Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib versus best supportive care in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Egypt.

Background In light of constrained budgets and the need to fund efficient treatment options, this study set out to assess the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared to best supportive care (BSC) from the military hospital perspective in Egypt. Methods A decision analytic Markov model simulated disease progression with clinical parameters and utility values derived from published data. Data on direct medical costs were collected from the local health care system or payer. Costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% annually and reported in USD using purchasing power parity adjustments. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results Mortality occurred less frequently in the sorafenib group (sorafenib group: 99.96%, BSC group: 99.99%). The total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the sorafenib cohort were estimated to be 46.24 compared with 42.27 for the BSC cohort, which resulted in an incremental gain of 3.96 QALYs. The total costs for the sorafenib and BSC cohorts were USD 4,229,940 and USD 3,092,886, respectively (incremental cost = $1,137,054), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 286,776 per QALY gained for the sorafenib cohort. One-way sensitivity analyses that addressed the uncertainty of the BSC estimates indicated that the progression-free survival for BSC and utility value of progression had the greatest effects on the results. Conclusion This study concluded that sorafenib does offer increased survival and quality of life at an increased cost but at an ICER that exceeds the nationally accepted cost-effectiveness threshold. Our findings support health care decision-making of the efficient allocation of health care system resources to improve the health of the Egyptian population. Whether sorafenib is cost-effective in specific subgroups with additional risk factors needs to be addressed in future studies.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app