Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки Three CYTH4 Hoaxes And Best Ways To Prevent It

The main comparison of interest in this CE analysis is the subgroup ER (n=178) versus placebo (n=278), since overall there were no differences between erlotinib and placebo; 178/302 (59%) developed rash in the first cycle (ER group) and 124/302 (41%) took erlotinib and did not develop rash in the first cycle (Erlotinib non-rash (ENR) group); 5/313 (2%) on placebo had rash. Patients with ENR were  included in a sensitivity analysis. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups (table 1). Although there appeared to be a difference for smoking status (except never-smokers), a multivariate analysis9 showed that overall survival was similar between ex-smokers and never-smokers (HR 0.98). Also, the efficacy of erlotinib may be reduced in patients who currently smoke, but the absolute difference of 24% versus 37% (p=0.003) does not materially impact the estimate of the QALY and ICER; and, furthermore, we have shown that efficacy is improved in the erlotinib-rash group. Table?1 Summary of baseline characteristics* Figure?1 Consort diagram. Costs/resources Erlotinib was taken as 150?mg tablets by about 83% of patients, without any dose reductions; 15% and 2% of patients reduced dose to 100?mg and 50?mg, respectively. In the rash subgroup this was 79% for 150?mg tablets, 20% for 100?mg and 1% for 50?mg tablets, respectively. Hence, after taking into account dose reductions and dose delays, the mean cost of erlotinib (table 2) was ?6863 overall and ?7544 in the rash subgroup. For ER versus placebo, additional  chemotherapy/TKI costs after progression on the erlotinib arm (n=7) and placebo group (n=5) were ?182 versus ?270, respectively (mean difference ?88, p value=0.852); mean costs for palliative radiotherapy were ?302 versus ?235 (p value=0.0449); mean duration of radiotherapy was longer with erlotinib (2.5 vs 2.0?days; p value=0.3412), although the proportion of patients who received radiotherapy was similar (table 2 and online supplementary table S1). More patients  were hospitalised for treatment-related SAEs on ENR versus placebo: 22/178 (12%) versus 15/278 (5%); mean costs of treatment related SAEs were, therefore, ?356 versus ?184 and mean total costs were ?9949 versus ?2058, respectively. Table?2 Model inputs: unit prices for resource use and summary of costs Efficacy The mean and SE for OS was 7.08 (0.48) versus 6.41 (0.44) months. For PFS, this was 4.95 (0.36) versus 3.80 (0.29) months, respectively (erlotinib vs placebo). In the rash subgroup, OS was 9.08 (0.65) versus 6.91 (0.43) months (table 2); and PFS was 6.22 (0.51) versus 4.19 (0.32) months for ER and placebo, respectively. Utilities and QALYs About 98% of EQ-5D forms were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSCD4 CYTH4] completed at baseline; patients alive at 1?year, 32/40 (80%) versus 34/43 (79%) had complete EQ-5D data for ER versus placebo, respectively. Missing data between groups were similar at other time points.