|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
02340nam a2200253 u 4500 |
| 001 |
EB002191806 |
| 003 |
EBX01000000000000001329271 |
| 005 |
00000000000000.0 |
| 007 |
tu||||||||||||||||||||| |
| 008 |
240105 r ||| eng |
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Pharmacoeconomic report: Brolucizumab (Beovu) (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.)
|h Elektronische Ressource
|b indication: treatment of neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration (AMD)
|
| 246 |
3 |
1 |
|a Pharmacoeconomic review report for Brolucizumab (Beovu)
|
| 246 |
3 |
1 |
|a Brolucizumab (Beovu) (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.)
|
| 250 |
|
|
|a Version: Final
|
| 260 |
|
|
|a Ottawa
|b Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
|c 2020, July 2020
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 1 PDF file (32 pages)
|b illustration
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a Includes bibliographical references
|
| 710 |
2 |
|
|a Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
|
| 041 |
0 |
7 |
|a eng
|2 ISO 639-2
|
| 989 |
|
|
|b NCBI
|a National Center for Biotechnology Information
|
| 490 |
0 |
|
|a CADTH common drug review
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK565513
|3 Volltext
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 610
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a CADTH undertook reanalyses to address limitations that included bevacizumab as a relevant comparator, applying equal treatment discontinuation, adjusting vision impairment costs, and applying a pooled, long-term treatment effect. Using the CADTH base-case reanalyses, brolucizumab would not be considered cost-effective treatment at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The probability of brolucizumab being considered the most cost-effective intervention was 0% at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY (and even at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY). Price reductions can improve the cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). At a WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY, a respective price reduction of 85% is required for brolucizumab to be considered cost-effective compared to bevacizumab. No price reduction would be required for brolucizumab if bevacizumab was unavailable as a treatment option. While some uncertainties remain in the model, it is highly unlikely that brolucizumab would be considered a cost-effective intervention relative to bevacizumab based on the efficacy estimates and price submitted by the sponsor
|