Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBohensky, Megan A
dc.contributor.authorPasupathi, Kumar
dc.contributor.authorGorelik, Alexandra
dc.contributor.authorKim, Hansoo
dc.contributor.authorHarrison, James P
dc.contributor.authorLiew, Danny
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-07T05:16:57Z
dc.date.available2021-07-07T05:16:57Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1098-3015
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jval.2016.05.013
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/405799
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus ipilimumab for the treatment of previously untreated patients with BRAF-advanced melanoma (BRAF-AM) from an Australian health system perspective. Methods: A state-transition Markov model was constructed to simulate the progress of Australian patients with BRAF-AM. The model had a 10-year time horizon with outcomes discounted at 5% annually. For the nivolumab group, risks of progression and death were based on those observed in the nivolumab arm of a phase III trial (nivolumab vs. dacarbazine). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric survival modeling with a log-logistic distribution. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, overall survival and progression-free survival for ipilimumab were estimated on the basis of an indirect comparison using published data. Costs of managing AM were estimated from a survey of Australian clinicians. The cost of ipilimumab was based on the reimbursement price in Australia. The cost of nivolumab was based on expected reimbursement prices in Australia. Quality-of-life data were obtained within the trial using the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Results: Compared with ipilimumab, nivolumab therapy over 10 years was estimated to yield 1.58 life-years and 1.30 quality-adjusted life-years per person, at a (discounted) net cost of US $39,039 per person. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for nivolumab compared with ipilimumab were US $25,101 per year of life saved and $30,475 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. Conclusions: Nivolumab is a cost-effective means of preventing downstream mortality and morbidity in patients with AM compared with ipilimumab in the Australian setting.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageen
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom1009
dc.relation.ispartofpageto1015
dc.relation.ispartofissue8
dc.relation.ispartofjournalValue in Health
dc.relation.ispartofvolume19
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHealth services and systems
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPublic health
dc.subject.fieldofresearchApplied economics
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4203
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4206
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3801
dc.titleA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Compared with Ipilimumab for the Treatment of BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma in Australia
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationBohensky, MA; Pasupathi, K; Gorelik, A; Kim, H; Harrison, JP; Liew, D, A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Compared with Ipilimumab for the Treatment of BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma in Australia, Value in Health, 2016, 19 (8), pp. 1009-1015
dc.date.updated2021-07-06T22:49:43Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorKim, Hansoo


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record