IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v19y2021i1d10.1007_s40258-020-00589-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation of Senshio® (Ospemifene) for the Treatment of Vulvovaginal Atrophy in Scotland

Author

Listed:
  • Amy Dymond

    (University of York)

  • Hayden Holmes

    (University of York)

  • Jessica McMaster

    (University of York)

  • Joyce Craig

    (University of York)

  • Heather Davies

    (University of York)

  • Stuart Mealing

    (University of York)

  • Rodolphe Perard

    (Health Economics and Market Access, Shionogi B.V.)

Abstract

Background Local oestrogens, the current treatment for vulvar and vaginal atrophy (VVA), are not suitable for all women. Standard of care (SoC) consists of over-the-counter lubricants and moisturisers. Senshio® (ospemifene) provides a treatment option for postmenopausal women who are not candidates for local vaginal oestrogen therapy who would otherwise have an unmet clinical need. Objectives The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ospemifene, a selective oestrogen receptor modulator, for the treatment of moderate to severe symptomatic VVA in postmenopausal women who are not candidates for local vaginal oestrogen therapy. Methods The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) recently evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of ospemifene plus SoC compared with SoC alone. A cost-effectiveness study, from a National Health Service (NHS) Scotland perspective over a lifetime time horizon, was submitted to the SMC. The cohort-based Markov model used robust clinical evidence from two large pivotal phase III randomised controlled studies and included four health states classified by dyspareunia symptom severity: none, mild, moderate and severe. The movement of women between health states was dependent on the effectiveness of treatment in reducing dyspareunia. Extensive sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess the level of confidence associated with the base-case results. Results Treatment with ospemifene was associated with an additional cost of £847 per patient and an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of 0.06 per patient. Ospemifene had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £14,138 per QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there was a probability of 89% that ospemifene was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Ospemifene remained cost-effective under all scenario analyses. The SMC reviewed the clinical and economic evidence and judged that the evidence demonstrated a robust case to support prescribing ospemifene in NHS Scotland. Conclusion Ospemifene is a cost-effective intervention that has recently been accepted by the SMC for the treatment of postmenopausal women with moderate to severe VVA who are not candidates for local oestrogen.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy Dymond & Hayden Holmes & Jessica McMaster & Joyce Craig & Heather Davies & Stuart Mealing & Rodolphe Perard, 2021. "Economic Evaluation of Senshio® (Ospemifene) for the Treatment of Vulvovaginal Atrophy in Scotland," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 123-132, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00589-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00589-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-020-00589-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-020-00589-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 1st February 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-02-01 12:00:03

    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:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00589-2. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.