Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid vs clodronic acid for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma from the United Kingdom healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: In the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study (MMIX), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 4 mg 3-4/week reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs), increased progression free survival (PFS), and prolonged overall survival (OS), compared with clodronic acid (CLO) 1600 mg daily, in 1970 patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS: An economic model was used to project PFS, OS, the incidence of SREs and adverse events and expected lifetime healthcare costs for patients with newly-diagnosed MM who are alternatively assumed to receive ZOL or CLO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of ZOL vs CLO was calculated as the ratio of the difference in cost to the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs were based on results of MMIX and published sources. RESULTS: Compared with CLO, treatment with ZOL increases QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of £1653, yielding an ICER of £5443 per QALY gained. If the threshold ICER is £20,000 per QALY, the estimated probability that ZOL is cost-effective is 90%. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this study is the lack of data on the effects of zoledronic acid on survival beyond the end of follow-up in the MMIX trial. However, cost-effectiveness was favourable even under the highly conservative scenario in which the timeframe of the model was limited to 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with clodronic acid, zoledronic acid represents a cost-effective treatment alternative in patients with multiple myeloma.

Cost-effectiveness of letrozole versus tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive early breast cancer from a Canadian perspective.

BACKGROUND: In the primary core analysis of BIG 1-98, a randomized, double-blind trial comparing 5 years of initial adjuvant therapy with letrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival by 19% and reduced the risk of breast cancer recurrence by 28% and distant recurrence by 27%. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with 5 years of initial adjuvant therapy with letrozole versus tamoxifen from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. Probabilities of recurrence and side effects for tamoxifen were based on published results of BIG 1-98 and other published population-based studies. Corresponding probabilities for letrozole were calculated by multiplying probabilities for tamoxifen by estimated relative risks for letrozole versus tamoxifen from BIG 1-98. Other probabilities, costs of breast-cancer care and treatment of side effects, and health-state utilities were obtained from published studies. Costs and QALYs were estimated over the lifetime of a cohort of postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer, aged 60 years at initiation of therapy, and discounted at 5% annually. RESULTS: Compared with tamoxifen, letrozole yields an additional 0.368 life-years (12.453 vs. 12.086) and 0.343 QALYs (11.582 vs. 11.239). These benefits are obtained at an additional cost of Can$ 8,110 (Can$ 30,819 vs. Can$ 22,709). Cost per QALY gained for letrozole versus tamoxifen is Can$ 23,662 (95% CI Can$ 15,667-Can$ 52,014). CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer, initial adjuvant treatment with letrozole is cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare system perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of letrozole in the extended adjuvant treatment of women with early breast cancer.

Adjuvant tamoxifen therapy for 5 years reduces recurrence in hormone receptor positive, post-menopausal women with early breast cancer, but offers no advantage when prolonged to another 5 years, during which the risk of recurrence remains high. Treating patients, who remain disease-free after 5 years of tamoxifen, with letrozole significantly reduces recurrence, regardless of nodal status. This study evaluated the life-time cost-utility of extended adjuvant letrozole therapy in 62-year-old patients from a third-party payer perspective. A Markov model incorporated locoregional, contralateral, and metastatic recurrences. The comparator was placebo. Event rates were based on published trials. Utility values were taken from a clinical trial and published literature. Costs were obtained from published literature, provincial payment schedules, cancer agencies, and drug plans formularies. Resource use reflected Canadian treatment patterns. Robustness of the model was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Extended adjuvant letrozole therapy of a cohort consisting of 50% node-negative and 50% node-positive patients prolonged their lives on average by 0.466 years or 0.267 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of Can$8,031 per patient, yielding an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $34,058 per QALY. Letrozole was more cost-effective in node-positive than in node-negative patients (Can$26,553 vs Can$46,049 per QALY). Results were robust to variations in age, healthcare costs, and utilities. The degree of confidence that the cost per QALY would be below Can$50,000 reached 100% for node-positive and 77% for node-negative patients. Extended adjuvant letrozole is cost-effective in both node-negative and node-positive patients having ICURs below Can$50,000/QALY.