Chemoprevention: Drug pricing and mortality - The case of tamoxifen

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, California 95817, USA.
Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.89). 10/2006; 107(5):950-8. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22075
Source: PubMed


Tamoxifen is a prototypic cancer chemopreventive agent, yet clinical trials have not evaluated its effect on mortality or the impact of drug pricing on its cost-effectiveness.
A state-transition Markov model for a hypothetical cohort of women age 50 years was used to evaluate the effects of tamoxifen on mortality and tamoxifen price on cost-effectiveness. Incidence and mortality rates for breast and endometrial cancers were derived from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results statistics, and noncancer outcomes were obtained from published studies. Relative risks of outcomes were derived from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 trial. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursements.
Projected overall mortality for women at 1.67% 5-year breast cancer risk showed little difference with or without tamoxifen, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,335,690 per life-year saved as a result of tamoxifen use. Adjusting for the differential impact of estrogen receptor-negative cancers, tamoxifen increased mortality for women with a uterus until the 5-year breast cancer risk reached > or =2.1%. Assigning the Canadian price for tamoxifen dramatically reduced the incremental cost (to $123,780 per life-year saved). At that price, the use of tamoxifen was less costly and more effective for women with 5-year breast cancer risks >4%.
Tamoxifen may increase mortality in women at the lower end of the "high-risk" range for breast cancer. If prices in the U.S. approximated Canadian prices, then tamoxifen use for breast cancer risk reduction in women with a 5-year risk >3% could be a reasonable strategy to reduce the incidence of breast cancer. Because they are used by many unaffected individuals, the price of chemopreventive agents has a major influence on their cost-effectiveness.

Download full-text


Available from: Christina Slee, Jun 29, 2015
34 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer chemoprevention is practical only if 1) it reduces the incidence of cancer and overall mortality in a cost-effective manner, and 2) an easily identified target population is willing to undergo treatment. In the past decade, it was demonstrated that breast cancer risk reduction is possible with tamoxifen and raloxifene and is cost effective on the higher end of the risk continuum. However, uptake has not been optimal due to concerns of side effects, incomplete efficacy, and uncertainty regarding who is most likely to benefit. For prevention to be considered effective and practical, we need to develop 1) more accurate methods of risk assessment; 2) prevention interventions with fewer side effects and/or greater efficacy; and 3) effective means of motivating uptake of behavioral and drug prevention therapy.
    Current Breast Cancer Reports 03/2009; 1(1):48-53. DOI:10.1007/s12609-009-0007-3
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Every Woman Counts (EWC), a California breast cancer screening program, faced challenging budget cutbacks and policy choices. A microsimulation model evaluated costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of EWC program mammography policy options on coverage for digital mammography (which has a higher cost than film mammography but recent legislation allowed reimbursement at the lower film rate); screening eligibility age; and screening frequency. Model inputs were based on analyses of program claims data linked to California Cancer Registry data, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, and the Medi-Cal literature. Outcomes included number of procedures, cancers, cancer deaths, costs, and incremental cost per life-year. Projected model outcomes matched program data closely. With restrictions on the number of clients screened, strategies starting screening at age 40 years were dominated (not cost-effective). This finding was highly robust in sensitivity analyses. Compared with no screening, biennial film mammography for women aged 50 to 64 years was projected to reduce 15-year breast cancer mortality by nearly 7.8% at $18,999 per additional life-year, annual film mammography was $106,428 per additional life-year, and digital mammography $180,333 per additional life-year. This more effective, more expensive strategy was projected to reduce breast cancer mortality by 8.6%. Under equal mammography reimbursement, biennial digital mammography beginning at age 50 years was projected to decrease 15-year breast cancer mortality by 8.6% at an incremental cost per additional life-year of $17,050. For the EWC program, biennial screening mammography starting at age 50 years was the most cost-effective strategy. The impact of digital mammography on life expectancy was small. Program-specific cost-effectiveness analysis can be completed in a policy-relevant time frame to assist policymakers faced with difficult program choices.
    Value in Health 09/2013; 16(6):932-41. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.013 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
Show more