METHODS: In this prospective real-world study, we recruited and followed up patients diagnosed with CAT treated with rivaroxaban or standard of care as a control for 12 months or until death. Baseline characteristics were collected at the study entry. The primary outcomes were recurrent DVT or PE and death within 12 months after treatment initiation. Safety outcomes were composite outcomes of major and minor bleeding. Results: A total of 80 patients confirm CAT with radiological imaging were recruited; 39 patients were evaluated in the control arm and 41 patients in the rivaroxaban arm. The 12 months cumulative CAT recurrence rate was 46.2% in control and 39% in rivaroxaban (p=0.519). The 12-month death was not a statistically significant difference between both arms (20.5% vs. 31.7%, p=0.255). The cumulative rate of composite safety outcomes was similar in both groups (17.9% vs. 12.2%, p=0.471).
CONCLUSION: The result of this small but important real-world evidence proofs that rivaroxaban is an effective and safe alternative to the standard of care for CAT in Malaysia's cancer population.
METHODS: A cross-sectional contingent valuation study on 571 Malaysians was conducted to elicit respondents' WTP value via bidding game approach. A double-bounded dichotomous choice was used in 3 hypothetical scenarios: innovative diabetes medicine, innovative oncology medicine one-off (IOMO), and innovative oncology medicine insurance. Univariate logistic regression was used to determine the factors affecting respondent's WTP, whereas the mean WTP value and the factors affecting amount to WTP was determined using a parametric 2-part model.
RESULTS: This study received 95% response rate. The mean age of the respondents is 48 years (SD 17) with majority of the respondents female (60.3%) and from ethnic Malay (62%). About 343 (64.7%) of the respondents expressed WTP for IOMO. Those in higher income bracket were willing to pay more for the access of IOMO than the overall WTP mean value (P = .046, coefficient 351.57).
CONCLUSIONS: More than half of Malaysian are willing to pay for IOMO at mean value of Malaysian Ringgit 279.10 (US dollar 66.77). Collaborative funding mechanisms and appropriate financial screening among the stakeholders could be introduced as methods to expedite the access of innovative oncology medicine among patients with cancer in Malaysia.
METHODS: Fifty-nine chemo-naive patients receiving either olanzapine or aprepitant were randomly recruited and completed the EQ-5D-5L before and day 5 after HEC. HRQoL utility scores were analyzed according to the Malaysian valuation set. The economic evaluation was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective with a 5-day time horizon. Quality-adjusted life days (QALD) and the rate of successfully treated patients were used to measure health effects. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is assessed as the mean difference between groups' costs per mean difference in health effects. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess variations that might affect outcomes.
RESULTS: Aprepitant and olanzapine arms' patients had comparable baseline mean HRQoL utility scores of 0.920 (SD = 0.097) and 0.930 (SD = 0.117), respectively; however, on day 5, a significant difference (P value = .006) was observed with mean score of 0.778 (SD = 0.168) for aprepitant and 0.889 (SD = 0.133) for olanzapine. The cost per successfully treated patient in the aprepitant arm was 60 times greater than in the olanzapine arm (Malaysian Ringgit [MYR] 927 vs MYR 14.83). Likewise, the cost per QALD gain in the aprepitant arm was 36 times higher than in the olanzapine arm (MYR 57.05 vs MYR 1.57). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of MYR -937.00 (USD -200.98) per successfully treated patient and MYR -391.84 (USD -85.43) per QALD gained for olanzapine compared with the aprepitant-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: An olanzapine-based regimen is a cost-effective therapeutic substitution in patients receiving HEC in Malaysia.