Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHu, X
dc.contributor.authorWildman, KP
dc.contributor.authorBasu, S
dc.contributor.authorLin, PL
dc.contributor.authorRowntree, C
dc.contributor.authorSaha, Vaskar
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-29T15:18:01Z
dc.date.available2020-01-29T15:18:01Z
dc.date.issued2019en
dc.identifier.citationHu X, Wildman KP, Basu S, Lin PL, Rowntree C, Saha V. The cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase for first-line treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a UK-based cost-utility analysis. Health Econ Rev. 2019;9(1):40.en
dc.identifier.pmid31885053en
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13561-019-0257-3en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/622739
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: L-asparaginase is a key component of treatment for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in the UK. Commonly used forms of asparaginase are native E. coli-derived asparaginase (native asparaginase) and pegaspargase in first-line combination therapy, and native Erwinia chrysanthemi-derived asparaginase (Erwinia asparaginase) as second-line treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in first-line combination therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ALL. A combined decision tree and health-state transition Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to assess the relative costs and health outcomes of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in the UK setting. RESULTS: In base case analyses, first-line pegaspargase (followed by Erwinia asparaginase in cases of hypersensitivity) dominated first-line native asparaginase followed by Erwinia asparaginase; i.e. resulted in lower costs and more quality-adjusted life year gain. The favourable hypersensitivity rates and administration profile of pegaspargase led to lifetime cost savings of £4741 versus native asparaginase. Pegaspargase remained cost-effective versus all treatment strategies in all scenario analyses, including use of the 2500?IU/m2 dose, recommended for patients ²21?years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Pegaspargase, as part of multi-drug chemotherapy, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of newly diagnosed ALL. Based on this study, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisal Committee concluded that it could recommend pegaspargase as a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources in England & Wales for treating ALL in children, young people and adults with untreated, newly diagnosed disease.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-019-0257-3en
dc.titleThe cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase for first-line treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a UK-based cost-utility analysisen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentGHEOR Analytics, Shire, Cambridge, MA, USAen
dc.identifier.journalHealth Economics Reviewen
dc.description.noteen]
refterms.dateFOA2020-02-04T09:04:15Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
31885053.pdf
Size:
1.055Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
From UNPAYWALL

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record