Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer prevention.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18318-e18318
Author(s):  
Eman Biltaji ◽  
Trang H. Au ◽  
Brandon Walker ◽  
Jennifer Ose ◽  
Cornelia M Ulrich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Risk Population ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life ◽  
Testing Costs

e18318 Background: Colonoscopy is the “gold standard” for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, adherence rates are low and detection is not optimal. Concomitant aspirin chemoprevention is recommended by US Preventive Task Force, but bleeding complications can be limiting. Variant genotypes in aspirin metabolism can modify CRC and adenoma risk. Genotype guided aspirin (ggASA) use will identify a targeted average-risk population for maximal aspirin benefit while minimizing adverse events rates compared to the general population. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of primary chemoprevention in CRC using ggASA compared to no intervention, and colonoscopy ±general aspirin in healthy average-risk individuals. Methods: Our Markov decision analytical model consisted of 5 possible health states: no CRC/polyps, adenoma, pre-clinical CRC, CRC, and death. Model probabilities for CRC and its prevalence were estimated using SEER database and published literature. A microsimulation of 10,000 individuals aged 50-64 years was used to estimate cost-effectiveness from US payer perspective over lifetime. One way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and model validation results will be reported in the final poster. Results: Our results suggest that compared to colonoscopy and no intervention, ggASA was associated with fewer CRC cases, and CRC-related deaths and MI cases. Compared to colonoscopy + general aspirin, ggASA was associated with fewer bleeding events, similar rates of CRC and CRC-related deaths, and fewer MI cases prevented. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, ggASA use over a lifetime had the lowest costs and highest quality adjusted life years gained compared to other strategies, if testing costs were ignored. Once genetic testing costs exceeds $63, colonoscopy + general aspirin becomes the most cost effective strategy. Between genetic testing cost of $63-283, the costs of using ggASA per quality adjusted life year gained is below $100,000. Conclusions: Genotype-guided aspirin use precisely identifies an average-risk population, and lowers adverse events rates compared to general aspirin. The economic value of genotype-guided aspirin is dependent on the genetic testing costs.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Colonoscopy-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in Childhood Cancer Survivors

2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (11) ◽  
pp. 1161-1169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Gini ◽  
Reinier G S Meester ◽  
Homa Keshavarz ◽  
Kevin C Oeffinger ◽  
Sameera Ahmed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Childhood Cancer ◽  
Childhood Cancer Survivors ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Colonoscopy Screening ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us

Abstract Background Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to the general population, especially those previously exposed to abdominal or pelvic radiation therapy (APRT). However, the benefits and costs of CRC screening in CCS are unclear. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of early-initiated colonoscopy screening in CCS. Methods We adjusted a previously validated model of CRC screening in the US population (MISCAN-Colon) to reflect CRC and other-cause mortality risk in CCS. We evaluated 91 colonoscopy screening strategies varying in screening interval, age to start, and age to stop screening for all CCS combined and for those treated with or without APRT. Primary outcomes were CRC deaths averted (compared to no screening) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-years gained (LYG) was used to determine the optimal screening strategy. Results Compared to no screening, the US Preventive Services Task Force’s average risk screening schedule prevented up to 73.2% of CRC deaths in CCS. The optimal strategy of screening every 10 years from age 40 to 60 years averted 79.2% of deaths, with ICER of $67 000/LYG. Among CCS treated with APRT, colonoscopy every 10 years from age 35 to 65 years was optimal (CRC deaths averted: 82.3%; ICER: $92 000/LYG), whereas among those not previously treated with APRT, screening from age 45 to 55 years every 10 years was optimal (CRC deaths averted: 72.7%; ICER: $57 000/LYG). Conclusions Early initiation of colonoscopy screening for CCS is cost-effective, especially among those treated with APRT.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted, Personalized Risk Information to Increase Appropriate Screening by First-Degree Relatives of People With Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 798-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny Reeves ◽  
Christopher Doran ◽  
Mariko Carey ◽  
Emilie Cameron ◽  
Robert Sanson-Fisher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
First Degree Relatives ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background. Economic evaluations are less commonly applied to implementation interventions compared to clinical interventions. The efficacy of an implementation strategy to improve adherence to screening guidelines among first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer was recently evaluated in a randomized-controlled trial. Using these trial data, we examined the costs and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from societal and health care funder perspectives. Method. In this prospective, trial-based evaluation, mean costs, and outcomes were calculated. The primary outcome of the trial was the proportion of participants who had screening tests in the year following the intervention commensurate with their risk category. Quality-adjusted life years were included as secondary outcomes. Intervention costs were determined from trial records. Standard Australian unit costs for 2016/2017 were applied. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net benefit framework. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to calculate uncertainty intervals (UIs) around the costs and the incremental net monetary benefit statistic. Results. Compared with usual care, mean health sector costs were $17 (95% UI [$14, $24]) higher for those receiving the intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the primary trial outcome was calculated to be $258 (95% UI [$184, $441]) per additional person appropriately screened. The significant difference in adherence to screening guidelines between the usual care and intervention groups did not translate into a mean quality-adjusted life year difference. Discussion. Providing information on both the costs and outcomes of implementation interventions is important to inform public health care investment decisions. Challenges in the application of cost–utility analysis hampered the interpretation of results and potentially underestimated the value of the intervention. Further research in the form of a modeled extrapolation of the intermediate increased adherence effect and distributional cost-effectiveness to include equity requirements is warranted.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of a combined screening and stepped-care treatment program targeting psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A cluster randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 934-945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed El Alili ◽  
Claudia S.E.W Schuurhuizen ◽  
Annemarie M.J. Braamse ◽  
Aartjan T.F. Beekman ◽  
Mecheline H. van der Linden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Hospital Anxiety ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background: Psychological distress is highly prevalent among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Aims: To perform an economic evaluation of a combined screening and treatment program targeting psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in comparison with usual care. Design: Societal costs were collected alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial for 48 weeks. A total of 349 participants were included. Setting: Participants were recruited from oncology departments at 16 participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Methods: Outcome measures were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and quality-adjusted life-years. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated to show uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness estimates. Sensitivity analyses were performed to check robustness of results. Results: Between treatment arms, no significant differences were found in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (mean difference: –0.058; 95% confidence interval: –0.13 to 0.011), quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference: 0.042; 95% confidence interval: –0.015 to 0.099), and societal costs (mean difference: –1152; 95% confidence interval: –5058 to 2214). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.64 and 0.74 at willingness-to-pay values of €0 and €10,000 per point improvement on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, respectively. The probability that the intervention was cost-effective compared to usual care for quality-adjusted life-years was 0.64 and 0.79 at willingness-to-pay values of €0 and €20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Conclusion: The intervention is dominant over usual care, primarily due to lower costs in the intervention group. However, there were no statistically significant differences in clinical effects and the uptake of the intervention was quite low. Therefore, widespread implementation cannot be recommended.

