Search

Health information technology offers a powerful tool to monitor the performance of a healthcare system. Advances in computer technology and capacity combined with lower start-up costs will allow developing countries to achieve greater impact when they initiate electronic health information systems. We focused on the integrated health information system that was established in Taiwan in conjunction with the launch of the National Health Insurance (NHI) programme. We used data from that health information system to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of chemotherapy use among breast cancer patients. We then used this analysis to discuss what policy makers can learn from this type of analysis. We identified a cohort of patients in the NHI Research Database who had been diagnosed with breast cancer in 2001 and had received chemotherapy following surgical removal of the tumour. We followed these patients for 3 years and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the payer's perspective. Using the net benefit regression approach, we compared the cost effectiveness of the two most commonly prescribed first-line chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of breast cancer in 2001 in Taiwan. The dependent variable of the regression model was the individual-level net benefit, and the independent variables included a binary variable indicating the choice of chemotherapy regimen, the patients' age, co-morbidity, type of surgery, geographic region and type of treatment facility. We employed both frequentist and Bayesian approaches in our net benefit regression analyses. In the Bayesian analysis, we applied non-informative priors to all parameters in the base-case analyses. We then explored the use of informative priors in the sensitivity analysis, using cost-effectiveness data published in the literature to form the prior distributions for the relevant parameters. Over 60% of surgically treated breast cancer patients received either CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil) or CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, fluorouracil). A comparison of patient characteristics indicated that patients in the CEF group tended to be younger (47.8 vs 49.1 years; p = 0.016), and were significantly more likely to have undergone a mastectomy (84% vs 76%; p < 0.001) and to have been treated in a teaching hospital (26% vs 13%; p < 0.001). We also observed significant variations in geographic region of the location of facilities between treatment groups. On average, CEF was not cost effective in the treatment of patients with breast cancer in Taiwan, although analyses stratified by geographic region suggested a wide variation across regions. At a societal willingness to pay (WTP) of new Taiwanese dollar ($NT)1 500 000 ($US80 000), the probability that CEF was more cost effective than CMF was 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% and 3.9% for the Taipei metropolitan area, and the north, middle and the combined south and east region, respectively; the probability became 0.6%, 0.0%, 1.3% and 54.5%, respectively, at a WTP of $NT5 000 000 ($US270 000). After co-variate adjustments, the probabilities were 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% and 0.8%, respectively at a WTP of $NT1 500 000, and were 0.0%, 0.0%, 1.4% and 34.7% at $NT5 000 000. Sensitivity analyses showed that CEF potentially could have been more cost effective than CMF within a reasonable range of societal WTP (i.e. $NT1 000 000-3 000 000 or $US55 000-160 000) had the optimal dosage level for CEF been established for breast cancer patients in Taiwan. A population-based, fully integrated electronic health information system provides useful data to assess the cost effectiveness of competing treatments and interventions in current practice. This research may potentially inform policy makers of modifications that can be instituted to improve the cost effectiveness of a new therapy. However, findings from this study need to be interpreted with caution because the study provided information only on the short-term cost effectiveness (i.e. 3 years) of CEF compared with CMF. It is possible that a future analysis will reach a different conclusion when more years of follow-up data become available.

The GOELAMS 072 study showed that first-line high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) with peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT) support was superior to the standard chemotherapy regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone; CHOP) in adults with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). The aim of the study was to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic profile of HDT with PBSCT support relative to standard CHOP therapy as first-line treatment in adults with aggressive NHL. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the French Public Health Insurance perspective, restricted to hospital costs (euro, year 2008 values). The clinical effectiveness criterion was censured overall survival (OS) difference after a median follow-up of 4 years for the entire cohort. A total of 197 patients were included (CHOP, n = 99; HDT, n = 98). Uncertainty was assessed using non-parametric bootstrap simulations and various scenario analyses. Five-year OS did not differ significantly between groups for the entire cohort. Nevertheless, subgroup analyses appeared to be more relevant for decision making: among patients with a high-intermediate risk according to the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI), HDT yielded a significantly higher 5-year OS than CHOP (74% vs 44%; p = 0.001). Among these patients, the mean censured OS survival, adjusted for time discounting and quality of life (QOL), increased with HDT by 1.20 years (95% CI 1.19, 1.21). The cost per life-year saved with HDT was estimated as euro34 315 (95% CI 32 683, 35 947) in this subgroup. Results suggested that HDT with PBSCT support might be considered a cost-effective strategy among patients with high-intermediate-risk NHL according to the age-adjusted IPI. Its place and its cost effectiveness potential versus, or in combination with, rituximab still need further research.

