Abstract
Objective: To investigate the cost effectiveness of exemestane compared to megestrol in post-menopausal women after tamoxifen failure. Design and setting: A modelling study from the third-party payer perspective in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. Methods: A model was constructed, based on and driven by data on survival from a clinical study of these agents, including costs for exemestane and megestrol and costs for other treatments. Data from an observational study were used to calculate a country-specific daily cost for the other treatments. Life-years gained was used as the measure of effectiveness. Simulations were performed for 1080 days ('within trial analysis') and for a life-time perspective, in which survival after the end of the trial was assumed to be the same as the trend during follow up. Costs were presented in 1999 values. Main outcome measures and results: When running the model for 1080 days, the cost effectiveness of exemestane compared to megestrol varied between about EUR5000 and EUR13 000 per life-year gained. In Germany it was much lower (EUR1353) due to a higher cost of megestrol. The total expected cost effectiveness (model running until no survivors left) ranged from EUR3700 (Germany) to EUR9100 (The Netherlands). The estimated cost per life-year gained is well within limits generally considered cost effective. Conclusions: Exemestane is cost effective compared with megestrol for postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer after therapy with tamoxifen.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 101-108 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | PharmacoEconomics |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 2002 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Pharmacology
- Medicine (miscellaneous)
Cite this
Cost-effectiveness analysis of exemestane compared with megestrol in advanced breast cancer : A model for Europe and Australia. / Lindgren, P.; Jönsson, B.; Redaelli, A.; Radice, D.
In: PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2002, p. 101-108.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness analysis of exemestane compared with megestrol in advanced breast cancer
T2 - A model for Europe and Australia
AU - Lindgren, P.
AU - Jönsson, B.
AU - Redaelli, A.
AU - Radice, D.
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - Objective: To investigate the cost effectiveness of exemestane compared to megestrol in post-menopausal women after tamoxifen failure. Design and setting: A modelling study from the third-party payer perspective in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. Methods: A model was constructed, based on and driven by data on survival from a clinical study of these agents, including costs for exemestane and megestrol and costs for other treatments. Data from an observational study were used to calculate a country-specific daily cost for the other treatments. Life-years gained was used as the measure of effectiveness. Simulations were performed for 1080 days ('within trial analysis') and for a life-time perspective, in which survival after the end of the trial was assumed to be the same as the trend during follow up. Costs were presented in 1999 values. Main outcome measures and results: When running the model for 1080 days, the cost effectiveness of exemestane compared to megestrol varied between about EUR5000 and EUR13 000 per life-year gained. In Germany it was much lower (EUR1353) due to a higher cost of megestrol. The total expected cost effectiveness (model running until no survivors left) ranged from EUR3700 (Germany) to EUR9100 (The Netherlands). The estimated cost per life-year gained is well within limits generally considered cost effective. Conclusions: Exemestane is cost effective compared with megestrol for postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer after therapy with tamoxifen.
AB - Objective: To investigate the cost effectiveness of exemestane compared to megestrol in post-menopausal women after tamoxifen failure. Design and setting: A modelling study from the third-party payer perspective in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. Methods: A model was constructed, based on and driven by data on survival from a clinical study of these agents, including costs for exemestane and megestrol and costs for other treatments. Data from an observational study were used to calculate a country-specific daily cost for the other treatments. Life-years gained was used as the measure of effectiveness. Simulations were performed for 1080 days ('within trial analysis') and for a life-time perspective, in which survival after the end of the trial was assumed to be the same as the trend during follow up. Costs were presented in 1999 values. Main outcome measures and results: When running the model for 1080 days, the cost effectiveness of exemestane compared to megestrol varied between about EUR5000 and EUR13 000 per life-year gained. In Germany it was much lower (EUR1353) due to a higher cost of megestrol. The total expected cost effectiveness (model running until no survivors left) ranged from EUR3700 (Germany) to EUR9100 (The Netherlands). The estimated cost per life-year gained is well within limits generally considered cost effective. Conclusions: Exemestane is cost effective compared with megestrol for postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer after therapy with tamoxifen.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036206298&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036206298&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
VL - 20
SP - 101
EP - 108
JO - PharmacoEconomics
JF - PharmacoEconomics
SN - 1170-7690
IS - 2
ER -