IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i9d10.1007_s40273-018-0660-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Endocrine Therapies in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor–positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Verin Lertjanyakun

    (Kyoto University)

  • Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk

    (Monash University Malaysia
    Naresuan University
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Monash University Malaysia)

  • Susumu Kunisawa

    (Kyoto University)

  • Yuichi Imanaka

    (Kyoto University)

Abstract

Background Exemestane (EXE), exemestane + everolimus (EXE + EVE), toremifene (TOR), and fulvestrant (FUL) are second-line endocrine therapies for postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive (HR +)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2 −) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in Japan. Although the efficacy of these therapies has been shown in recent studies, cost-effectiveness has not yet been determined in Japan. Objective This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of second-line endocrine therapies for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR + and HER2 − mBC. Methods A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the therapies over a 15-year time horizon from a public healthcare payer’s perspective. The efficacy and utility parameters were determined via a systematic search of the literature. Direct medical care costs were used. A discount rate of 2% was applied for costs and outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed for non-visceral metastasis. A series of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and threshold analysis were performed. Results Base-case analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 3 million and 6 million Japanese yen (JPY)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TOR and FUL 500 mg relative to EXE, respectively. FUL 250 mg and EXE + EVE were dominated. The overall survival (OS) highly influenced the ICER. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY, the probability of TOR being cost-effective was the highest. Subgroup analysis in non-visceral metastasis revealed 0.4 and 10% reduction in ICER from the base-case results of FUL5 500 mg versus EXE and TOR versus EXE, respectively, while threshold analysis indicated EVE and FUL prices should be reduced 73 and 30%, respectively. Conclusion As a second-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR +/HER2 − mBC, TOR may be cost-effective relative to other alternatives and seems to be the most favorable choice, based on a WTP threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY. FUL 250 mg is expected to be as costly and effective as EXE. The cost-effectiveness of EXE + EVE and FUL 500 mg could be improved by a large price reduction. However, the results are highly sensitive to the hazard ratio of OS. Policy makers should carefully interpret and utilize these findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Verin Lertjanyakun & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Susumu Kunisawa & Yuichi Imanaka, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Endocrine Therapies in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor–positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Japan," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1113-1124, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0660-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0660-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0660-3
    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/s40273-018-0660-3?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    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. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    2. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Paul Tappenden & James Chilcott, 2014. "Avoiding and Identifying Errors and Other Threats to the Credibility of Health Economic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 967-979, October.
    4. Maximilian Hatz & Reiner Leidl & Nichola Yates & Björn Stollenwerk, 2014. "A Systematic Review of the Quality of Economic Models Comparing Thrombosis Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 377-393, April.
    5. Manal H. El-Hamamsy & Gihan H. Elsisi & Randa Eldessouki & Mohamed M. Elmazar & Ahmed S. Taha & Basma F. Awad & Hossam Elmansy, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of the Combined Use of Warfarin and Low-dose Aspirin Versus Warfarin Alone in Mechanical Valve Prostheses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 431-440, August.
    6. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    7. Blythe Adamson & Dobromir Dimitrov & Beth Devine & Ruanne Barnabas, 2017. "The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Vaccines: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-12, March.
    8. Magnus Zingmark & Ingeborg Nilsson & Fredrik Norström & Klas Göran Sahlén & Lars Lindholm, 2017. "Cost effectiveness of an intervention focused on reducing bathing disability," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 233-241, September.
    9. Simone A. Huygens & Isaac Corro Ramos & Carlijn V. C. Bouten & Jolanda Kluin & Shih Ting Chiu & Gary L. Grunkemeier & Johanna J. M. Takkenberg & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken, 2020. "Early cost-utility analysis of tissue-engineered heart valves compared to bioprostheses in the aortic position in elderly patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 557-572, June.
    10. Steffen Flessa & Dominik Dietz & Elisabete Weiderpass, 2016. "Health policy support under extreme uncertainty: the case of cervical cancer in Cambodia," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(3), pages 183-218, November.
    11. Ben Kearns & Roberta Ara & Allan Wailoo & Andrea Manca & Monica Alava & Keith Abrams & Mike Campbell, 2013. "Good Practice Guidelines for the use of Statistical Regression Models in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 643-652, August.
    12. Pepijn Vemer & Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, 2013. "The Road Not Taken: Transferability Issues in Multinational Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 863-876, October.
    13. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Elena Conde-Montero & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Bayesian Regression Model for a Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Punch Grafting Versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, May.
    14. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    15. 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.
    16. David Brain & Jonathan Mitchell & James O’Beirne, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an outreach model of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) assessment to facilitate HCV treatment in primary care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, June.
    17. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & F Dámaso Fernández-Ginés & Manuel Cortiñas-Sáenz & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of domiciliary topical sevoflurane for painful leg ulcers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-18, September.
    18. Gerardus Frederix & Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Erik Dasbach & Robyn Ward, 2015. "Development and Use of Disease-Specific (Reference) Models for Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies: An Overview of Key Issues and Potential Solutions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 777-781, August.
    19. Sarah J Iribarren & Kenrick Cato & Louise Falzon & Patricia W Stone, 2017. "What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, February.
    20. Candio, Paolo & Meads, David & Hill, Andrew J. & Bojke, Laura, 2020. "Modelling the impact of physical activity on public health: A review and critique," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1155-1164.

    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:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0660-3. 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: 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.