N. Muszbek

EVRAZ (United Kingdom)

Author Statistics

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index

Research Trends

Author Order

Document Type

Co-Authors

ÁB

Ágnes Benedict

Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Edit Remák

Costello Medical Consulting (United Kingdom)

Rachel Evans

Scholar Rock (United States)

Linda McNamara

Kyowa Kirin International (United Kingdom)

F. Colaone

Neovacs (France)

Victoria K. Brennan

University of Sheffield

Suki Shergill

RELX Group (United Kingdom)

P. Rakonczai

Eötvös Loránd University

A. Keskinaslan

Istanbul University

Zorana Maravic

European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Cooperative Institutions

Ibero American University

Pfizer (United States)

United BioSource Corporation (United Kingdom)

Ithaka Harbors

EVRAZ (United Kingdom)

University of York

Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States)

Semmelweis University

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

University of California, San Francisco

Author Statistics

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index

Research Field

Interim results from a real world European survey on the unmet needs of patients living with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

Annals of Oncology (2018)

Zorana Maravic Josep M. Borràs Eloy Espín Á Petrányi Zsuzsanna Kapitány

Interim

Interim analysis

10.1093/annonc/mdy281.117

Cite

Citations (0)

Economic evaluation of sorafenib vs. best supportive care in hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal of Clinical Oncology (2008)

N. Muszbek Syed Muhammad Ismail Shah Stuart Carroll Brian I. Carr Kathleen Gondek

6527 Background: A randomized phase III trial of sorafenib vs. placebo in hepatocellular carcinoma (SHARP study) demonstrated that sorafenib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) compared to placebo (median OS = 324 days [95% CI: 286–405] vs. 241 days [95% CI: 206–276]; p<0.001). Sorafenib is the first and only systemic agent to demonstrate survival benefit over the past 30 years. Given the clinical significance of these results, the objective of this study was to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness associated with sorafenib compared to best supportive care (BSC) from the US third party payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib vs. BSC. The model followed survival and time to progression (TTP) in monthly cycles based on the extrapolation of patient level trial data over a patient's lifetime. Health effects were expressed as life years gained (LYG). Resource use included drugs, physician visits, laboratory tests, scans, hospitalizations and treatment of adverse events. Unit costs were gathered from diagnosis related groupings, Medicare charges and the Red Book and were expressed in 2007 US Dollars. Costs and effects were evaluated over a lifetime and discounted at 3%. Results were presented as incremental cost/LYG. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: LYG was longer for sorafenib compared to BSC (1.59±0.18 vs. 1.06±0.10 LYG/patient for sorafenib and BSC, respectively). The lifetime total costs were $41,782±3,292 for sorafenib and $8,161±1,408 for BSC. The results indicated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $64,301/LYG. The key drivers of the model results were OS, TTP and BSC costs after progression. Sensitivity analyses results showed that the model was robust. Conclusions: The economic evaluation indicates that sorafenib is cost-effective as compared to BSC, with cost-effectiveness ratios within the established threshold that society is willing to pay (i.e. $50,000- $100,000). Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Role Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Bayer Bayer

10.1200/jco.2008.26.15_suppl.6527

Cite

Citations (1)

1557P The use of patient experience in UK NICE decision making in oncology

Annals of Oncology (2024)

N. Muszbek Unnati Pandit A. Angdembe

Nice

10.1016/j.annonc.2024.08.1619

Cite

Citations (0)

PCN414 INCLUSION OF SUBSEQUENT TREATMENTS WITH CURATIVE INTENT IN ADVANCED HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA (AHCC) PARTITIONED SURVIVAL MODELS

Value in Health (2019)

N. Muszbek Edit Remák R. Evans Victoria K. Brennan F. Colaone

10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.608

Cite

Citations (0)

PCN333 Analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data to Demonstrate the Secondary Care Treatment Pathway and Outcomes of Patients with Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma in England

Value in Health (2020)

N. Muszbek Fiona Glen Daniel A. Heaton Linda McNamara

Demographics

10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.470

Cite

Citations (0)

PCN344 End of Life Secondary Care Resource Use and Costs in Mycosis Fungoides and Sézary Syndrome: An Analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics

Value in Health (2020)

N. Muszbek Fiona Glen D Heaton Linda McNamara

10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.480

Cite

Citations (0)

Changes in treatment pattern and costs in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (2021)

N. Muszbek Rachel Evans Edit Remák Victoria K. Brennan F. Colaone

While essential for cost-effectiveness analyses, there are no current resource use and cost data available for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT). The study aims to assess current resource use and costs in HCC and for SIRT compared to historical survey data.To address this data gap, resource use was elicited via surveys and interviews with medical professionals experienced with HCC and SIRT in the United Kingdom. Unit costs were from publicly available databases. Resource use and costs were estimated and compared to prior surveys.From eleven responses, pre-progression costs for SIRT and systemic therapy were £256.77 and £292.27/month, respectively. One-off progression and post-progression costs were £209.98 and £522.84/month. Monthly costs were 54%-79% lower than in previous surveys, due to reduction in hospitalizations and funded social care. Furthermore, substantial differences in resource use associated with SIRT between clinical practice and clinical trials were found. In conclusion, increased availability and familiarity with systemic treatments has led to important changes in HCC care and SIRT administration. The uncertainty from the use of expert opinion and the limited number of hospitals with SIRT experience can be addressed with future research using large databases, registries.

Clinical Practice

10.1080/14737167.2021.1973892

Cite

Citations (2)

1236 Life after clinical trials - difficulties in assessing value of drugs in advanced oncology

European Journal of Cancer (2015)

N. Muszbek Ágnes Benedict

Clinical Oncology

Value (mathematics)

10.1016/s0959-8049(16)30540-8

Cite

Citations (0)