A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

被引:28
作者
Beauchemin, C. [1 ]
Letarte, N. [1 ,2 ]
Mathurin, K. [1 ]
Yelle, L. [3 ]
Lachaine, J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Montreal, Fac Pharm, POB 6128,Stn Ctr Ville, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada
[2] Ctr Hosp Univ Montreal, Hop Notre Dame, Dept Pharm, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Ctr Hosp Univ Montreal, Hop Notre Dame, Dept Med, Montreal, PQ, Canada
关键词
Advanced breast cancer; Cost-effectiveness; Cost-utility; Markov model; HEALTH STATE UTILITIES; CHEMOTHERAPY; PACLITAXEL; DOCETAXEL; ELICITATION; LAPATINIB; THERAPY; VINORELBINE; COMBINATION; GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.3111/13696998.2016.1151431
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objective Considering the increasing number of treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is important to develop high-quality methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs. This study aims to develop a global economic model that could be used as a benchmark for the economic evaluation of new therapies for MBC. Methods The Global Pharmacoeconomics of Metastatic Breast Cancer (GPMBC) model is a Markov model that was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of new treatments for MBC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Specific parameters included in the model are cost of drug treatment, survival outcomes, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Global parameters are patient characteristics, health states utilities, disutilities, and costs associated with treatment-related AEs, as well as costs associated with drug administration, medical follow-up, and end-of-life care. The GPMBC model was tested and validated in a specific context, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole compared with other widely used first-line therapies for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) MBC. Results When tested, the GPMBC model led to incremental cost-utility ratios of CA$131 811 per QALY, CA$56 211 per QALY, and CA$102 477 per QALY for the comparison of lapatinib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone, trastuzumab plus anastrozole, and anastrozole alone, respectively. Results of the model testing were quite similar to those obtained by Delea et al., who also assessed the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in HR+/HER2+MBC in Canada, thus suggesting that the GPMBC model can replicate results of well-conducted economic evaluations. Conclusions The GPMBC model can be very valuable as it allows a quick and valid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any new treatments for MBC in a Canadian context.
引用
收藏
页码:619 / 629
页数:11
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]  
Attard CL, 2010, CURR ONCOL, V17, P11
[2]   An Economic Evaluation of Docetaxel and Paclitaxel Regimens in Metastatic Breast Cancer in the UK [J].
Benedict, Agnes ;
Cameron, David A. ;
Corson, Helene ;
Jones, Stephen E. .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2009, 27 (10) :847-859
[3]   Population preference values for treatment outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a cross-sectional utility study [J].
Beusterien, Kathleen M. ;
Davies, John ;
Leach, Michael ;
Meiklejohn, David ;
Grinspan, Jessica L. ;
O'Toole, Alison ;
Bramham-Jones, Steve .
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2010, 8
[4]   Quality of life valuations of mammography screening [J].
Bonomi, Amy E. ;
Boudreau, Denise M. ;
Fishman, Paul A. ;
Ludman, Evette ;
Mohelnitzky, Amy ;
Cannon, Elizabeth A. ;
Seger, Deb .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2008, 17 (05) :801-814
[5]   Cost effectiveness of treatment options in advanced breast cancer in the UK [J].
Brown, RE ;
Hutton, J ;
Burrell, A .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2001, 19 (11) :1091-1102
[6]   Cost-utility model comparing docetaxel and paclitaxel in advanced breast cancer patients [J].
Brown, RE ;
Hutton, J .
ANTI-CANCER DRUGS, 1998, 9 (10) :899-907
[7]   Economic evaluation of fulvestrant as an extra step in the treatment sequence for ER-positive advanced breast cancer [J].
Cameron, D. A. ;
Camidge, D. R. ;
Oyee, J. ;
Hirsch, M. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2008, 99 (12) :1984-1990
[8]  
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Health Technologies (CADTH), 2017, Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada, V4
[9]  
Canadian Breast Cancer Network, 2012, MET BREAST CANC CAN
[10]  
Canadian Cancer Society's Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics, 2015, CAN CANC STAT 2015