Is neratinib following trastuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer cost-effective?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6625-6625
Author(s):  
Naomi RM Schwartz ◽  
Meghan Rose Flanagan ◽  
Joseph B Babigumira ◽  
Lotte Maria Gertruda Steuten ◽  
Joshua A. Roth
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Adjuvant Trastuzumab ◽  
Her2 Breast Cancer ◽  
Life Years

6625 Background: Neratinib after adjuvant trastuzumab significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-postiive (HER2+) breast cancer, but the median absolute DFS gain is only 1.3 months. There has been much controversy in the clinical and lay media as to whether the substantial cost of neratinib is justified by its effects, including a prominent ASCO Post article from Dr. Vogl about a year ago. We performed a cost-utility analysis to formally assess the value of adding neratinib based on Phase III ExteNET trial results. Methods: We developed a Markov state-transition model to assess the value of neratinib in Stage I-III HER2+ breast cancer. Five-year recurrence rates were derived from ExteNet. Mortality and recurrence rates after 5 years were derived from the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. Costs were derived from wholesale acquisition costs and peer-reviewed literature. Health state utilities were derived from ExteNET and prior publications. Outcomes included life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical expenditures, and cost per QALY gained. The analysis took a payer perspective over a lifetime horizon and results were discounted at 3% per year. One-way and probabilistic analyses were conducted to evaluate uncertainty. As neratinib conferred more clinical benefit in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) disease, we also assessed value in that specific subgroup. Results: Base case results are presented in Table. At typical U.S. willingness to pay thresholds of $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY gained, neratinib had 16.7% and 27.2%, probabilities of cost-effectiveness, respectively. In the HR+ subgroup, neratinib had a cost of $275,311 per QALY gained (19.9% & 31.2% probability of cost-effectiveness at $100,000 & $150,000 per QALY). Conclusions: In the first independent assessment of the value of neratinib after adjuvant trastuzumab, neratinib is not projected to be cost-effective, even among patients who derived the most clinical benefit. Future analyses should reassess the cost-effectiveness of neratinib treatment as trial data mature. Base case results. [Table: see text]

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Regimens in Early HER2/neu–Positive Breast Cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 634-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
Rebecca Newton Thompson ◽  
Allison F. Gaw ◽  
Sally Arai ◽  
Rafael Ortiz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health State ◽  
Adjuvant Trastuzumab ◽  
Life Years ◽  
International Research Group ◽  
Positive Breast Cancer

Purpose One-year adjuvant trastuzumab (AT) therapy, with or without anthracyclines, increases disease-free and overall survival in early-stage HER2/neu-positive breast cancer. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of these regimens, which are expensive and potentially toxic. Methods We used a Markov health-state transition model to simulate three adjuvant therapy options for a cohort of 49-year-old women with HER2/neu-positive early-stage breast cancer: conventional chemotherapy without trastuzumab; anthracycline-based AT regimens used in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 and North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 trials; and the nonanthracycline AT regimen used in the Breast Cancer International Research group 006 trial. The base case used treatment efficacy measures reported in the randomized clinical trials of AT. We measured health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in 2005 United States dollars (US$) and subjected results to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results In the base case, the anthracycline-based AT arm has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $39,982/QALY, whereas the nonanthracycline AT arm is more expensive and less effective; this result is insensitive to changes in recurrence rates, but if there is no benefit after 4 years, ICERs exceed $100,000/QALY for both AT arms. Results are moderately sensitive to variation in breast cancer survival rates and trastuzumab cost, and less sensitive to variations in cardiac toxicity. Conclusion AT has an ICER comparable to those for other widely used interventions. Longer clinical follow-up is warranted to evaluate the long-term efficacy and toxicity of different AT regimens.

