Cost-Effectiveness of Multitarget Stool DNA Testing vs Colonoscopy or Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Alaska Native People.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of multitarget stool DNA testing (MT-sDNA) compared with colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for Alaska Native adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the 3 screening test effects over 40 years. Outcomes included colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The study incorporated updated evidence on screening test performance and adherence and was conducted from December 15, 2016, through November 6, 2019. RESULTS: With perfect adherence, CRC incidence was reduced by 52% (95% CI, 46% to 56%) using colonoscopy, 61% (95% CI, 57% to 64%) using annual FIT, and 66% (95% CI, 63% to 68%) using MT-sDNA. Compared with no screening, perfect adherence screening extends life by 0.15, 0.17, and 0.19 QALYs per person with colonoscopy, FIT, and MT-sDNA, respectively. Colonoscopy is the most expensive strategy: approximately $110 million more than MT-sDNA and $127 million more than FIT. With imperfect adherence (best case), MT-sDNA resulted in 0.12 QALYs per person vs 0.05 and 0.06 QALYs per person by FIT and colonoscopy, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case analysis. Under varied adherence scenarios, MT-sDNA either dominates or is cost-effective (ICERs, $1740-$75,868 per QALY saved) compared with FIT and colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Each strategy reduced costs and increased QALYs compared with no screening. Screening by MT-sDNA results in the largest QALY savings. In Markov model analysis, screening by MT-sDNA in the Alaska Native population was cost-effective compared with screening by colonoscopy and FIT for a wide range of adherence scenarios.

Delays in treatment intensification with oral antidiabetic drugs and risk of microvascular and macrovascular events in patients with poor glycaemic control: An individual patient simulation study.

AIMS: To use the Archimedes model to estimate the consequences of delays in oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment intensification on glycaemic control and long-term outcomes at 5 and 20 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using real-world data, we modelled a cohort of hypothetical patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥8%, on metformin, with no history of insulin use. The cohort included 3 strata based on the number of OADs taken at baseline. The first add-on in the intensification sequence was a sulphonylurea, next was a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and last, a thiazolidinedione. The scenarios included either no delay or delay, based on observed and extrapolated times to intensification. RESULTS: At 1 year, HbA1c was 6.8% for patients intensifying without delay, and 8.2% for those delaying intensification. For no delay vs delay, risks of major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, heart failure and amputations were reduced by 18.0%, 25.0%, 13.7%, and 20.4%, respectively, at 5 years; severe hypoglycaemia risk, however, increased to 19% for the no delay scenario vs 12.5% for delay. At 20 years, the results showed similar trends to those at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of intensification of OAD therapy according to guideline recommendations led to greater reductions in HbA1c and lower risks of complications, but higher risks of hypoglycaemia than delaying intensification. These results highlight the potential impact of timely treatment intensification on long-term outcomes.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using a Multitarget Stool DNA Test: Modeling the Effect of the Intertest Interval on Clinical Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: A multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test was recently approved for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for men and women, aged ≥ 50 years, at average risk of CRC. The guidelines currently recommend a 3-year interval for mt-sDNA testing in the absence of empirical data. We used clinical effectiveness modeling to project decreases in CRC incidence and related mortality associated with mt-sDNA screening to help inform interval setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Archimedes model (Archimedes Inc., San Francisco, CA) was used to conduct a 5-arm, virtual, clinical screening study of a population of 200,000 virtual individuals to compare the clinical effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals compared with colonoscopy at 10-year intervals and no screening for a 30-year period. The study endpoints were the decrease in CRC incidence and related mortality of each strategy versus no screening. Cost-effectiveness ratios (US dollars per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of mt-sDNA intervals were calculated versus no screening. RESULTS: Compared with 10-year colonoscopy, annual mt-sDNA testing produced similar reductions in CRC incidence (65% vs. 63%) and related mortality (73% vs. 72%). mt-sDNA testing at 3-year intervals reduced the CRC incidence by 57% and CRC mortality by 67%, and mt-sDNA testing at 5-year intervals reduced the CRC incidence by 52% and CRC mortality by 62%. At an average price of $600 per test, the annual, 3-year, and 5-year mt-sDNA screening costs would be $20,178, $11,313, and $7388 per QALY, respectively, compared with no screening. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that screening every 3 years using a multitarget mt-sDNA test provides reasonable performance at acceptable cost.