Background: The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can enable dose intensification of chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, given its acquisition cost, it is important to assess its cost effectiveness within a resource-constrained health service., Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness, from the UK NHS perspective, of G-CSF given in addition to doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (ACE) versus ACE alone in the management of SCLC., Methods: Using data from a UK Medical Research Council trial (LU19) to assess chemotherapy dose intensification in patients with previously untreated SCLC of any disease extent, a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken. Resource use data, including hospitalisations and non-protocol cancer treatments, were collected during the first 6-month treatment phase of the trial. Mean costs ( pound, 2003 values) of managing patients in the two arms of the trial were calculated. Mean survival duration was calculated for the two groups using patient-specific follow-up data collected in the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken, and uncertainty in cost effectiveness was expressed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves., Results: The use of G-CSF in addition to ACE chemotherapy is more costly ( 4647 pounds) but results in longer mean survival duration (0.20 years; 0.18 years when discounted). This generates an incremental cost per additional life-year of 25,816 pounds for ACE + G-CSF therapy. The probability of the addition of G-CSF being cost effective, if decision makers are willing to pay 30,000 pounds for an additional life-year, is 0.57. Secondary analysis suggests that cost effectiveness is likely to be sensitive to assumptions about the health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) experienced by patients., Conclusion: Based on data collected in the LU19 trial, chemotherapy dose intensification using G-CSF in SCLC adds to health service costs but increases survival duration. Its overall cost effectiveness is likely to be finely balanced.

Several randomised comparative trials have shown that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the duration of neutropenia, hospitalisation and intravenous antibacterial use in patients with cancer who are receiving high-dosage antineoplastic therapy. However, one area that has received less attention is the role of G-CSF in standard-dosage antineoplastic regimens. One such treatment that is considered to have a low potential for inducing fever and neutropenia is the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. We conducted a cost-benefit analysis from a societal perspective in order to estimate the net cost or benefit of prophylactic G-CSF in this patient population. This included direct costs for hospitalisation with antibacterial support, as well as indirect societal costs, such as time off work and antineoplastic therapy delays secondary to neutropenia. The findings were then tested by a comprehensive sensitivity analysis. The administration of G-CSF at a dosage of 5 micrograms/kg/day for 11 doses following CHOP resulted in an overall net cost of $Can1257. In the sensitivity analysis, lowering the G-CSF dosage to 2 micrograms/kg/day generated a net benefit of $Can6564, indicating a situation that was cost saving to society. The results of the current study suggest that the use of G-CSF in patients receiving CHOP antineoplastic therapy produces a situation that is close to achieving cost neutrality. However, low-dosage (2 micrograms/kg/day) G-CSF is an economically attractive treatment strategy because it may result in overall savings to society.

Polychemotherapy is the therapeutic option recommended for nonresectable, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the modest gains in survival, and the frequent and often serious adverse effects, associated with chemotherapy should also be considered when deciding on therapy. We therefore performed a cost-utility analysis of chemotherapy and best supportive care in NSCLC. Effectiveness and costs were analysed on 70 patients who were randomised to receive one of 3 treatments: VP (vindesine and cisplatin), CAP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin), or best supportive care. Subsequently, an assessment of the value of polychemotherapy and best supportive care was performed by oncology personnel using the time trade-off technique. Polychemotherapy was found to be more effective than best supportive care, but was also more costly and had a lower value score. Because of its cost utility and its higher value, best supportive care should not be discarded as an alternative for the treatment of NSCLC.