PP409 Cost-Effectiveness Of Ruxolitinib For Patients With Myelofibrosis: A Review Of The Literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 35-35
Author(s):  
Gizem Karakuleli ◽  
Leela Barham
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Discrete State ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionMyelofibrosis (MF) is a rare (annual incidence estimated to be 1/100,000 in Europe), chronic hematologic disorder associated with morbidity and mortality as well as the risk of evolution to acute myeloid leukemia. Ruxolitinib (Jakavi®, Novartis) is the first JAK 1/2 inhibitor approved by the FDA and EMA in 2011 in treating MF. Ruxolitinib is considered a high-cost and life-time treatment. UK-based estimates of the cost of treatment are in the region of GBP43,000/year/patient (in 2013). Against the background of the challenge of treatments for rare diseases reaching cost-effectiveness thresholds, this study identified, collected, and appraised the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of ruxolitinib in the treatment of MF.MethodsA systematic approach was taken to conducting the literature review. Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library based on search terms informed by PICO: myelofibrosis, ruxolitinib, best available therapy/standard of care, and cost-effectiveness/cost-utility/pharmacoeconomics. The search was limited to studies published in the English language. A narrative synthesis was used to evaluate studies and the CHEERS checklist to explore the quality of reporting of the cost-effectiveness analysis.ResultsThe narrative synthesis included five studies conducted in the UK, Portugal, Chile, Canada, and Finland. All cost-effectiveness analyses used data from the same two large, randomized controlled, double-blind, phase III studies (COMFORT-I and -II). Ruxolitinib was compared to the best available therapy (BAT), including hydroxyurea, no medication, and prednisone/prednisolone. Perspectives and included costs varied among analyses. Markov models and discrete state cohort models were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or life years (LY) gained.These analyses estimated the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) per QALY of (converted into USD, if appropriate, at the historic average annual exchange rate) GBP44,905 in the UK (2013; USD 70,226), EUR40,000 in Portugal (2016; USD44,272), USD54,500 (2016), CAD61,444 in Canada (2012; USD61,474), and EUR42,367 in Finland (2015; USD42,027). Based upon the cost-effectiveness thresholds applied in each of these countries, ruxolitinib was found to be universally cost-effective, albeit with price adjustments as part of the wider pricing and reimbursement processes used in these countries.ConclusionsRuxolitinib was found to be cost-effective in treating MF informed by different types of models and from different perspectives; however, there was some uncertainty around available data due to limited data sources.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Feng Xie ◽  
Gord Blackhouse ◽  
Jennifer Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

Cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and hyaluronidase-zzxf for the treatment of high-risk HER2+ early breast cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18846-e18846
Author(s):  
Jesse Sussell ◽  
Joshua A. Roth ◽  
Svenn Hansen ◽  
Craig S. Meyer ◽  
Anita M. Fung
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years

e18846 Background: Standard therapy for high-risk HER2+ early breast cancer (EBC) begins with neoadjuvant dual targeted therapy with pertuzumab (P) + trastuzumab (T) + chemotherapy (CTX). After surgery, patients who achieve pathological complete response (pCR) should complete one year of dual targeted therapy, while patients with residual disease should receive ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). Recently, a subcutaneously administered formulation of P, T, and hyaluronidase-zzxf (Phesgo) was approved for use in the U.S. This study assesses the value of this new formulation in EBC patients vs. a strategy in which patients initiate standard therapy, but discontinue P following ascertainment of pCR. Methods: We developed a six-state Markov model to assess EBC costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from a healthcare sector perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Two strategies were modeled: 1) Neoadjuvant therapy with subcutaneous P, T, and hyaluronidase-zzxf + CTX with adjuvant continuation if pCR is achieved, and T-DM1 if not (“intervention”), and 2) neoadjuvant therapy with infused P, T + CTX with adjuvant infused T if pCR is achieved, and T-DM1 if not (“comparator”). Event-free and invasive-disease free survival were derived from the PEONY and KATHERINE/APHINITY trials, respectively. Utility values, drug prices, and procedure costs were derived from KATHERINE EQ-5D data, Wholesale Acquisition Costs, and claims analyses, respectively. We assessed comparator costs using both biosimilar and branded T pricing. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Outcomes were discounted at 3%/year and costs are presented in 2020 U.S. dollars. Uncertainty in outcomes was assessed through Monte Carlo simulation (1,000 replicates). Results: The table shows key results. The intervention resulted in a gain of 0.092 QALYs. With biosimilar T pricing in the comparator (base case), the intervention increased costs by $7,575 (ICER = $81,793). With branded T pricing in the comparator (scenario analysis), the intervention increased costs by $982 (ICER = $10,602). In probabilistic analyses, the intervention was favored in 52% and 81% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY with biosimilar and branded T pricing, respectively. Conclusions: This study provides additional evidence to support adjuvant continuation of P+T among patients achieving pCR. Neoadjuvant P, T, and hyaluronidase-zzxf + CTX (with adjuvant continuation of dual targeted therapy) is expected to be cost-effective ( < $100,000/QALY) vs. neoadjuvant P and T + CTX (with adjuvant T continuation) for patients with high-risk HER2+ EBC irrespective of whether the comparator uses biosimilar or branded T.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of genomic profiling in early breast cancer in Colombia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Rojas ◽  
María Rojas-Reyes ◽  
Diego Rosselli ◽  
Andres F. Cardona
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
National Health System ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
United States Dollar ◽  
Life Years