Economic evaluation of using a genetic test to direct breast cancer chemoprevention in white women with a previous breast biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen therapy reduces the risk of breast cancer but increases the risk of serious adverse events including endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. OBJECTIVES: The cost effectiveness of using a commercially available breast cancer risk assessment test (BREVAGen™) to inform the decision of which women should undergo chemoprevention by tamoxifen was modeled in a simulated population of women who had undergone biopsies but had no diagnosis of cancer. METHODS: A continuous time, discrete event, mathematical model was used to simulate a population of white women aged 40-69 years, who were at elevated risk for breast cancer because of a history of benign breast biopsy. Women were assessed for clinical risk of breast cancer using the Gail model and for genetic risk using a panel of seven common single nucleotide polymorphisms. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of using genetic risk together with clinical risk, instead of clinical risk alone, to determine eligibility for 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. In addition to breast cancer, the simulation included health states of endometrial cancer, pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, stroke, and cataract. Estimates of costs in 2012 US dollars were based on Medicare reimbursement rates reported in the literature and utilities for modeled health states were calculated as an average of utilities reported in the literature. A 50-year time horizon was used to observe lifetime effects including survival benefits. RESULTS: For those women at intermediate risk of developing breast cancer (1.2-1.66 % 5-year risk), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the combined genetic and clinical risk assessment strategy over the clinical risk assessment-only strategy was US$47,000, US$44,000, and US$65,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, for women aged 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years, respectively (assuming a price of US$945 for genetic testing). Results were sensitive to assumptions about patient adherence, utility of life while taking tamoxifen, and cost of genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: From the US payer's perspective, the combined genetic and clinical risk assessment strategy may be a moderately cost-effective alternative to using clinical risk alone to guide chemoprevention recommendations for women at intermediate risk of developing breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of a genetic test for breast cancer risk.

Genetic testing of seven single-nucleotide polymorphisms (7SNP) can improve estimates of risk of breast cancer relative to the Gail risk test alone, for the purpose of recommending MRI screening for women at high risk. A simulation of breast cancer and health care processes was used to conduct a virtual trial comparing the use of the 7SNP test with the Gail risk test to categorize patients by risk. Average-risk patients received annual mammogram, whereas high-risk patients received annual MRI. Cancer incidence was based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data and validated to Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort data. Risk factor values were drawn from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-4) and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial data. Mammogram characteristics were derived from Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data. The test was most cost-effective when given to patients at an intermediate lifetime risk of breast cancer. For patients with a risk of 16% to 28%, it resulted in a 1.91% reduction in cancer deaths, saving 0.005 quality-adjusted life years per person at a cost of $163,264 per QALY. These results were sensitive to the age at which the test is given, the discount rate, and the costs of the genetic test and MRI. The cost effectiveness of using the 7SNP test for patients with intermediate Gail risk is similar to that of other recommended strategies, including annual MRI for patients with a lifetime risk greater than 20% or BRCA1/2 mutations.

An estrogen model: the relationship between body mass index, menopausal status, estrogen replacement therapy, and breast cancer risk.

We present a mathematical model that lends support to the hypothesis that estrogen levels mediate the complex relationship between body mass index (BMI), menopausal status, estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and breast cancer risk. The model predicts a decrease in the relative risk of breast cancer of 3% per unit increase in BMI (kg/m(2)) for premenopausal women and an increase in the relative risk of 4% per unit increase in BMI for postmenopausal women who are not HRT users. When comparing postmenopausal women who use estrogen-only HRT to postmenopausal women who do not use HRT, the model predicts an increased risk of breast cancer associated with use of estrogen that diminishes with increasing BMI, with a relative risk of 1.6 for women with BMI of 18, 1.2 for women with BMI of 25, and 1.0 for women with BMI ≥ 30. Model predictions agree with data from five major epidemiological studies.

Impact of comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness study in diabetic populations.

