Dataset Information

Can Cost-effectiveness Analysis Inform Genotype-Guided Aspirin Use for Primary Colorectal Cancer Prevention?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Inherited genetic variants can modify the cancer-chemopreventive effect of aspirin. We evaluated the clinical and economic value of genotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer chemoprevention in average-risk individuals.

Methods

A decision analytical model compared genotype-guided aspirin use versus no genetic testing, no aspirin. The model simulated 100,000 adults ≥50 years of age with average colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease risk. Low-dose aspirin daily starting at age 50 years was recommended only for those with a genetic test result indicating a greater reduction in colorectal cancer risk with aspirin use. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

The mean cost of using genotype-guided aspirin was $187,109 with 19.922 mean QALYs compared with $186,464 with 19.912 QALYs for no genetic testing, no aspirin. Genotype-guided aspirin yielded an ICER of $66,243 per QALY gained, and was cost-effective in 58% of simulations at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Genotype-guided aspirin was associated with 1,461 fewer polyps developed, 510 fewer colorectal cancer cases, and 181 fewer colorectal cancer-related deaths. This strategy prevented 1,078 myocardial infarctions with 1,430 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 323 intracranial hemorrhage cases compared with no genetic testing, no aspirin.

Conclusions

Genotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer chemoprevention may offer a cost-effective approach for the future management of average-risk individuals.

Impact

A genotype-guided aspirin strategy may prevent colorectal cancer, colorectal cancer-related deaths, and myocardial infarctions, while minimizing bleeding adverse events. This model establishes a framework for genetically-guided aspirin use for targeted chemoprevention of colorectal cancer with application toward commercial testing in this population.

SUBMITTER: Biltaji E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8172453 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Our aim was to update estimates of the health and economic impact of clinical services recommended for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for the comparative rankings of the National Commission on Prevention Priorities, and to explore differences in outcomes by sex and race/ethnicity.We used a single, integrated, microsimulation model to generate comparable results for 3 services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force: aspirin counseling for the primary prevention of CVD and colorectal cancer, screening and treatment for lipid disorders (usually high cholesterol), and screening and treatment for hypertension. Analyses compare lifetime outcomes from the societal perspective for a US-representative birth cohort of 100,000 persons with and without access to each clinical preventive service. Primary outcomes are health impact, measured by the net difference in lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness, measured in incremental cost per QALY or cost savings per person in 2012 dollars. Results are also presented for population subgroups defined by sex and race/ethnicity.Health impact is highest for hypertension screening and treatment (15,600 QALYs), but is closely followed by cholesterol screening and treatment (14,300 QALYs). Aspirin counseling has a lower health impact (2,200 QALYs) but is found to be cost saving ($31 saved per person). Cost-effectiveness for cholesterol and hypertension screening and treatment is $33,800 per QALY and $48,500 per QALY, respectively. Findings favor hypertension over cholesterol screening and treatment for women, and opportunities to reduce disease burden across all services are greatest for the non-Hispanic black population.All 3 CVD preventive services continue to rank highly among other recommended preventive services for US adults, but individual priorities can be tailored in practice by taking a patient's demographic characteristics and clinical objectives into account.

Project description:ObjectiveHIV genotype-resistance testing can help identify more effective antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens for patients, substantially increasing the likelihood of viral suppression and immune recovery. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-resistance testing before first-line ART initiation in Brazil.DesignWe used a previously published microsimulation model of HIV disease (CEPAC-International) and data from Brazil to compare the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of initial genotype testing (Genotype) with no initial genotype testing (No genotype).MethodsModel parameters were derived from the HIV Clinical Cohort at the Evandro Chagas Clinical Research Institute and from published data, using Brazilian sources whenever possible. Baseline patient characteristics included 69% male, mean age of 36 years (SD, 10 years), mean CD4 count of 347 per microliter (SD, 300/µL) at ART initiation, annual ART costs from 2012 US $1400 to US $13,400, genotype test cost of US $230, and primary resistance prevalence of 4.4%. Life expectancy and costs were discounted 3% per year. Genotype was defined as "cost-effective" compared with No Genotype if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than 3 times the 2012 Brazilian per capita GDP of US $12,300.ResultsCompared with No genotype, Genotype increased life expectancy from 18.45 to 18.47 years and reduced lifetime cost from US $45,000 to $44,770; thus, in the base case, Genotype was cost saving. Genotype was cost-effective at primary resistance prevalence as low as 1.4% and remained cost-effective when subsequent-line ART costs decreased to 30% of baseline value. Cost-inefficient results were observed only when simultaneously holding multiple parameters to extremes of their plausible ranges.ConclusionsGenotype-resistance testing in ART-naive individuals in Brazil will improve survival and decrease costs and should be incorporated into HIV treatment guidelines in Brazil.