Dataset Information

A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A key priority in developing policies for providing affordable cancer care is measuring the value for money of new therapies using cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). For CEA to be useful it should focus on relevant outcomes and include thorough investigation of uncertainty. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of five years of aromatase inhibitors (AI) versus five years of tamoxifen in the treatment of post-menopausal women with early stage breast cancer, show benefit of AI in terms of disease free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) and indicate higher risk of fracture with AI. Policy-relevant CEA of AI versus tamoxifen should focus on OS and include analysis of uncertainty over key assumptions.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of published CEAs comparing an AI to tamoxifen. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews without language restrictions. We selected CEAs with outcomes expressed as cost per life year or cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). We assessed quality using the Neumann checklist. Using structured forms two abstractors collected descriptive information, sources of data, baseline assumptions on effectiveness and adverse events, and recorded approaches to assessing parameter uncertainty, methodological uncertainty, and structural uncertainty.

Results

We identified 1,622 citations and 18 studies met inclusion criteria. All CE estimates assumed a survival benefit for aromatase inhibitors. Twelve studies performed sensitivity analysis on the risk of adverse events and 7 assumed no additional mortality risk with any adverse event. Sub-group analysis was limited; 6 studies examined older women, 2 examined women with low recurrence risk, and 1 examined women with multiple comorbidities.

Conclusion

Published CEAs comparing AIs to tamoxifen assumed an OS benefit though none has been shown in RCTs, leading to an overestimate of the cost-effectiveness of AIs. Results of these CEA analyses may be suboptimal for guiding policy.

SUBMITTER: John-Baptiste AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3646035 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer.

John-Baptiste Ava A AA Wu Wei W Rochon Paula P Anderson Geoffrey M GM Bell Chaim M CM

PloS one 20130506 5

<h4>Background</h4>A key priority in developing policies for providing affordable cancer care is measuring the value for money of new therapies using cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). For CEA to be useful it should focus on relevant outcomes and include thorough investigation of uncertainty. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of five years of aromatase inhibitors (AI) versus five years of tamoxifen in the treatment of post-menopausal women with early stage breast cancer, show benefit of AI in ...[more]

PMID: 23671612

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSorafenib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) might both provide survival benefit for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Adopting either as a first-line therapy carries major cost and resource implications. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib and TACE in advanced HCC.MethodsA Markov model was constructed in a hypothetical cohort of patients aged 60 years with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh A/B cirrhosis over a 2-year time frame. Three strategies (full or dose-adjusted sorafenib and TACE) were compared in two cost settings: China and the USA. Transition probabilities, utility and costs were extracted from systematic review of 27 articles. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo analysis were conducted.ResultsFull and dose-adjusted sorafenib respectively produced 0.435 and 0.482 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while TACE produced 0.375 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of full-dose sorafenib versus TACE was $101,028.83/QALY in China whereas full-dose sorafenib is a dominant strategy (ICER of -$1,014,507.20/ QALY) compared with TACE in the USA. Compared to full-dose sorafenib, dose-adjusted sorafenib was the dominant strategy with the negative ICERs in both China (-$132,238.94/QALY) and the USA (-$230,058.09/QALY). However, dose-adjusted sorafenib is not available currently, so full-dose sorafenib should be compared with TACE. As the acceptability curves shown, full-dose sorafenib was the optimal strategy at the accepted thresholds of WTP in these two countries. Specifically, full-dose sorafenib was the cost-effective treatment compared with TACE if a WTP was set above $21,670 in the USA, whereas in China, TACE could be more favorable than full-dose sorafenib if a WTP was set below $10,473.ConclusionsDose-adjusted sorafenib may be cost-effective compared to full-dose sorafenib or TACE for advanced HCC patients. However, when confining the comparisons between full-dose sorafenib and TACE, full-dose sorafenib was cost-effective for these patients, under the accepted thresholds of WTP.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.ResultsIn total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.ConclusionThe cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.

Dataset Information

A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets