Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib versus Other Third-Line Treatments for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Jiayun Zhong, Yu Liu, Qian Fu, Dan Huang, Wenjun Gong, Jian Zou
{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib versus Other Third-Line Treatments for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer","authors":"Jiayun Zhong, Yu Liu, Qian Fu, Dan Huang, Wenjun Gong, Jian Zou","doi":"10.2147/cmar.s464831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Background:</strong> Regorafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as a standard treatment choice for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Nonetheless, its substantial cost places a significant burden on social health resources and patients. However, the cost-effectiveness (CE) of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies is still undetermined.<br/><strong>Objective:</strong> This study aims to assess the CE of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies for the treatment of mCRC.<br/><strong>Methods:</strong> We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as nine other databases to identify relevant studies published up to October 2023, focusing on patients with mCRC and examining the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib. Following the screening and extraction of pertinent data, the study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist.<br/><strong>Results:</strong> The literature search yielded 751 records, and after applying the inclusion criteria, 13 studies from 7 different countries were included. Of these, 7 studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102), 3 studies compared regorafenib with best supportive care (BSC), and 3 studies compared regorafenib with fruquintinib, serplulimab, and regorafenib dose optimization (ReDo).The quality of the included studies was high with an average QHES scores of 85.62. Regorafenib standard dose proves to be less cost-effective than alternative third-line therapies. Implementing a dose optimization strategy could potentially rectify this disparity and enhance the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib.<br/><strong>Conclusion:</strong> The use of the standard dose of regorafenib is generally regarded as not cost-effective when compared to other third-line therapies for patients with mCRC. However, implementing a dose-escalation strategy may enhance regorafenib’s cost-effectiveness. Consequently, significant price reductions or optimizing the dose of regorafenib are required to achieve cost-effectiveness.<br/><br/>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s464831","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Regorafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as a standard treatment choice for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Nonetheless, its substantial cost places a significant burden on social health resources and patients. However, the cost-effectiveness (CE) of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies is still undetermined.
Objective: This study aims to assess the CE of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies for the treatment of mCRC.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as nine other databases to identify relevant studies published up to October 2023, focusing on patients with mCRC and examining the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib. Following the screening and extraction of pertinent data, the study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist.
Results: The literature search yielded 751 records, and after applying the inclusion criteria, 13 studies from 7 different countries were included. Of these, 7 studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102), 3 studies compared regorafenib with best supportive care (BSC), and 3 studies compared regorafenib with fruquintinib, serplulimab, and regorafenib dose optimization (ReDo).The quality of the included studies was high with an average QHES scores of 85.62. Regorafenib standard dose proves to be less cost-effective than alternative third-line therapies. Implementing a dose optimization strategy could potentially rectify this disparity and enhance the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib.
Conclusion: The use of the standard dose of regorafenib is generally regarded as not cost-effective when compared to other third-line therapies for patients with mCRC. However, implementing a dose-escalation strategy may enhance regorafenib’s cost-effectiveness. Consequently, significant price reductions or optimizing the dose of regorafenib are required to achieve cost-effectiveness.

转移性结直肠癌瑞戈非尼与其他三线治疗的成本效益分析
背景:瑞戈非尼是一种新型多激酶抑制剂,已被美国食品药品管理局批准作为转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)的标准治疗选择。然而,其高昂的费用给社会卫生资源和患者造成了沉重负担。然而,与其他三线疗法相比,瑞戈非尼的成本效益(CE)仍未确定:本研究旨在评估瑞戈非尼与其他治疗 mCRC 的三线疗法相比的成本效益:我们在PubMed、Medline、Scopus、Embase、Cochrane Library以及其他9个数据库中进行了全面的文献检索,以确定截至2023年10月发表的相关研究,这些研究以mCRC患者为研究对象,并考察了瑞戈非尼的成本效益。在筛选和提取相关数据后,使用卫生经济研究质量(QHES)检查表对研究质量进行评估:文献检索共获得 751 条记录,在应用纳入标准后,共纳入了来自 7 个不同国家的 13 项研究。其中,7 项研究评估了瑞戈非尼与曲氟尿苷/替吡拉西醇(TAS-102)相比的成本效益,3 项研究比较了瑞戈非尼与最佳支持治疗(BSC),3 项研究比较了瑞戈非尼与夫曲替尼、舍普利单抗和瑞戈非尼剂量优化(ReDo)。与其他三线疗法相比,瑞戈非尼标准剂量的成本效益较低。实施剂量优化策略有可能纠正这种差异,提高瑞戈非尼的成本效益:结论:对于mCRC患者而言,与其他三线疗法相比,使用标准剂量的瑞戈非尼通常被认为不具成本效益。然而,实施剂量递增策略可提高瑞戈非尼的成本效益。因此,需要大幅降价或优化瑞戈非尼的剂量才能实现成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信