非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者R-CHOP治疗中利妥昔单抗经济分析的系统综述

J. Yoder, K. Kamal
{"title":"非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者R-CHOP治疗中利妥昔单抗经济分析的系统综述","authors":"J. Yoder, K. Kamal","doi":"10.2174/1876401000902010001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To explore the use of pharmacoeconomic principles through examination of economic evaluations pertaining to the combination of the monoclonal antibody rituximab with conventional CHOP (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/ vincristine/prednisone) or CHOP-like chemotherapy regimens in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted using Evidence-Based Medical Reviews (EBMR), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Medline databases to identify all economic studies relating to rituximab in combination with CHOP or CHOP-like regimens. The systematic evaluation also utilized the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess the quality of each study that was included in the final review. Results: Initially, eight studies were retrieved which included the use of rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma treatment. Of these, four studies were excluded as rituximab was used as a stand-alone treatment option. The remaining four studies involved conventional CHOP therapy versus the combination with rituximab (R-CHOP) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. One study employed a cost-effectiveness analysis while the remaining three studies used a cost-utility analysis and reported the outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness evaluation illustrated the dominance of R-CHOP over CHOP-alone in terms of both lower costs and increased life years gained. The cost-utility of R-CHOP in terms of costs/QALYs were below the accepted threshold of 50,000 in international monetary units. Through examination of evaluation principles employed, it is found that valid results are highly dependent on the input data, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses. Clinical decisionmakers must take into account specific inclusions of costs relevant to their own practice setting.","PeriodicalId":93682,"journal":{"name":"The Open cancer immunology journal","volume":"2 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review of Economic Analyses Studying Rituximab in R-CHOP Therapy in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma\",\"authors\":\"J. Yoder, K. Kamal\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1876401000902010001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: To explore the use of pharmacoeconomic principles through examination of economic evaluations pertaining to the combination of the monoclonal antibody rituximab with conventional CHOP (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/ vincristine/prednisone) or CHOP-like chemotherapy regimens in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted using Evidence-Based Medical Reviews (EBMR), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Medline databases to identify all economic studies relating to rituximab in combination with CHOP or CHOP-like regimens. The systematic evaluation also utilized the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess the quality of each study that was included in the final review. Results: Initially, eight studies were retrieved which included the use of rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma treatment. Of these, four studies were excluded as rituximab was used as a stand-alone treatment option. The remaining four studies involved conventional CHOP therapy versus the combination with rituximab (R-CHOP) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. One study employed a cost-effectiveness analysis while the remaining three studies used a cost-utility analysis and reported the outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness evaluation illustrated the dominance of R-CHOP over CHOP-alone in terms of both lower costs and increased life years gained. The cost-utility of R-CHOP in terms of costs/QALYs were below the accepted threshold of 50,000 in international monetary units. Through examination of evaluation principles employed, it is found that valid results are highly dependent on the input data, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses. Clinical decisionmakers must take into account specific inclusions of costs relevant to their own practice setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Open cancer immunology journal\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Open cancer immunology journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1876401000902010001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Open cancer immunology journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1876401000902010001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:通过对单克隆抗体利妥昔单抗与常规CHOP(环磷酰胺/阿霉素/长春新碱/泼尼松)或CHOP样化疗方案联合治疗非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者的经济评价,探讨药物经济学原理的应用。方法:使用循证医学评论(EBMR)、国际药物文摘(IPA)和Medline数据库进行文献检索,以确定所有与利妥昔单抗联合CHOP或CHOP样方案相关的经济学研究。系统评价还利用卫生经济研究质量工具来评估纳入最终评价的每个研究的质量。结果:最初,我们检索了8项研究,其中包括使用利妥昔单抗治疗非霍奇金淋巴瘤。其中,有4项研究被排除在外,因为利妥昔单抗被用作单独的治疗选择。其余四项研究涉及非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者的常规CHOP治疗与利妥昔单抗(R-CHOP)联合治疗。一项研究采用成本-效果分析,其余三项研究采用成本-效用分析,并以质量调整生命年(QALYs)报告结果。结论:成本-效果评估表明,R-CHOP在降低成本和增加生命年方面优于单独chop。按成本/质量年计算,R-CHOP的成本效用低于以国际货币单位计算的公认门槛5万。通过对所采用的评估原则的检查,发现有效结果高度依赖于输入数据、假设和敏感性分析。临床决策者必须考虑到与他们自己的实践环境相关的具体费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Systematic Review of Economic Analyses Studying Rituximab in R-CHOP Therapy in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Objectives: To explore the use of pharmacoeconomic principles through examination of economic evaluations pertaining to the combination of the monoclonal antibody rituximab with conventional CHOP (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/ vincristine/prednisone) or CHOP-like chemotherapy regimens in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted using Evidence-Based Medical Reviews (EBMR), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Medline databases to identify all economic studies relating to rituximab in combination with CHOP or CHOP-like regimens. The systematic evaluation also utilized the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess the quality of each study that was included in the final review. Results: Initially, eight studies were retrieved which included the use of rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma treatment. Of these, four studies were excluded as rituximab was used as a stand-alone treatment option. The remaining four studies involved conventional CHOP therapy versus the combination with rituximab (R-CHOP) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. One study employed a cost-effectiveness analysis while the remaining three studies used a cost-utility analysis and reported the outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness evaluation illustrated the dominance of R-CHOP over CHOP-alone in terms of both lower costs and increased life years gained. The cost-utility of R-CHOP in terms of costs/QALYs were below the accepted threshold of 50,000 in international monetary units. Through examination of evaluation principles employed, it is found that valid results are highly dependent on the input data, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses. Clinical decisionmakers must take into account specific inclusions of costs relevant to their own practice setting.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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