Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer control interventions in Peru.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

In Peru, a country with constrained health resources, breast cancer control is characterized by late stage treatment and poor survival. To support breast cancer control in Peru, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of different breast cancer control interventions relevant for the Peruvian context.

Methods

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) according to WHO-CHOICE guidelines, from a healthcare perspective. Different screening, early detection, palliative, and treatment interventions were evaluated using mathematical modeling. Effectiveness estimates were based on observational studies, modeling, and on information from Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas (INEN). Resource utilizations and unit costs were based on estimates from INEN and observational studies. Cost-effectiveness estimates are in 2012 United States dollars (US$) per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted.

Results

The current breast cancer program in Peru ($8,426 per DALY averted) could be improved through implementing triennial or biennial screening strategies. These strategies seem the most cost-effective in Peru, particularly when mobile mammography is applied (from $4,125 per DALY averted), or when both CBE screening and mammography screening are combined (from $4,239 per DALY averted). Triennially, these interventions costs between $63 million and $72 million per year. Late stage treatment, trastuzumab therapy and annual screening strategies are the least cost-effective.

Conclusions

Our analysis suggests that breast cancer control in Peru should be oriented towards early detection through combining fixed and mobile mammography screening (age 45-69) triennially. However, a phased introduction of triennial CBE screening (age 40-69) with upfront FNA in non-urban settings, and both CBE (age 40-49) and fixed mammography screening (age 50-69) in urban settings, seems a more feasible option and is also cost-effective. The implementation of this intervention is only meaningful if awareness raising, diagnostic, referral, treatment and basic palliative services are simultaneously improved, and if financial and organizational barriers to these services are reduced.

SUBMITTER: Zelle SG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3859673 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer control interventions in Peru.

Zelle Sten G SG Vidaurre Tatiana T Abugattas Julio E JE Manrique Javier E JE Sarria Gustavo G Jeronimo José J Seinfeld Janice N JN Lauer Jeremy A JA Sepulveda Cecilia R CR Venegas Diego D Baltussen Rob R

PloS one 20131210 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>In Peru, a country with constrained health resources, breast cancer control is characterized by late stage treatment and poor survival. To support breast cancer control in Peru, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of different breast cancer control interventions relevant for the Peruvian context.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) according to WHO-CHOICE guidelines, from a healthcare perspective. Different screening, early detection ...[more]

PMID: 24349314

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical and economic burden associated with invasive and non-invasive pneumococcal and non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) diseases is substantial in the Latin America and Caribbean region, where pneumococcal vaccines have only been introduced to a few countries. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of three different pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) for Peru.MethodsA Markov model that simulated the disease processes in a birth cohort over a lifetime, within 1,128 month cycles was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 10-valent pneumococcal NTHi protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) and 7- and 13-valent PCVs (PCV-7 and PCV-13). Expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.ResultsWithout vaccination, pneumonia was associated with the greatest health economic burden (90% of QALYs lost and 63% of lifetime direct medical costs); while acute otitis media (AOM) was responsible for 1% of QALYs lost and 25% of direct medical costs. All vaccines were predicted to be cost-effective for Peru, with PHiD-CV being most cost-effective. PHiD-CV was predicted to generate 50 more QALYs gained and required a reduced investment (-US$ 3.4 million) versus PCV-13 (discounted data), and was therefore dominant and cost saving. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that PHiD-CV generated more QALYs gained at a reduced cost than PCV-13 in 84% of the simulations and less QALYs gains at a reduced cost in 16%. Additional scenarios using different assumptions on vaccine efficacies based on previous evidence were explored, but no significant change in the overall cost-effective results were observed.ConclusionsThe results of this modeling study predict that PCVs are likely to be a cost-effective strategy to help relieve the epidemiological and economic burden associated with pediatric pneumococcal and NTHi diseases for Peru. PHiD-CV is likely to be a dominant (better health gains at a reduced net cost) intervention compared to PCV-13 or PCV-7. The most significant drivers for these results are the better health and economic profile of PHiD-CV against AOM and its reduced cost per dose available through the PAHO Revolving Fund in the LAC region.

