...
首页> 外文期刊>Current medical research and opinion >The cost-effectiveness of weekly epoetin alfa relative to weekly darbepoetin alfa in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia.
【24h】

The cost-effectiveness of weekly epoetin alfa relative to weekly darbepoetin alfa in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia.

机译:化疗引起的贫血患者中每周依泊汀α相对于每周达泊汀α的成本-效果。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of epoetin alfa (EPO) and darbepoetin alfa (DARB) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA), using dosing regimens approved by the FDA (EPO 40,000 U once weekly and DARB 2.25 U once weekly and DARB 2.25 mcg/kg once weekly). METHODS: The study compared published results of two double-blind, randomized, phase III trials one utilizing EPO (N = 166) and the other, DARB (N = 367). Patients in both trials similar baseline characteristics. Effectiveness was measured as the proportion of EPO or DARB patients who were successfully treated (i.e., did not require blood transfusion) during weeks 0-16 and 5-16, respectively. Estimated drug costs were presented in 2005 USD based on wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) and average drug utilization over 16 weeks. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the estimated drug costs divided by transfusion effectiveness. Threshold analysis was used to determine the break-even point at which EPO and DARB had the same drug costs. RESULTS: Estimated drug costs over 16 weeks were Dollars 9,039 for EPO and Dollars 13,555 for DARB. During weeks 5-16, 85% of EPO patients and 73% of DARB patients were successfully treated, resulting in average cost-effectiveness ratios of Dollars 106 for EPO and Dollars 186 for DARB per one per cent of successfully treated patients. A 33% reduction in DARB WAC was required to achieve the same drug costs as for EPO. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing FDA-approved doses, EPO was found to result in lower drug costs and better treatment success when compared to DARB. Hence, EPO is a dominant alternative compared to DARB for the treatment of CIA. The analyses presented here are not without limitations. Specifically, although the studies were comparable, patients were ultimately drawn from different populations.
机译:目的:比较使用FDA批准的给药方案(每周一次EPO 40,000 U和一次DARB 2.25 U,FDA批准的给药方案,比较依泊汀α和darbepoetin Alfa(DARB)在治疗化学性贫血(CIA)中的成本效益。每周一次,DARB每周一次2.25 mcg / kg)。方法:该研究比较了两项双盲,随机,III期试验的公开结果,一项使用EPO(N = 166),另一项使用DARB(N = 367)。两项试验中的患者基线特征相似。以分别在0-16周和5-16周内成功治疗(即不需要输血)的EPO或DARB患者的比例来衡量有效性。药品的估计成本以2005年的美元价格为基础,基于批发购置成本(WAC)和16周内的平均药品利用率。成本效益计算为估计的药物成本除以输血效果。阈值分析用于确定EPO和DARB具有相同药物成本的收支平衡点。结果:估计在16周内的药物费用,EPO为9,039美元,DARB为13,555美元。在5-16周内,成功治疗了85%的EPO患者和73%的DARB患者,结果,每成功治疗的患者中,EPO为106美元,DARB为186美元的平均成本效益比。为了达到与EPO相同的药物成本,需要将DARB WAC降低33%。结论:与DARB相比,使用FDA批准的剂量,发现EPO可以降低药物成本并获得更好的治疗成功。因此,与DARB相比,EPO是治疗CIA的主要替代方法。这里介绍的分析并非没有局限性。具体而言,尽管研究具有可比性,但患者最终还是来自不同人群。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号