Scholarlink

<p>A subgroup analysis of a randomized study demonstrated that patients with advanced or metastatic liposarcoma treated with eribulin had longer overall survival and progression-free survival compared to those treated with dacarbazine, suggesting eribulin as a therapeutic option for advanced liposarcoma. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eribulin versus dacarbazine in the treatment of advanced liposarcoma. We established a 10-year Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of eribulin and dacarbazine regimens. Clinical data were sourced from a subgroup analysis of a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase 3 trials. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed. The total cost of the dacarbazine scheme was $10,895.558, with a QALY of 0.533. In contrast, the total cost of the eribulin scheme was $16,961.891, with a QALY of 0.698. The ICER between the eribulin and dacarbazine schemes was $36,736.467, which is below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in China ($37,877.469). From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, eribulin is cost-effective compared to dacarbazine at the WTP threshold.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cost-effectiveness analysis of eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月15日

查看全文
  • Miaomiao Zhang,
  • Jinlong Huang,
  • Xiaochun Zheng,
  • Ping Huang,
  • Xiuli Yang

摘要

A subgroup analysis of a randomized study demonstrated that patients with advanced or metastatic liposarcoma treated with eribulin had longer overall survival and progression-free survival compared to those treated with dacarbazine, suggesting eribulin as a therapeutic option for advanced liposarcoma. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eribulin versus dacarbazine in the treatment of advanced liposarcoma. We established a 10-year Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of eribulin and dacarbazine regimens. Clinical data were sourced from a subgroup analysis of a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase 3 trials. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed. The total cost of the dacarbazine scheme was $10,895.558, with a QALY of 0.533. In contrast, the total cost of the eribulin scheme was $16,961.891, with a QALY of 0.698. The ICER between the eribulin and dacarbazine schemes was $36,736.467, which is below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in China ($37,877.469). From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, eribulin is cost-effective compared to dacarbazine at the WTP threshold.