Abstract BackgroundThe best strategy to establish indication for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer (EBC) in Colombia is unknown. This study aimed to identify the cost-effectiveness of various strategies to establish the necessity of adjuvant chemotherapy.MethodsThis study used an adapted decision-analytic model to compare cost and outcomes of care that includes Oncotype DX™ (ODX) or Mammaprint™ (MMP) test with routine care without ODX or MMP tests (application of adjuvant chemotherapy for all patients) over a 5-year time horizon, and the from the perspective of the Colombian National Health System (NHS) perspective (payer). Data were obtained from published literature and clinical trial database. The study population was composed of women with EBC, hormone-receptor positive (HR+), Her2-negative, lymph-node negative (LN0), with high-risk clinical criteria for recurrence. The outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; 2019 United States Dollar [USD] per quality-adjusted life years [QALY] gained) and net monetary benefit (NMB).ResultsODX increases QALYs by 0.05 and MMP by 0.03 with savings of $2,445 and $570 compared with the standard strategy, respectively. The ICER for ODX was −$41,857 and that for MMP was −$18,253 per QALY; NMB was $2,821 and $771, respectively. Both tests were cost effective under defined threshold. When the two tests were compared, ODX was more cost effective than MMP. Sensitivity analysis revealed that, with a threshold of 1 GDP per capita, ODX will be cost effective in 95.5% of the cases compared with 70.2% of MMP. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that ODX was a consistently superior strategy.ConclusionsGenomic profiling using ODX or MMP tests to define the need of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with HR + and Her2 − EBC is a cost-effective strategy that allows Colombian NHS saving money.

Cost Effectiveness of Molecular Profiling for Adjuvant Decision Making in Patients With Node-Negative Breast Cancer

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31) ◽  
pp. 3513-3519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Bonastre ◽  
Sophie Marguet ◽  
Beranger Lueza ◽  
Stefan Michiels ◽  
Suzette Delaloge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Gene Signature ◽  
Node Negative ◽  
Node Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Er Positive

Purpose To conduct an economic evaluation of the 70-gene signature used to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decision making both in patients with node-negative breast cancer (NNBC) and in the subgroup of estrogen receptor (ER) –positive patients. Patients and Methods We used a mixed approach combining patient-level data from a multicenter validation study of the 70-gene signature (untreated patients) and secondary sources for chemotherapy efficacy, unit costs, and utility values. Three strategies on which to base the decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy were compared: the 70-gene signature, Adjuvant! Online, and chemotherapy in all patients. In the base-case analysis, costs from the French National Insurance Scheme, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were computed for the three strategies over a 10-year period. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves using the net monetary benefit were computed, combining bootstrap and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results The mean differences in LYs and QALYs were similar between the three strategies. The 70-gene signature strategy was associated with a higher cost, with a mean difference of €2,037 (range, €1,472 to €2,515) compared with Adjuvant! Online and of €657 (95% CI, −€642 to €3,130) compared with systematic chemotherapy. For a €50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of being the most cost-effective strategy was 92% (76% in ER-positive patients) for the Adjuvant! Online strategy, 6% (4% in ER-positive patients) for the systematic chemotherapy strategy, and 2% (20% in ER-positive patients) for the 70-gene strategy. Conclusion Optimizing adjuvant chemotherapy decision making based on the 70-gene signature is unlikely to be cost effective in patients with NNBC.

Cost-effectiveness of mobile health-based integrated care for atrial fibrillation: Model development and data analysis (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueyan Luo ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Quan Yuan ◽  
Han Lai ◽  
Chunji Huang
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Integrated Care ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mhealth Technology

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mhealth) technology is increasingly used in disease management. Using mhealth tools to integrate and streamline care was found to improve atrial fibrillation (AF) patients’ clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate the potential clinical and health economic outcomes of mhealth-based integrated care for AF from the perspective of a public healthcare provider in China. METHODS A Markov model was designed to compare outcomes of mhealth-based care and usual care in a hypothetical cohort of AF patients in China. The time horizon was 30 years with monthly cycles. Model outcomes measured were direct medical cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of base-case results. RESULTS In the base-case analysis, mhealth-based care gained higher QALYs of 0.0818 with an incurred cost of USD1,778. Using USD33,438 per QALY (three times gross domestic product) as the willingness-to-pay threshold, mhealth-based care was cost-effective, with an ICER of USD21,739 per QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis found compliance to mhealth-based care had the greatest impact on the ICER. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, mhealth-based care was accepted as cost-effective in 80.91% of 10,000 iterations. CONCLUSIONS This study suggested that the use of mhealth technology in streamlining and integrating care for AF patients was cost-effective in China.