Project description:BackgroundThe control and elimination of malaria requires expanded coverage of and access to effective malaria control interventions such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), indoor residual spraying (IRS), intermittent preventive treatment (IPT), diagnostic testing and appropriate treatment. Decisions on how to scale up the coverage of these interventions need to be based on evidence of programme effectiveness, equity and cost-effectiveness.MethodsA systematic review of the published literature on the costs and cost-effectiveness of malaria interventions was undertaken. All costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were inflated to 2009 USD to allow comparison of the costs and benefits of several different interventions through various delivery channels, across different geographical regions and from varying costing perspectives.ResultsFifty-five studies of the costs and forty three studies of the cost-effectiveness of malaria interventions were identified, 78% of which were undertaken in sub-Saharan Africa, 18% in Asia and 4% in South America. The median financial cost of protecting one person for one year was $2.20 (range $0.88-$9.54) for ITNs, $6.70 (range $2.22-$12.85) for IRS, $0.60 (range $0.48-$1.08) for IPT in infants, $4.03 (range $1.25-$11.80) for IPT in children, and $2.06 (range $0.47-$3.36) for IPT in pregnant women. The median financial cost of diagnosing a case of malaria was $4.32 (range $0.34-$9.34). The median financial cost of treating an episode of uncomplicated malaria was $5.84 (range $2.36-$23.65) and the median financial cost of treating an episode of severe malaria was $30.26 (range $15.64-$137.87). Economies of scale were observed in the implementation of ITNs, IRS and IPT, with lower unit costs reported in studies with larger numbers of beneficiaries. From a provider perspective, the median incremental cost effectiveness ratio per disability adjusted life year averted was $27 (range $8.15-$110) for ITNs, $143 (range $135-$150) for IRS, and $24 (range $1.08-$44.24) for IPT.ConclusionsA transparent evidence base on the costs and cost-effectiveness of malaria control interventions is provided to inform rational resource allocation by donors and domestic health budgets and the selection of optimal packages of interventions by malaria control programmes.

Project description:Background: In 2018, the global estimate of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases among women totaled 2.1 million. The economic and social burden that breast cancer places on societies has propelled research that analyzes the role of modifiable risk factors as the primary prevention methods. Healthy behavior changes, moderated alcohol intake, healthy body weight, and regular physical activity may decrease the risk of breast cancer among women. This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle-related interventions for the primary prevention of breast cancer in order to answer the question on whether implementing interventions focused on behavior changes are worth the value for money. Methods: A rapid review was performed using search terms developed by the research team. The articles were retrieved from MEDLINE and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, with an additional web search in Google and Google Scholar. Comparisons were performed on the cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year between the interventions using a league table, and the likelihood of cost-effective interventions for breast cancer primary prevention was analyzed. Results: Six studies were selected. The median cost-effectiveness ratio (in 2018 USD) was $24,973, and 80% of the interventions had a ratio below the $50,000 threshold. The low-fat-diet program for postmenopausal women was cost-effective at a societal level, and the physical activity interventions, such as the Be Active Program in the UK, had the best cost saving results. A total of 11 of the 25 interventions ranked either as highly or very highly likely to be cost-effective for breast cancer primary preventions. Conclusion: Although the review had some limitations due to using only a few studies, it showed evidence that diet-related and physical-activity-related interventions for the primary prevention of breast cancer were cost-effective. Many of the cost-effective interventions aimed to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases alongside breast cancer.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral interventions exist for treating myopia progression in children. While these interventions' efficacy has been studied, their cost-effectiveness remains unknown and has not been compared.ObjectiveTo determine cost-effective options for controlling myopia progression in children.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of interventions for controlling myopia progression over 5 years from a societal perspective in a simulated hypothetical cohort of patients aged 10 years with myopia. Myopia interventions considered included atropine eye drops, 0.05% and 0.01%, defocus incorporated multiple segment spectacles, outdoor activity, soft contact lenses (daily disposable and multifocal), rigid gas-permeable contact lenses, progressive addition lenses, bifocal spectacle lenses, orthokeratology, highly aspherical lenslets (HALs), and red light therapy; all interventions were compared with single-vision lenses. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined the association of model uncertainties with the cost-effectiveness. Costs were obtained from the charges of the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong and The Chinese University of Hong Kong Eye Center.Main outcome and measuresThe mean costs (in US dollars) per child included the cost of hospital visits, medications, and optical lenses. The outcomes of effectiveness were the annual spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length (AL) reductions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each strategy relative to single-vision lenses over a time horizon of 5 years.ResultsOutdoor activity, atropine (0.05%), red light therapy, HALs, and orthokeratology were cost-effective. The ICER of atropine, 0.05%, was US $220/SER reduction; red light therapy, US $846/SER reduction; and HALs, US $448/SER reduction. Outdoor activity yielded a savings of US $5/SER reduction and US $8/AL reduction. Orthokeratology resulted in an ICER of US $2376/AL reduction.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that atropine eye drops, 0.05%, and outdoor activity are cost-effective for controlling myopia progression in children. Though more expensive, red light therapy, HALs, and orthokeratology may also be cost-effective. The use of these interventions may help to control myopia in a cost-effective way.

