Does Trastuzumab Offer Good Value for Money for Breast Cancer Patients with Metastasis in Indonesia?

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in Indonesia, with Indonesia's breast cancer mortality rate being the highest among Southeast Asian countries. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impacts of adding trastuzumab to chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for HER2-positive breast cancer patients in Indonesia. METHODS: We performed a Markov model-based economic evaluation to assess cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and budget impact. Utility data, direct medical costs, and indirect costs were obtained primarily from interviewing patients. Clinical effectiveness data, on the other hand, were obtained from systematic reviews and real-world data and represented through progression free survival, overall survival, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULT: From a healthcare provider's perspective, the total costs for the combined group were USD 14,516, while chemotherapy alone cost USD 7,489. While the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the combination group had a higher total cost by USD 7,027, PFS was longer in the chemotherapy alone group, with a difference of 2.2 months. The ICER was USD 17,307 for every QALY gained. The total cost of adding trastuzumab over a 5-year period was USD 589 million. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this economic evaluation suggests that the addition of trastuzumab to standard chemotherapy is not cost-effective in terms of PFS and OS compared with chemotherapy alone.
.

Economic evaluation of policy options for dialysis in end-stage renal disease patients under the universal health coverage in Indonesia.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the value for money and budget impact of offering hemodialysis (HD) as a first-line treatment, or the HD-first policy, and the peritoneal dialysis (PD) first policy compared to a supportive care option in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Indonesia. METHODS: A Markov model-based economic evaluation was performed using local and international data to quantify the potential costs and health-related outcomes in terms of life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Three policy options were compared, i.e., the PD-first policy, HD-first policy, and supportive care. RESULTS: The PD-first policy for ESRD patients resulted in 5.93 life years, equal to the HD-first policy, with a slightly higher QALY gained (4.40 vs 4.34). The total lifetime cost for a patient under the PD-first policy is around 700 million IDR, which is lower than the cost under the HD-first policy, i.e. 735 million IDR per patient. Compared to supportive care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the PD-first policy is 193 million IDR per QALY, while the HD-first policy resulted in 207 million IDR per QALY. Budget impact analysis indicated that the required budget for the PD-first policy is 43 trillion IDR for 53% coverage and 75 trillion IDR for 100% coverage in five years, which is less than the HD-first policy, i.e. 88 trillion IDR and 166 trillion IDR. CONCLUSIONS: The PD-first policy was found to be more cost-effective compared to the HD-first policy. Budget impact analysis provided evidence on the enormous financial burden for the country if the current practice, where HD dominates PD, continues for the next five years.