Cost-Benefit Analysis of Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel versus Solvent-Based Paclitaxel for the Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer in the United States
No Thumbnail Available
Issue Date
2013
Authors
Vichansavakul, Kittaya '13
Degree
MS in Health Outcomes Research
Advisor
Polimeni, John
Committee Members
El-Fawal, Hassan
Chandrasekara, Ray
Chandrasekara, Ray
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Abstract
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among women in the US. Although early detection and treatment help to increase survival rates, some unfortunate patients develop metastatic breast cancer that has no cure. Palliative treatment is the main objective in this group of patients in order to prolong life and reduce toxicities from interventions. In the advancement of treatment for metastatic breast cancer, solvent-based paclitaxel has been widely used. However, solvent-based paclitaxel often causes adverse reactions. Therefore, researchers have developed a new chemotherapy based on nanotechnology. One of these drugs is the Nanoparticle albumin-bound Paclitaxel. This nanodrug aims to increase therapeutic index by reducing adverse reactions from solvents and to improve efficacy of conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy. Breast cancer is a disease with high epidemiological and economic burden. The treatment of metastatic breast cancer has not only high direct costs but also high indirect costs. Breast cancer affects mass populations, especially women younger than 50 years of age. It relates to high indirect costs due to lost productivity and premature death because the majority of these patients are in the workforce. Because of the high cost of breast cancer therapies and short survival rates, the question is raised whether the costs and benefits are worth paying or not. Due to the rising costs in healthcare and new financing policies that have been developed to address this issue, economic evaluation is an important aspect of the development and use of any new interventions. To guide policy makers on how to allocate limited healthcare resources in the most efficient and effective manner, many economic evaluation methods can be used to measure the costs, benefits, and impacts of healthcare innovations. Currently, economic evaluation and health outcomes studies have focused greatly on cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. However, the previous studies had some limitations because they were conducted from a narrow perspective such as payer and provider point of views. The studies also considered only direct costs in their analysis. In fact, conducting economic evaluations from a narrow perspective and leaving out indirect costs might undermine the true benefit of the interventions for society. A cost-benefit analysis measures all costs and benefits in monetary units. It incorporates both health outcomes gained from individuals and the value gained to society in order to maximize the usage of resources effectively.
This thesis conducted a cost-benefit analysis to compare nab-paclitaxel and generic paclitaxel in treating metastatic breast cancer from a societal perspective in the United States. The results showed that nab-paclitaxel is a cost-benefit strategy regardless of the different costs and benefits due to the extra 3 years of living it provides. In all models, when nab-paclitaxel was compared to generic paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel showed cost-benefit to society. However, the results of generic paclitaxel were dependent on the total medical costs. Performing a cost-benefit analysis of nab-paclitaxel from a societal perspective is important to understand the true benefit of interventions. Furthermore, considering both direct and indirect costs, as well as benefits, of this drug is vital because the economic profile of nab-paclitaxel would be improved.
This thesis conducted a cost-benefit analysis to compare nab-paclitaxel and generic paclitaxel in treating metastatic breast cancer from a societal perspective in the United States. The results showed that nab-paclitaxel is a cost-benefit strategy regardless of the different costs and benefits due to the extra 3 years of living it provides. In all models, when nab-paclitaxel was compared to generic paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel showed cost-benefit to society. However, the results of generic paclitaxel were dependent on the total medical costs. Performing a cost-benefit analysis of nab-paclitaxel from a societal perspective is important to understand the true benefit of interventions. Furthermore, considering both direct and indirect costs, as well as benefits, of this drug is vital because the economic profile of nab-paclitaxel would be improved.
Citation
Vichansavakul, Kittaya. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel Versus Solvent-Based Paclitaxel for the Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer in the United States." Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, New York, Proquest/UMI, 2013.
ACPHS Research Commons URI
Description
Click on the Resource Link to find this item in the ACPHS Library catalog