| 1. |
- Candido-dos-Reis, Francisco J, et al.
(författare)
-
Germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and ten-year survival for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cancer Research. - 1078-0432. ; 21:3, s. 7-652
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 on mortality in patients with ovarian cancer up to 10 years after diagnosis.EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used unpublished survival time data for 2,242 patients from two case-control studies and extended survival time data for 4,314 patients from previously reported studies. All participants had been screened for deleterious germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Survival time was analyzed for the combined data using Cox proportional hazard models with BRCA1 and BRCA2 as time-varying covariates. Competing risks were analyzed using Fine and Gray model.RESULTS: The combined 10-year overall survival rate was 30% [95% confidence interval (CI), 28%-31%] for non-carriers, 25% (95% CI, 22%-28%) for BRCA1 carriers, and 35% (95% CI, 30%-41%) for BRCA2 carriers. The HR for BRCA1 was 0.53 at time zero and increased over time becoming greater than one at 4.8 years. For BRCA2, the HR was 0.42 at time zero and increased over time (predicted to become greater than 1 at 10.5 years). The results were similar when restricted to 3,202 patients with high-grade serous tumors and to ovarian cancer-specific mortality.CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1/2 mutations are associated with better short-term survival, but this advantage decreases over time and in BRCA1 carriers is eventually reversed. This may have important implications for therapy of both primary and relapsed disease and for analysis of long-term survival in clinical trials of new agents, particularly those that are effective in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.
|
|
| 2. |
- Cowper, Patricia A, et al.
(författare)
-
Economic Analysis of Ticagrelor Therapy From a U.S. Perspective : Results From the PLATO Study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 65:5, s. 465-476
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Based on results of the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel therapy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ticagrelor in 2011 for reducing thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with the proviso that it be taken with low-dose aspirin.OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the cost and cost effectiveness of ticagrelor therapy relative to clopidogrel in treating ACS patients from the perspective of the U.S. health care system.METHODS: We estimated within-trial resource use and costs using U.S. low-dose aspirin patients in PLATO (n = 547). Quality-adjusted life expectancy was estimated using the total PLATO population (n = 18,624), combined with baseline risk and long-term survival data from an external ACS patient cohort. Study drugs were valued at current costs. Cost effectiveness was assessed, as was the sensitivity of results to sampling and methodological uncertainties.RESULTS: One year of ticagrelor therapy, relative to that of generic clopidogrel, cost $29,665/quality-adjusted life-year gained, with 99% of bootstrap estimates falling under a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses, including variations in clopidogrel cost, exclusion of costs in extended years of life, and a recalibrated estimate of survival reflecting a lower underlying mortality risk in the United States.CONCLUSIONS: For PLATO-eligible ACS patients, a U.S. perspective comparison of the current standard of dual antiplatelet therapy of aspirin with clopidogrel versus aspirin plus ticagrelor showed that the ticagrelor regimen increased life expectancy at an incremental cost well within accepted benchmarks of good value for money. (A Comparison of Ticagrelor [AZD6140] and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [PLATO]; NCT00391872).
|
|
| 3. |
- Cowper, Patricia A., et al.
(författare)
-
Economic Analysis of Ticagrelor Therapy From a US Perspective
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 65:5, s. 465-476
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Based on results of the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel therapy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ticagrelor in 2011 for reducing thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with the proviso that it be taken with low-dose aspirin. OBJECTIVES This study sought to assess the cost and cost effectiveness of ticagrelor therapy relative to clopidogrel in treating ACS patients from the perspective of the U.S. health care system. METHODS We estimated within-trial resource use and costs using U.S. low-dose aspirin patients in PLATO (n = 547). Quality-adjusted life expectancy was estimated using the total PLATO population (n = 18,624), combined with baseline risk and long-term survival data from an external ACS patient cohort. Study drugs were valued at current costs. Cost effectiveness was assessed, as was the sensitivity of results to sampling and methodological uncertainties. RESULTS One year of ticagrelor therapy, relative to that of generic clopidogrel, cost $29,665/quality-adjusted life-year gained, with 99% of bootstrap estimates falling under a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses, including variations in clopidogrel cost, exclusion of costs in extended years of life, and a recalibrated estimate of survival reflecting a lower underlying mortality risk in the United States. CONCLUSIONS For PLATO-eligible ACS patients, a U.S. perspective comparison of the current standard of dual antiplatelet therapy of aspirin with clopidogrel versus aspirin plus ticagrelor showed that the ticagrelor regimen increased life expectancy at an incremental cost well within accepted benchmarks of good value for money. (C) 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
