Literature DB >> 23519744

Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for prostate cancer chemoprevention : a review and summary of challenges.

Stephanie R Earnshaw1, Andrew P Brogan, Cheryl L McDade.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Decision-analytic modelling is often used to examine the economics associated with using a specific treatment. As a result, it is important to understand structural and methodological approaches used in published decision-analytic models for examining the cost effectiveness of 5α-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) for prostate cancer (PCa) chemoprevention. This understanding allows us to provide recommendations for using decision modelling in future economic evaluations of chemoprevention for PCa.
METHODS: A review of the published literature was performed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library to identify studies involving mathematical decision models that evaluated 5ARIs for PCa chemoprevention. Published articles were reviewed and key modelling components were extracted and summarized. Recommendations for developing future decision models to examine the economic consequences of PCa chemoprevention were presented.
RESULTS: We identified seven published models of PCa chemoprevention. All the models identified used a Markov framework with time horizons ranging from 4 years to lifetime. Due to the wide range of patient risk groups examined, PCa risk data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and other databases or estimates published in relevant clinical trials. Treatment effects included change in the incidence of high- and low-grade PCa and impacts on benign prostate hyperplasia. Adverse events were considered to affect compliance, discontinuation and quality of life. Quality-of-life impacts were similar among studies. Examination of modelling parameter sensitivities was comprehensive.
CONCLUSIONS: Published models have examined the cost effectiveness of PCa chemoprevention; however, limitations exist. Decision models should take into account the full PCa clinical pathway when compiling health states. The time horizon should be long enough to consider the full benefit of chemoprevention while allowing actual time receiving the drug to occur from the start of the model until a man's life expectancy is less than 10 years. Baseline PCa risk should be specific to the population of concern. Models should examine the impact on both low- and high-grade tumours and account for the impact of 5ARIs on benign prostatic hyperplasia. Because chemoprevention has an upfront effect, the structure of the model should be constructed so that the downstream effect of avoiding or delaying recurrence can be considered. Adverse events due to chemoprevention should be considered through compliance, discontinuation or quality-of-life impact, and understanding the impact of avoiding PCa and benign prostatic hyperplasia events are important model properties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23519744     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0037-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  38 in total

Review 1.  Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application.

Authors:  M Sculpher; E Fenwick; K Claxton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models.

Authors:  C McCabe; S Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  The story of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  F H Schröder; L J Denis; M Roobol; V Nelen; A Auvinen; T Tammela; A Villers; X Rebillard; S Ciatto; M Zappa; A Berenguer; A Paez; J Hugosson; P Lodding; F Recker; M Kwiatkowski; W J Kirkels
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Assessing benefit and risk in the prevention of prostate cancer: the prostate cancer prevention trial revisited.

Authors:  Eric A Klein; Catherine M Tangen; Phyllis J Goodman; Scott M Lippman; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-09-12       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in men who receive androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kouta Ito; Elena B Elkin; Monica Girotra; Michael J Morris
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Gerald L Andriole; David G Bostwick; Otis W Brawley; Leonard G Gomella; Michael Marberger; Francesco Montorsi; Curtis A Pettaway; Teuvo L Tammela; Claudio Teloken; Donald J Tindall; Matthew C Somerville; Timothy H Wilson; Ivy L Fowler; Roger S Rittmaster
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  The economic burden of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Claus G Roehrborn; Libby K Black
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models.

Authors:  F A Sonnenberg; M S Roberts; J Tsevat; J B Wong; M Barry; D L Kent
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Cost effectiveness of chemoprevention for prostate cancer with dutasteride in a high-risk population based on results from the REDUCE clinical trial.

Authors:  Michael W Kattan; Stephanie R Earnshaw; Cheryl L McDade; Libby K Black; Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 2.561

Review 10.  Reduction in the risk of prostate cancer: future directions after the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

Authors:  E David Crawford; Gerald L Andriole; Michael Marberger; Roger S Rittmaster
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 2.649

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Integration of PKPD relationships into benefit-risk analysis.

Authors:  Francesco Bellanti; Rob C van Wijk; Meindert Danhof; Oscar Della Pasqua
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  The Melanoma MAICare Framework: A Microsimulation Model for the Assessment of Individualized Cancer Care.

Authors:  Elisabeth van der Meijde; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Sabine C Linn; Gerrit A Meijer; Remond J A Fijneman; Veerle M H Coupé
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2016-06-15
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.