Relacorilant联合nab-紫杉醇治疗复发性铂耐药卵巢癌:一项成本-效果研究

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-20 DOI:10.3802/jgo.2025.36.e63
Yidong Zhou, Fei Tong, Bowen Jin, Junjie Pan, Ning Ren, Lanqi Ren, Qiaoping Xu
{"title":"Relacorilant联合nab-紫杉醇治疗复发性铂耐药卵巢癌:一项成本-效果研究","authors":"Yidong Zhou, Fei Tong, Bowen Jin, Junjie Pan, Ning Ren, Lanqi Ren, Qiaoping Xu","doi":"10.3802/jgo.2025.36.e63","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The phase 2, open-label, randomized, 3-arm study (NCT03776812) found that intermittently dosed relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel improved progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival compared with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy with minimal additional toxicity. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of intermittent relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel (IN), continuous relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel (CN) and nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (N) from the payer's perspective over a 5-year time horizon.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The health outcome is expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). IN, CN and N were evaluated using QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The data for this model come from the NCT03776812 trial and other published literature. The impact of the variables is studied using a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a second-order Monte Carlo simulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>N was the least costly strategy, at $ 4606.05, followed by IN ($22,597.75) and CN ($44,276.86). Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, IN was cost-effective compared with N, with an ICER of $21,418.69 per QALY gained for N, whereas CN was ruled out by extended dominance (less effective, more costly), compared with N. The incremental benefits of IN compared to CN and N were 0.72 QALYs and 0.84 QALYs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>From a US health care system perspective, IN may be cost-effective compared to CN for patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and IN is also better than CN and N in terms of efficacy. Therefore, IN is a high-quality regimen for clinicians to treat patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03776812.</p>","PeriodicalId":15868,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gynecologic Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"e63"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12226313/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel for recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.\",\"authors\":\"Yidong Zhou, Fei Tong, Bowen Jin, Junjie Pan, Ning Ren, Lanqi Ren, Qiaoping Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.3802/jgo.2025.36.e63\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The phase 2, open-label, randomized, 3-arm study (NCT03776812) found that intermittently dosed relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel improved progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival compared with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy with minimal additional toxicity. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of intermittent relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel (IN), continuous relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel (CN) and nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (N) from the payer's perspective over a 5-year time horizon.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The health outcome is expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). IN, CN and N were evaluated using QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The data for this model come from the NCT03776812 trial and other published literature. The impact of the variables is studied using a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a second-order Monte Carlo simulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>N was the least costly strategy, at $ 4606.05, followed by IN ($22,597.75) and CN ($44,276.86). Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, IN was cost-effective compared with N, with an ICER of $21,418.69 per QALY gained for N, whereas CN was ruled out by extended dominance (less effective, more costly), compared with N. The incremental benefits of IN compared to CN and N were 0.72 QALYs and 0.84 QALYs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>From a US health care system perspective, IN may be cost-effective compared to CN for patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and IN is also better than CN and N in terms of efficacy. Therefore, IN is a high-quality regimen for clinicians to treat patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03776812.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gynecologic Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12226313/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gynecologic Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2025.36.e63\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gynecologic Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2025.36.e63","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:这项2期、开放标签、随机、3组研究(NCT03776812)发现,与nab-紫杉醇单药治疗相比,间歇性给药的relacorilant + nab-紫杉醇可改善无进展生存期、缓解期和总生存期,且毒性最小。本研究从支付者的角度分析了5年期间间歇性抗凝剂+白蛋白-紫杉醇(IN)、连续抗凝剂+白蛋白-紫杉醇(CN)和白蛋白-紫杉醇单药治疗(N)的成本-效果。方法:以质量调整生命年(QALYs)表示健康结局。采用质量分析(QALYs)和增量成本-效果比(ICER)评估IN、CN和N。该模型的数据来自NCT03776812试验和其他已发表的文献。采用基于二阶蒙特卡罗模拟的单向确定性灵敏度分析和概率灵敏度分析研究了变量的影响。结果:N是成本最低的策略,为4606.05美元,其次是IN(22,597.75美元)和CN(44,276.86美元)。基于10万美元/QALY的支付意愿阈值,与N相比,IN具有成本效益,为N获得的每个QALY的ICER为21,418.69美元,而与N相比,CN被扩展优势(效率较低,成本较高)所排除。与CN和N相比,IN的增量收益分别为0.72 QALYs和0.84 QALYs。结论:从美国卫生保健系统的角度来看,对于复发性铂耐药卵巢癌患者,IN可能比CN更具成本效益,且IN的疗效也优于CN和N。因此,IN是临床医生治疗复发性铂耐药卵巢癌患者的高质量方案。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03776812。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel for recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.

Relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel for recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.

Relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel for recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.

Relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel for recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.

Objective: The phase 2, open-label, randomized, 3-arm study (NCT03776812) found that intermittently dosed relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel improved progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival compared with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy with minimal additional toxicity. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of intermittent relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel (IN), continuous relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel (CN) and nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (N) from the payer's perspective over a 5-year time horizon.

Methods: The health outcome is expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). IN, CN and N were evaluated using QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The data for this model come from the NCT03776812 trial and other published literature. The impact of the variables is studied using a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a second-order Monte Carlo simulation.

Results: N was the least costly strategy, at $ 4606.05, followed by IN ($22,597.75) and CN ($44,276.86). Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, IN was cost-effective compared with N, with an ICER of $21,418.69 per QALY gained for N, whereas CN was ruled out by extended dominance (less effective, more costly), compared with N. The incremental benefits of IN compared to CN and N were 0.72 QALYs and 0.84 QALYs.

Conclusion: From a US health care system perspective, IN may be cost-effective compared to CN for patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and IN is also better than CN and N in terms of efficacy. Therefore, IN is a high-quality regimen for clinicians to treat patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03776812.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology ONCOLOGY-OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
84
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gynecologic Oncology (JGO) is an official publication of the Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Abbreviated title is ''J Gynecol Oncol''. It was launched in 1990. The JGO''s aim is to publish the highest quality manuscripts dedicated to the advancement of care of the patients with gynecologic cancer. It is an international peer-reviewed periodical journal that is published bimonthly (January, March, May, July, September, and November). Supplement numbers are at times published. The journal publishes editorials, original and review articles, correspondence, book review, etc.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信