MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2594280921 · doi:10.1182/blood.v116.21.3812.3812

Cost-Effectiveness of Zoledronic Acid Versus Clodronate In Patients with Multiple Myeloma From a Canadian Healthcare System Perspective.

2010· article· en· W2594280921 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas E. Delea, Khalid El Ougari, Jason Rotter, Alice Wang, Satyin Kaura, Gareth J. Morgan

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBone health and treatments
Établissements canadiensNovartis (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineZoledronic acidMultiple myelomaIncidence (geometry)BisphosphonateAdverse effectInternal medicineOsteonecrosis of the jawSpinal cord compressionSurgeryUrologyOsteoporosis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3812 Background: The Medical Research Council (MRC) Myeloma IX study compared the intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid (ZOL) 4 mg q 3–4 wk with the oral bisphosphonate, clodronate (CLO) 1,600 mg/d PO, in 1,970 patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). After a median follow-up of 3.7 yrs (max. follow-up 6 years), ZOL prolonged OS (median 50.0 vs. 44.5 months; HR=0.842; p=0.0118), increased PFS (median 19.5 vs. 17.5 months; HR=0.883; P=0.0179), and reduced the incidence of skeletal related events (SREs) (27.0% vs. 35.3%; HR=0.74; P=0.0004) compared with CLO. The incidence of acute renal failure (ARF) was similar in the two groups (5.8% vs. 6.1% with ZOL vs. CLO). The incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) was 3.5% with ZOL and 0.3% with CLO. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ZOL vs. CLO in patients with newly-diagnosed MM based on the reported findings of the MRC Myeloma IX trial. Methods: An economic model was used to project PFS, OS, the incidence of SREs (vertebral and other fractures, radiotherapy, bone surgery, and spinal cord compression) and adverse events (ARF, ONF, thromboembolism, and infection) as well as expected lifetime healthcare costs for patients with newly diagnosed MM who are alternatively assumed to received bishphosphonate therapy with ZOL or CLO. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with ZOL vs. CLO. Clinical data were based on reported results of the MRC Myeloma IX trial. OS for CLO and ZOL up to 5 years were based on reported Kaplan-Meier survival curves. For CLO, OS after 5 years was projected based on a Weibull survival function fitted to the reported Kaplan-Meier curve. For ZOL, OS after 5 years was obtained by applying the estimated HR for ZOL vs. CLO to the estimated Weibull survival function for CLO. PFS for CLO and ZOL were estimated based on reported medians and the HR for ZOL vs. CLO, assuming proportional hazards Weibull distributions (Kaplan-Meier curves were not reported for PFS). Costs and utility values were obtained from published sources. Costs were in 2009/10 Canadian dollars. Costs and QALY were discounted at 5% annually. Results: Expected lifetime costs of bisphosphonate therapy (including administration and monitoring costs) were $11,967 greater with ZOL vs. CLO ($14,267 vs. $2,301). Expected costs of SREs were reduced by $720 with ZOL ($4,152 vs. $4,872). Expected costs of adverse events were increased by $663 with ZOL ($3,225 vs. $2,562). Expected total lifetime costs were increased by $11,878 ($30,103 vs. $18,225). Life expectancy (undiscounted) was increased by 0.83 years with ZOL (6.43 vs. 5.60). QALYs gained from increased PFS and OS with ZOL vs. CLO were 0.56. QALYs gained from SREs averted with ZOL vs. CLO were <0.01. QALYs lost due to adverse events (predominantly ONJ) were 0.02. Total QALYs gained with ZOL vs. CLO (undiscounted) were 0.56 (4.43 vs. 3.87). On a discounted basis, total QALYs gained were 0.37 (3.51 vs. 3.14). Cost effectiveness with ZOL vs. CLO was $32,210 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probability that ZOL is preferred to CLO was 85% with a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per QALY and a 98% with a threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was $43,487 per QALY gained if benefits of ZOL on OS are conservatively assumed to persist for 6 years only (i.e., HR for OS=1.0 after 6 years). Results were sensitive to methods used to estimate PFS and OS (i.e., Kaplan Meier or Weibull models, independent or proportional hazards assumption), and the estimated costs and QALYs lost with ONJ. Conclusions. The cost per QALY gained with ZOL vs. CLO in patients with newly-diagnosed MM is below the commonly-accepted threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. More precise estimates await release of additional results from the MRC Myeloma IX study. Disclosures: Delea: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal related events in patient with multiple myeloma. Ougari:Novartis: Employment. Rotter:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wang:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kaura:Novartis: Employment. Morgan:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Pharmion: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,231
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,465

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,274
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetBone health and treatments→Travaux en français237 207→