versus Gemcitabine for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Value Health 2014;17:A642
   Google Scholar
• Marín R, Puigventós F, Fraga MD, et al. Grupo de Evaluación de Novedades y Estandarización e Investigación en Selección de Medicamentos (GENESIS) de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH). Versión 4.0. SEFH (ed.), Método de Ayuda para la toma de Decisiones y la Realización de Evaluaciones de medicamentos (MADRE), Madrid; 2013
   Google Scholar
• European Society for Medical Oncology. Performance Scales: Karnofsky and ECOG scores. Available from: http://oncologypro.esmo.org/Guidelines-Practice/Practice-Tools/Performance-Scales [Last accessed 20 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Verslype C, Van Cutsem E, Dicato M, et al. The management of metastatic pancreatic cancer: expert discussion and recommendations from the 14th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2012. Ann Oncol 2013;24(Suppl 4):iv5-10
   Google Scholar
• Gresham GK, Wells GA, Gill S, et al. Chemotherapy regimens for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2014;14:471
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oettle H. Progress in the knowledge and treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: from benchside to bedside. Cancer Treat Rev 2014;40:1039-47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan DP, Hong TS, Bardeesy N. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1039-49
   PubMed 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;43:205-17
   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;6:84
   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;26:1091-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®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;14:749-59
   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:e90-e106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle S, Lloyd A and Walker M. Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2008;62:374-80
   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;95:683-90
   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. SHTAC, 2012
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Slejko JF, Sculpher MJ, et al. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Making 2011;31:800-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salud Gisbert R, Brosa M. eSalud, Base de Datos de Costes Sanitarios en España. Available from: www.oblikue.com/bddcostes [Last accessed 01 November 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Alba E, Ciruelos E, López R, et al. Cost-utility analysis of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel versus paclitaxel in monotherapy in pretreated metastatic breast cancer in Spain. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013;13:381-91
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar