IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0062614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review and Methodological Evaluation of Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Aromatase Inhibitors versus Tamoxifen in Early Stage Breast Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Ava A John-Baptiste
  • Wei Wu
  • Paula Rochon
  • Geoffrey M Anderson
  • Chaim M Bell

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ava A John-Baptiste & Wei Wu & Paula Rochon & Geoffrey M Anderson & Chaim M Bell, 2013. "A Systematic Review and Methodological Evaluation of Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Aromatase Inhibitors versus Tamoxifen in Early Stage Breast Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-9, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0062614
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062614
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062614&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0062614?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Bank, 2008. "Global Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures : 2005 International Comparison Program," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 21558, December.
    2. Jonathan Karnon & Thomas Delea & Vicki Barghout, 2008. "Cost utility analysis of early adjuvant letrozole or anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early invasive breast cancer: the UK perspective," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(2), pages 171-183, May.
    3. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    4. Takeru Shiroiwa & Yoon‐Kyoung Sung & Takashi Fukuda & Hui‐Chu Lang & Sang‐Cheol Bae & Kiichiro Tsutani, 2010. "International survey on willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 422-437, April.
    5. Andrew H. Briggs & Milton C. Weinstein & Elisabeth A. L. Fenwick & Jonathan Karnon & Mark J. Sculpher & A. David Paltiel, 2012. "Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 722-732, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Andrea Iannaccone & Thomas Marwick, 2015. "Cost Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared with Medical Management or Surgery for Patients with Aortic Stenosis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 29-45, February.
    3. Hoa‐Thi‐Minh Nguyen & Tom Kompas & Roslyn I. Hickson, 2014. "Aid and the Control of Tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea: Is Australia's Assistance Cost‐Effective?," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 364-378, May.
    4. Markiewicz, Katarzyna & van Til, Janine A. & Steuten, Lotte M.G. & IJzerman, Maarten J., 2016. "Commercial viability of medical devices using Headroom and return on investment calculation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 338-346.
    5. Brown, Vicki & Diomedi, Belen Zapata & Moodie, Marj & Veerman, J. Lennert & Carter, Rob, 2016. "A systematic review of economic analyses of active transport interventions that include physical activity benefits," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 190-208.
    6. Beth Woods & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2015. "Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research," Working Papers 109cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    7. Patrick J. McEwan, 2012. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of education and health interventions in developing countries," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 189-213, June.
    8. Beate Jahn & Sarah Friedrich & Joachim Behnke & Joachim Engel & Ursula Garczarek & Ralf Münnich & Markus Pauly & Adalbert Wilhelm & Olaf Wolkenhauer & Markus Zwick & Uwe Siebert & Tim Friede, 2022. "On the role of data, statistics and decisions in a pandemic," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 106(3), pages 349-382, September.
    9. Lotte Soeteman & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac, 2017. "The impact of the design of payment scales on the willingness to pay for health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 743-760, July.
    10. Saara Huoponen & Marja Blom, 2015. "A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    12. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    13. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    14. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    15. Ide, Hiroo & Mollahaliloglu, Salih, 2009. "How firms set prices for medical materials: A multi-country study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 73-78, September.
    16. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    17. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    18. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Martin Ravallion & Shaohua Chen, 2013. "A Proposal for Truly Global Poverty Measures," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 4(3), pages 258-265, September.
    20. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0062614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.