...
首页> 外文期刊>Health technology assessment: HTA >Azacitidine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and acute myeloid leukaemia.
【24h】

Azacitidine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and acute myeloid leukaemia.

机译:阿扎胞苷治疗骨髓增生异常综合征,慢性myelomonocytic白血病急性髓系白血病。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of azacitidine (aza) compared with conventional care regimes (CCR) for higher risk patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), based on the evidence submission from the manufacturer to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The patient outcomes governing relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were defined as overall survival, time to progression (TTP) to AML, adverse events and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The clinical evidence was derived from an open-label randomised controlled trial referred to as study AZA-001. It compared aza with CCR in 358 patients with higher risk MDS, CMML and AML 20-30% blasts. The outcomes reported in AZA-001 included overall survival, TTP to AML and adverse events. No HRQoL results were reported; however, outcomes likely to impact on HRQoL were provided. The results showed that: the median overall survival was 24.5 months on aza, compared with 15.0 months in the CCR group (p = 0.0001); the response rates were low (complete remission 17% aza versus 8% CCR); the median time to transformation to AML was greater in the aza group (17.8 versus 11.5 months; p < 0.0001); and of patients who were red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent at baseline, 45% of those on aza became RBC transfusion-independent during the treatment period, compared with 11.8% in the CCR group (p < 0.0001). The ERG reran the submission's search strategies after some modifications incorporating minor improvements. The ERG analysed the submitted economic model (model 1) and identified a number of inconsistencies and errors within the model. The manufacturer submitted a revised model for analysis by the ERG. Using the issues identified in the earlier analysis, the ERG conducted those repairs to the revised model that were feasible within time constraints. The ERG ran this version in probabilistic sensitivity analyses to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers. The results of these exploratory analyses indicated that: for standard-dose chemotherapy (SDC)-treated patients, of six treatment options available, best supportive care (BSC) was likely the most cost-effective option up to a threshold of 51,000 pounds/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [beyond 51,000 pounds/QALY, aza + low-dose chemotherapy (LDC) became cost-effective]; for LDC-treated patients, of four options available, BSC was again the most cost-effective option up to a willingness-to-pay threshold of 51,000 pounds/QALY (aza + LDC became cost-effective after 51,000 pounds/QALY); for BSC-treated patients, aza + BSC became cost-effective relative to BSC at a threshold of about 52,000 pounds/QALY. The ERG considers these results exploratory and considers that they should be viewed with caution. The AZA-001 study showed that, compared with CCR, those MDS patients receiving aza had prolonged median survival, had delayed progression to AML, had reduced dependence on transfusions and had a small improvement in response rate. Given the general paucity of economic modelling work in MDS and the limitations of the submitted industry model there is an evident need for an independent cost-effectiveness analysis of aza in MDS. At the time of writing, the guidance appraisal consultation document issued by NICE on 4 March 2010 states that azacitidine is not recommended as a treatment option for people not eligible for haemopoietic stem cell transplantation with the the following conditions: intermediate-2 and high-risk MDS according to the International Prognostic Scoring System, CMML with 10-29% marrow blasts without myeloproliferative disorder, or with AML with 20-30% blasts and multilineage dysplasia, according to World Health Organization classification.
机译:本文总结了证据审查小组(ERG)临床报告效率和成本效益的阿扎胞苷(阿扎)与常规护理政权(CCR)高风险患者骨髓增生异常综合征(MDS)、慢性myelomonocytic (CMML)和急性髓系白血病白血病(AML),基于证据提交从制造商到研究所健康和临床(NICE)部分单一技术评估过程。病人结果管理相对有效性和成本效益被定义为整体生存时间(TTP)进展AML,不良事件和健康相关的生活质量(HRQoL)。一个开放的随机对照试验被称为研究阿扎- 001。358年与CCR高危MDS患者,CMML爆炸,AML 20 - 30%。阿扎- 001年包括总体存活率,TTP AML和不良事件。报道;HRQoL提供。中位总生存期是24.5个月,阿扎相比之下,CCR组(p = 15.0个月0.0001);缓解阿扎17%和8% CCR);阿扎AML转换是更大的组(17.8和11.5个月;的患者红细胞(RBC)transfusion-dependent基线,45%的人在加拿大皇家银行transfusion-independent阿扎成了治疗期间,这一比例为11.8%CCR组(p < 0.0001)。提交后的搜索策略修改合并小的改进。ERG提交的经济分析模型(1)模型和确定的在模型不一致和错误。制造商提交了修改后的模型ERG的分析。在前面的分析中,ERG进行维修,修正后的模型,该模型是可行的在时间限制内。在产生概率敏感性分析成本效益可接受性边界。这些探索性分析显示的结果:标准剂量化疗署治疗患者,6个治疗方案可用,最好的支持性护理(BSC)是可能的最具成本效益的选择一个阈值51000磅/质量调整生命年(提升)[51000磅/ QALY之外,阿扎+低剂量化疗(LDC)成为了成本效益);LDC-treated患者,可用的四个选项,二元同步通信又最具成本效益的选择愿意支付51000的门槛磅/ QALY(阿扎+ LDC成为具有成本效益在51000磅/ QALY);病人,阿扎+二元同步通信成为具有成本效益相对于平衡计分卡在一个阈值约52000磅/提升。探索性和认为他们应该小心。与CCR相比,MDS患者接受阿扎有长时间的中位数生存,有延迟级数AML,降低了输血和有一个小的依赖提高响应速度。缺乏经济模型在MDS和工作提交的行业模型的局限性是一个明显的需要一个独立的成本效益分析MDS的阿扎。指导,评价好3月4日发行的咨询文件2010个国家,不推荐阿扎胞苷作为一种治疗选择为不合格haemopoietic干细胞移植的下列条件:intermediate-2和高危MDS根据国际预后评分系统,CMML 10 - 29%骨髓爆炸没有骨髓增生障碍,或与AML爆炸和20 - 30%multilineage发育不良,据世界卫生组织分类。

著录项

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