BACKGROUND: Although comorbidity has been shown to affect the benefits and risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, it has not been accounted for in prior cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, a highly prevalent comorbidity in U.S. adults aged 50 and older, on health and economic outcomes of CRC screening. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using an integrated modeling framework. DATA SOURCES: Derived from basic and epidemiologic studies, clinical trials, cancer registries, and a colonoscopy database. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. 50-year-old population. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Costs are based on Medicare reimbursement rates. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy screening at ten-year intervals, beginning at age 50, and discontinued after age 50, 60, 70, 80 or death. OUTCOME MEASURES: Health outcomes and cost effectiveness. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Diabetes diagnosis significantly affects cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. For the same CRC screening strategy, a person without diabetes at age 50 gained on average 0.07-0.13 life years more than a person diagnosed with diabetes at age 50 or younger. For a population of 1,000 patients diagnosed with diabetes at baseline, increasing stop age from 70 years to 80 years increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by 0.3, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $206,671/QALY. The corresponding figures for 1,000 patients without diabetes are 2.3 QALYs and $46,957/QALY. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Cost-effectiveness results are sensitive to cost of colonoscopy and adherence to colonoscopy screening. LIMITATIONS: Results depend on accuracy of model assumptions. CONCLUSION: Benefits of CRC screening differ substantially for patients with and without diabetes. Screening for CRC in patients diagnosed with diabetes at age 50 or younger is not cost-effective beyond age 70. Screening recommendations should be individualized based on the presence of comorbidities.

Cost-effectiveness of chemoprevention of breast cancer using tamoxifen in a postmenopausal US population.

BACKGROUND: Previous cost-effectiveness analyses of tamoxifen therapy account for breast cancer risk reduction during active treatment but not for its persistent protective effect after active treatment. METHODS: A detailed, continuous time, mathematical model of breast cancer and healthcare processes was used to simulate a postmenopausal population aged <55 years in a virtual trial comparing tamoxifen treatment with no treatment for lifetime follow-up. Unlike previous work, the current model of tamoxifen therapy is based on a meta-analysis of 4 randomized, placebo-controlled chemoprevention trials with breast cancer risk reduction continuing for 10 years after treatment termination. Cancer incidence and survival data were derived from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results statistics. Noncancer disease incidences, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) utility weights, and costs were derived from the literature. RESULTS: Tamoxifen treatment (vs no treatment) saved 29 QALYs in a population of 1000 postmenopausal women aged <55 years with an additional cost of $333,000 over the population's lifetime (average cost-effectiveness ratio, $11,530 per QALY). Tamoxifen therapy, compared with no treatment, was cost saving when higher risk populations were targeted (5-year risk ≥1.66%). The cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to parameters that characterized menopausal symptoms and adverse side effects of tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that tamoxifen chemoprophylaxis for postmenopausal women aged <55 years is a cost-effective health policy that reduces breast cancer incidence and improves life expectancy. Focusing on a postmenopausal population aged <55 years minimized the threat of adverse events associated with tamoxifen.

Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population.

In current clinical practice, genetic testing to detect Lynch syndrome mutations ideally begins with diagnostic testing of an individual affected with cancer before offering predictive testing to at-risk relatives. An alternative strategy that warrants exploration involves screening unaffected individuals via demographic and family histories, and offering genetic testing to those individuals whose risks for carrying a mutation exceed a selected threshold. Whether this approach would improve health outcomes in a manner that is cost-effective relative to current standards of care has yet to be demonstrated. To do so, we developed a simulation framework that integrated models of colorectal and endometrial cancers with a 5-generation family history model to predict health and economic outcomes of 20 primary screening strategies (at a wide range of compliance levels) aimed at detecting individuals with mismatch repair gene mutations and their at-risk relatives. These strategies were characterized by (i) different screening ages for starting risk assessment and (ii) different risk thresholds above which to implement genetic testing. For each strategy, 100,000 simulated individuals, representative of the U.S. population, were followed from the age of 20, and the outcomes were compared with current practice. Findings indicated that risk assessment starting at ages 25, 30, or 35, followed by genetic testing of those with mutation risks exceeding 5%, reduced colorectal and endometrial cancer incidence in mutation carriers by approximately 12.4% and 8.8%, respectively. For a population of 100,000 individuals containing 392 mutation carriers, this strategy increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) by approximately 135 with an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of screening for mismatch repair gene mutations is comparable to that of accepted cancer screening activities in the general population such as colorectal cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and breast cancer screening. These results suggest that primary screening of individuals for mismatch repair gene mutations, starting with risk assessment between the ages of 25 and 35, followed by genetic testing of those whose risk exceeds 5%, is a strategy that could improve health outcomes in a cost-effective manner relative to current practice.