Comparison of simulation results with published estimates of the income elasticity and of the uncompensated own price elasticity of demand for 4 bundles of goods: clothing and footwear, education, healthcare, and recreation.

<p>The estimates (colored circles) in the three panels refer to low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries and were obtained fitting the Florida model to country survey data (source: Seale JL, Regmi A, Bernstein J. International evidence on food consumption patterns. Economic Research Service; US Department of Agriculture; 2003). The darker line (in the middle) indicates the median of simulated values, while the lighter external lines define the 95% credible interval calculated using a Monte-Carlo simulation. The average budget share was drawn from a uniform distribution ranging from 0.0001 to 0.1, and the elasticity of the marginal utility of income was drawn from a normal distribution with mean equal to -1.26 and standard deviation equal to 0.1.</p

Relationship between income elasticity of two (preference) independent bundles of goods A and B, and the cross price elasticity of demand for a bundle of goods A with respect to B.

<p>The cross price elasticity is negative, null or positive, depending on whether the income elasticity of B is smaller of, equal to, or larger of the absolute value of the elasticity of the marginal utility of income. The average budget share is equal to 0.05 and the elasticity of the marginal utility of income is equal to -1.26.</p

Definitions.

<p>Definitions.</p

Quantification of the uncertainty affecting the estimates of the cross price elasticity of demand for a bundle of goods A, whith respect to the price of B.

<p>In this example, the income elasticity of the bundle of goods B is equal to 0.2, and the cross price elasticity is plotted against the income elasticity of demand for A. The darker line (in the middle) indicates the median of simulated values, while the lighter external lines define the 95% credible interval calculated using a Monte-Carlo simulation. The average budget share was drawn from a uniform distribution ranging from 0.0001 to 0.1, and the elasticity of the marginal utility of income was drawn from a normal distribution with mean equal to -1.26 and standard deviation equal to 0.1.</p

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type <i>RAS</i> metastatic colorectal cancer in the US

<p><b>Aims:</b> This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type <i>RAS</i> metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).</p> <p><b>Materials and methods:</b> The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type <i>RAS</i> mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled.</p> <p><b>Limitations:</b> Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type <i>RAS</i> mCRC compared with bevacizumab.</p