Project description:BackgroundWith candidate norovirus (NV) vaccines in a rapid phase of development, assessment of the potential economic value of vaccine implementation will be necessary to aid health officials in vaccine implementation decisions. To date, no evaluations have been performed to evaluate the benefit of adopting NV vaccines for use in the childhood immunization programs of low- and middle-income countries.MethodsWe used a Markov decision model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a two-dose NV vaccine to Peru's routine childhood immunization schedule using two recent estimates of NV incidence, one for a peri-urban region and one for a jungle region of the country.ResultsUsing the peri-urban NV incidence estimate, the annual cost of vaccination would be $13.0 million, offset by $2.6 million in treatment savings. Overall, this would result in 473 total DALYs averted; 526,245 diarrhea cases averted;153,735 outpatient visits averted; and 414 hospitalizations averted between birth and the fifth year of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be $21,415 per DALY averted; $19.86 per diarrhea case; $68.23 per outpatient visit; and $26,298 per hospitalization. Using the higher jungle NV incidence rates provided a lower cost per DALY of $10,135. The incremental cost per DALY with per-urban NV incidence is greater than three times the 2012 GDP per capita of Peru but the estimate drops below this threshold using the incidence from the jungle setting. In addition to the impact of incidence, sensitivity analysis showed that vaccine price and efficacy play a strong role in determining the level of cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsThe introduction of a NV vaccine would prevent many healthcare outcomes in the Peru and potentially be cost-effective in scenarios with high NV incidence. The vaccine cost-effectiveness model could also be applied to the evaluation of NV vaccine cost-effectiveness in other countries. In resource-poor settings, where NV incidence rates are expected to be higher.

Project description:Importance:Moving to multigene testing for all women with breast cancer (BC) could identify many more mutation carriers who can benefit from precision prevention. However, the cost-effectiveness of this approach remains unaddressed. Objective:To estimate incremental lifetime effects, costs, and cost-effectiveness of multigene testing of all patients with BC compared with the current practice of genetic testing (BRCA) based on family history (FH) or clinical criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cost-effectiveness microsimulation modeling study compared lifetime costs and effects of high-risk BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 (multigene) testing of all unselected patients with BC (strategy A) with BRCA1/BRCA2 testing based on FH or clinical criteria (strategy B) in United Kingdom (UK) and US populations. Data were obtained from 11?836 patients in population-based BC cohorts (regardless of FH) recruited to 4 large research studies. Data were collected and analyzed from January 1, 2018, through June 8, 2019. The time horizon is lifetime. Payer and societal perspectives are presented. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses evaluate model uncertainty. Interventions:In strategy A, all women with BC underwent BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 testing. In strategy B, only women with BC fulfilling FH or clinical criteria underwent BRCA testing. Affected BRCA/PALB2 carriers could undertake contralateral preventive mastectomy; BRCA carriers could choose risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Relatives of mutation carriers underwent cascade testing. Unaffected relative carriers could undergo magnetic resonance imaging or mammography screening, chemoprevention, or risk-reducing mastectomy for BC risk and RRSO for ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Main Outcomes and Measures:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and compared with standard £30 000/QALY and $100?000/QALY UK and US thresholds, respectively. Incidence of OC, BC, excess deaths due to heart disease, and the overall population effects were estimated. Results:BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 multigene testing for all patients detected with BC annually would cost £10 464/QALY (payer perspective) or £7216/QALY (societal perspective) in the United Kingdom or $65?661/QALY (payer perspective) or $61?618/QALY (societal perspective) in the United States compared with current BRCA testing based on clinical criteria or FH. This is well below UK and US cost-effectiveness thresholds. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, unselected multigene testing remained cost-effective for 98% to 99% of UK and 64% to 68% of US health system simulations. One year's unselected multigene testing could prevent 2101 cases of BC and OC and 633 deaths in the United Kingdom and 9733 cases of BC and OC and 2406 deaths in the United States. Correspondingly, 8 excess deaths due to heart disease occurred in the United Kingdom and 35 in the United States annually. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found unselected, high-risk multigene testing for all patients with BC to be extremely cost-effective compared with testing based on FH or clinical criteria for UK and US health systems. These findings support changing current policy to expand genetic testing to all women with BC.