Cost-effectiveness of biomarker-directed bevacizumab for first-line therapy of persons with metastatic colorectal cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6077-6077
Author(s):  
Kristin Berry ◽  
Mark Eliot Bensink ◽  
Zahra Musa ◽  
Veena Shankaran ◽  
Edward H. Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Predictive Test ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
First Line ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

6077 Background: When added to first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, bevacizumab provides a moderate survival increase, but is associated with significant adverse events and high cost. As only a minority of patients respond to antiangiogenic therapy, a diagnostic that identifies potential responders ex ante could potentially change the benefit to risk profile of bevacizumab and likely improve cost-effectiveness. Since efforts to identify a predictive test have so far been unsuccessful, a novel strategy may be to measure tumor response after bevacizumab treatment initiation using an in vivo biomarker test to guide decisions on whether patients should continue treatment. The objective is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of biomarker-directed use of bevacizumab in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer compared to standard care. Methods: The analysis takes the perspective of the US healthcare system. A decision model was built to estimate the incremental effect of adding bevacizumab to IFL, FOLFIRI, 5FU/LV and FOLOFOX/XELOX regimens. Survival data, estimated through a meta-analysis of four clinical trials, combined with utilities from the literature were used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement and expert opinion. Assumed performance characteristics of the biomarker technology (sensitivity, specificity – provided by our industry partner) were 75% and 95% 10 days after commencement of bevacizumab. Results: The biomarker-directed bevacizumab strategy dominated usual care, providing both an average per patient gain of 0.015 QALYs and a cost-savings of $21,038. The cost-effectiveness of the biomarker technology was most influenced by the cost of the test and colorectal cancer utilities. Variations in biomarker specificity and sensitivity changed the magnitude of cost-savings and benefit gain but did not change the overall result of dominance. Conclusions: Modeling predicts that a validated marker which could identify responders to bevacizumab will save money and improve quality-adjusted life years. The results support additional investment in identifying such a diagnostic.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (16) ◽  
pp. 8330
Author(s):  
Abdul Rahman Ramdzan ◽  
Mohd Rizal Abdul Manaf ◽  
Azimatun Noor Aizuddin ◽  
Zarina A. Latiff ◽  
Keng Wee Teik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Survival ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Targeted Prevention ◽  
Activity Based Costing ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Cost