scholarly journals Milk Powder Fortified with Potassium and Phytosterols to Decrease the Risk of Cardiovascular Events among the Adult Population in Malaysia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1235
Author(s):  
Anita E. Gandola ◽  
Livia Dainelli ◽  
Diane Zimmermann ◽  
Maznah Dahlui ◽  
Patrick Detzel
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Milk Powder ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Discounted Cost ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Impact

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the consumption of a milk powder product fortified with potassium (+1050.28 mg/day) and phytosterols (+1200 mg/day) to lower systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, respectively, and, therefore, the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke among the 35–75-year-old population in Malaysia. A Markov model was created against a do-nothing option, from a governmental perspective, and with a time horizon of 40 years. Different data sources, encompassing clinical studies, practice guidelines, grey literature, and statistical yearbooks, were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty on the base case estimates. With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio equal to international dollars (int$) 22,518.03 per quality-adjusted life-years gained, the intervention can be classified as very cost-effective. If adopted nationwide, it would help prevent at least 13,400 MIs, 30,500 strokes, and more than 10,600 and 17,100 MI- and stroke-related deaths. The discounted cost savings generated for the health care system by those who consume the fortified milk powder would amount to int$8.1 per person, corresponding to 0.7% of the total yearly health expenditure per capita. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Together with other preventive interventions, the consumption of milk powder fortified with potassium and phytosterols represents a cost-effective strategy to attenuate the rapid increase in cardiovascular burden in Malaysia.

scholarly journals Real-World Setting Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Three Therapeutic Schemes of One-Year Adjuvant Trastuzumab in HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer from the Cyprus NHS Payer Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. 4339
Author(s):  
Savvas S. Ioannou ◽  
Yiola Marcou ◽  
Eleni Kakouri ◽  
Michael A. Talias
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Her2 Positive ◽  
Adjuvant Trastuzumab ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
One Year

Introduction: This study is one of the first real-world cost-effectiveness analyses of one-year adjuvant trastuzumab used in HER2-positive early female breast cancer in comparison to chemotherapy alone. It is just the second one in Europe, the first one in Cyprus, and the fourth one worldwide ever carried out using real-world data. Methods: Using a Markov model (four health states), a cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out both over 20 years and for a lifetime horizon. The sampling method used in this study was the randomized sampling of 900 women. Results: The findings for the 20-year horizon showed that all trastuzumab arms were more cost-effective, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of only €60,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) [incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER): €40,436.10/QALY]. For the lifetime horizon, with thresholds of €20,000, €40,000, and €60,000/QALY, all trastuzumab arms were found to be more cost-effective (ICER: €17,753.85/QALY). Moreover, for the 20-year and the lifetime horizons, with thresholds of €20,000/QALY, €40,000/QALY, and €60,000/QALY, the most cost-effective of the three subgroups (anthracyclines and then trastuzumab, no anthracyclines and then trastuzumab, and anthracyclines, taxanes, and trastuzumab) was that of anthracyclines and then trastuzumab (ICER: €18,301.55/QALY and €8954.97/QALY, respectively). Conclusions: The study revealed that adjuvant trastuzumab for one year in female HER2-positive early breast cancer can be considered cost-effective.

Budget impact analysis of trastuzumab in early breast cancer: A hospital district perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timo T. Purmonen ◽  
Päivi K. Auvinen ◽  
Janne A. Martikainen
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Adjuvant Trastuzumab ◽  
Hospital District ◽  
Number Of Patients

Objectives:Adjuvant trastuzumab is widely used in HER2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, and despite its cost-effectiveness, it causes substantial costs for health care. The purpose of the study was to develop a tool for estimating the budget impact of new cancer treatments. With this tool, we were able to estimate the budget impact of adjuvant trastuzumab, as well as the probability of staying within a given budget constraint.Methods:The created model-based evaluation tool was used to explore the budget impact of trastuzumab in early breast cancer in a single Finnish hospital district with 250,000 inhabitants. The used model took into account the number of patients, HER2+ prevalence, length and cost of treatment, and the effectiveness of the therapy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and alternative case scenarios were performed to ensure the robustness of the results.Results:Introduction of adjuvant trastuzumab caused substantial costs for a relatively small hospital district. In base-case analysis the 4-year net budget impact was €1.3 million. The trastuzumab acquisition costs were partially offset by the reduction in costs associated with the treatment of cancer recurrence and metastatic disease.Conclusions:Budget impact analyses provide important information about the overall economic impact of new treatments, and thus offer complementary information to cost-effectiveness analyses. Inclusion of treatment outcomes and probabilistic sensitivity analysis provides more realistic estimates of the net budget impact. The length of trastuzumab treatment has a strong effect on the budget impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document