Project description:BackgroundTesting to determine HER2 status has come into focus since the approval of trastuzumab (Herceptin) for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. We compared the cost-effectiveness of various strategies used to test HER2 status, an important first step toward evaluating the overall cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab therapy.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of studies that evaluated concordance between immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization testing to determine HER2 status. We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the distribution of immunohistochemistry scores in each category (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) and the probability of receiving a positive result of fluorescence in situ hybridization (which we assumed to be the "gold-standard" test) for each category. We calculated the accuracy and incremental cost per accurate diagnosis for each testing strategy compared with the base strategy (immunohistochemistry testing, followed by confirmation of 2+ scores by fluorescence in situ hybridization).ResultsThe median percentage of patients in each category of immunohistochemistry score was: 0, 36.1%; 1+, 35.5%; 2+, 12.0%; and 3+, 16.2%. The median percentage of results of fluorescence in situ hybridization that were positive in each immunohistochemistry category was: 0, 1.6%; 1+, 4.9%; 2+, 29.8%; and 3+, 92.4%. The base strategy was expected to correctly determine the HER2 status of 96% of patients with breast cancer. Confirmation of the HER2 status by fluorescence in situ hybridization in cases that received a score of 3+ reduced the percentage of false-positive results to 0% and increased the percentage of accurately determined HER2 results to 97.6%. Compared with the base strategy, this strategy was associated with a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $6175 per case of accurately determined HER2 status. The strategy of performing fluorescence in situ hybridization testing in all cases of breast cancer was associated with a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8401 per case of accurately determined HER2 status.InterpretationThe strategy with the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio involved screening all newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer with immunohistochemistry and confirming scores of 2+ or 3+ with fluorescence in situ hybridization testing.

Project description:BackgroundToliparibizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel (T+N) has excellent efficacy inmetastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but the optimal choice of sequence of therapy is unclear given the trade-offs between quality of life and cost. Cost-effectiveness analyses can quantify these tradeoffs, leading to more informed decisions. Our objective was to assess the societal cost-effectiveness of the T+N regimen for metastatic or recurrent TNBC.MethodsClinical data were extracted from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, TORCHLIGHT (NCT04085276). Patients were randomized into the T+N group or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (P+N) group. 531 patients from 53 study locations were randomly assigned (T+N, n=353; P+N, n=178) into intend to treat (ITT) population; 200 and 100 patients, respectively had programmed death protein 1 (PD-L1) positive TNBC. A Markov model was established with a 21-day cycle length. Costs were acquired from local hospitals, effect parameters included quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsThe cost differences were 47,538.3 CNY in ITT population (T+N, 143,725.67 CNY; P+N group, 96,187.37 CNY) and 29,258.84 CNY in PD-L1+ subgroup (T+N, 100,128.28 CNY; P+N group, 70,869.45 CNY). Meanwhile, the IEs were 0.03409 in the ITT population (T+N, 0.55323 QALY; P+N, 0.51914 QALY) and 0.03409 in the PD-L1+ subgroup (T+N, 0.42327 QALY; P+N, 0.37628 QALY). The ICERs between T+N and P+N groups were 1,394,548.41 CNY/QALY in the ITT population and 622,663.98 CNY/QALY in the PD-L1+ subgroup. We also analyzed the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab could be received in the Chinese medical insurance catalog. If toripalimab could be reimbursed at an 80% rate, the cost differences were changed to 16,598.99 CNY in ITT population (T+N, 112,786.36 CNY; P+N group, 96,187.37 CNY) and 7,704.58 CNY in PD-L1+ subgroup (T+N, 78,574.03 CNY; P+N group, 70,869.45 CNY). Meanwhile, the IEs remained unchanged. The ICERs between T+N and P+N groups were changed to 486,935.82 CNY/QALY in the ITT population and 163,962.96 CNY/QALY in the PD-L1+ subgroup. Sensitivity analyses indicated the stability of the model and the impact of utility.ConclusionAt current drug prices, the T+N group is not more cost-effective than the P+N group, but after incorporating toripalimab into medical insurance, the T+N group will be more cost-effective for patients with PD-L1+ metastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer control interventions in Peru.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer control interventions in Peru.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets