Bases théoriques des études coût-efficacité en médecine

French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients

Context

In France, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) is heterogeneously used in metastatic pancreatic cancer due to disparities in its financial accessibility in the institutions.

Objectives

GEM-NAB conduct a French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of GEM-NAB versus gemcitabine alone (GEM) as second-line treatment in pancreatic cancer patients.

Design

All the unresected metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) consecutive patients who received GEM-NAB (institution 1) or GEM alone (institutions 2 and 3) as second-line treatment after failure of a 5-fluorouracil based systemic chemotherapy regimen were screened.

Methods

This study was conducted from the French national healthcare insurance perspective. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) expressed in months, calculated from the date of the first second-line chemotherapy administration to death. Only direct (medical and non-medical) costs have been considered for this analysis. Data were collected retrospectively in one university hospital and two general hospitals.

Results

The OS was significantly improved in patients receiving GEM-NAB (hazard ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.77, p = 0.001), with a median OS of 6.2 months (versus 4.1 months in patients receiving GEM alone). Taking into account the cost of GEM-NAB which was afforded by each institution, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €1,449,231 by year of life (€40,256 per patient). In both groups, most of the costs were attributable to readmissions and outpatient chemotherapy administration.

Conclusion

The issues of the article is based on the trade-off between the benefit in terms of OS of patients treated with GEM-NAB, which is minor (a gain of 2 months of survival, with an accumulated rate of grade ⩾ 3 non-hematological adverse effects) and the additional institutional cost (€25k per year of life for each patient treated). The debate is complex and refers to an ethical component, which is the cost of human life when no other therapeutic alternative is offered to the patient.

Fetal fibronectin test for threatened preterm delivery 48h after admission: Cost-effectiveness study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the fetal fibronectin (fFN) test at 48 h after admission for threatened preterm delivery to promote early discharge.

STUDY DESIGN

Before-and-after study to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Patients were enrolled 48 h after admission in a tertiary care centre for threatened preterm delivery between 24⁺⁰ and 34⁺⁶ weeks. fFN testing was performed. During the first period, physician was blinded to fFN test and discharge occurred after apparent reduced symptomatology at physician's discretion. During the second period, fFN test was revealed to physician and discharge was immediately proposed to negative test patients. The costs considered in this analysis were the direct medical costs from the hospital perspective: costs of hospitalisation, treatment, and imaging procedures. The efficacy criterion selected was the number of deliveries at 7 and at 14 days after admission for threatened preterm delivery.

RESULTS

The study included 178 pregnant patient, 99 during the first period (July 2008-October 2009) and 79 during the second (March 2010-February 2012). The lengths of hospital stays were shorter during the second period, with more than 50% of women discharged home between 48 and 72 h (p < 0.0001) resulting in a cost-saving of 76 051 euros. The number of deliveries at 7 and at 14 days was similar between the two periods.

CONCLUSION

The fFN test at 48 h after admission supported early discharge and was safe and cost-effective.