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Approximately 3–5% of CRCs are associated with hereditary cancer syndromes. Individuals who harbor germline mutations are at an increased risk of developing early onset CRC, as well as extracolonic tumors. Genetic testing can identify genes that cause these syndromes. Early detection could facilitate the initiation of targeted prevention strategies and surveillance for CRC patients and their families. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of CRC genetic testing. We utilized a cross-sectional design to determine the cost-effectiveness of CRC genetic testing as compared to the usual screening method (iFOBT) from the provider’s perspective. Data on costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 200 CRC patients from three specialist general hospitals were collected. A mixed-methods approach of activity-based costing, top-down costing, and extracted information from a clinical pathway was used to estimate provider costs. Patients and family members’ HRQoL were measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Data from the Malaysian Study on Cancer Survival (MySCan) were used to calculate patient survival. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost per life-year (LY) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The provider cost for CRC genetic testing was high as compared to that for the current screening method. The current practice for screening is cost-saving as compared to genetic testing. Using a 10-year survival analysis, the estimated number of LYs gained for CRC patients through genetic testing was 0.92 years, and the number of QALYs gained was 1.53 years. The cost per LY gained and cost per QALY gained were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) showed that genetic testing dominates iFOBT testing. CRC genetic testing is cost-effective and could be considered as routine CRC screening for clinical practice.

scholarly journals The Cost-effectiveness of Celecoxib versus Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs plus Proton-pump Inhibitors for Treating Osteoarthritis in Algeria

10.36469/9865 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadir Hammoumraoui ◽  
Sid Ahmed Kherraf ◽  
Joaquin Mould-Quevedo ◽  
Tarek A. Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Private Clinic ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory

Background: Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib are as effective as non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), have fewer gastrointestinal side effects, but are more expensive. Objective: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib versus ns-NSAIDs, with/without proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy, for treating OA in Algeria. Methods: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model from UK, updated with relative risks of adverse events using CONDOR trial data, was adapted for costeffectiveness analysis in OA patients aged ≥65 years. Patients could initiate treatment with celecoxib or ns-NSAIDs with/without omeprazole. Conditional probabilities were obtained from published clinical trials; effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained/patient. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer’s perspective. The average daily treatment costs and frequencies of resource use for adverse events were based on data collected in August 2011 from a private clinic located in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Results: QALYs gained/patient over a 6-month horizon were higher with celecoxib (0.368) and celecoxib+PPI (0.40) versus comparators. The lowest expected cost/patient was associated with ibuprofen (US$134.76 versus US$175.67 with celecoxib+PPI, and US$177.57 with celecoxib). Celecoxib+PPI was the most cost-effective drug treatment, with an ICER of US$584.43, versus ibuprofen. Treatment with celecoxib alone showed an ICER of US$1,530.56 versus diclofenac+PPI. These ICERs are <1 gross domestic product per capita in Algeria (US$7,500). Over 1-year, 3-year and 5-year horizons, celecoxib with/without PPI co-therapy showed higher QALYs/patient versus comparators, and decreasing ICERs. The ICER of celecoxib+PPI was lower than that of comparators over all time horizons. These findings were confirmed with CEACs generated via PSA. Conclusion: Using data from a single private clinic in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria, and after considering new adverse event risks, we showed that celecoxib with/without PPI co therapy is more cost-effective than ns-NSAID+PPI for treating OA patients aged ≥65 years. Celecoxib+PPI remains dominant over a 5-year horizon, making it the most cost-effective treatment option for medium- and long-term use.

Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatininb in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as second-line treatment.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21104-e21104
Author(s):  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Life Years

e21104 Background: Crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib are approved as second line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor for first line therapy approved by Food and Drug Administration (2011) then ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015), and brigatinib (2017) were approved as second line drugs. Following more data, these agents were approved as the first line therapy (2017 for ceritinib and alectinib; 2020 for brigatinib). These remain as a treatment option in patients who fail the first line therapy. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted to assess clinical efficacy with varying costs of the agents. Methods: A three state Markov model were assumed (progression free, progression and death). Progression free survival (PFS) curves were digitized and fitted with exponential function. US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were Redbook wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs included were monitoring, adverse events and disease progression from published data (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported >5% in patients were included. Measured outcomes were PFS life years (PFSLY) and quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY). Crizotinib was the reference drug. Incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) and lost were estimated. Base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug for the following outcomes. For alectinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,653 (-$14,712), the incremental PFSLY of 0.16 (0.16) and PFSQALY of 0.05 (0.05) resulted in an ICER / PFSLYG of -$89,337 (-$88,604) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$269,835 (-$266,510). For brigatinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,975 (-$14,954), the incremental PFSLY of 0.01 (0.01) and PFSQALY of ̃0.01 (0.02) yielded an ICER / PFSLYG of -$1,982,962 (-$1,431,631) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$2,140,534 (-$570,538). For ceritinib, with the incremental cost of $7,590 ($7,514), there were decremental PFSLY of -0.01 (-0.01) and PFSQALY of -0.03 (-0.03). Conclusions: As second line treatment, crizotinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib had comparable PFSLYs and PFSQALYs while alectinib had the most PFSLY and PFSQALY and the lowest cost. Therefore, alectinib is the most cost-effective treatment for treating ALK+ NSCLC as the second line therapy.[Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document