Cost-effectiveness of androgen suppression therapies in advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The costs and side effects of several antiandrogen therapies for advanced prostate cancer differ substantially. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of antiandrogen therapies for advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model based on a formal meta-analysis and literature review. The base case was assumed to be a 65-year-old man with a clinically evident, local recurrence of prostate cancer. The model used a societal perspective and a time horizon of 20 years. Six androgen suppression strategies were evaluated: diethylstilbestrol (DES), orchiectomy, a nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA), a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist, and combinations of an NSAA with an LHRH agonist or orchiectomy. Outcome measures were survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: DES, the least expensive therapy, had a discounted lifetime cost of $3600 and the lowest quality-adjusted survival, 4.6 QALYs. At a cost of $7000, orchiectomy was associated with 5.1 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7500/QALY relative to DES. All other strategies-LHRH agonists, NSAA, and both combined androgen blockade strategies-had higher costs and lower quality-adjusted survival than orchiectomy. These results were sensitive to the quality of life associated with orchiectomy and the efficacy of combined androgen blockade, and they changed little when prostate-specific antigen results were used to guide therapy. Under a wide range of other assumptions, the cost-effectiveness of orchiectomy relative to DES was consistently less than $20 000/QALY. Androgen suppression therapies were most cost-effective if initiated after patients became symptomatic from prostate metastases. CONCLUSIONS: For men who accept it, orchiectomy is likely to be the most cost-effective androgen suppression strategy. Combined androgen blockade is the least economically attractive option, yielding small health benefits at high relative costs.

Costs and health consequences of cholesterol screening for asymptomatic older Americans.

To predict the consequences of cholesterol screening among elderly Americans who do not have symptoms of heart disease, we explore the cost implications of a cholesterol screening program, evaluate evidence linking hypercholesterolemia to coronary heart disease and mortality in the elderly, and describe the likely effects of therapy of hypercholesterolemia. According to our calculations, if all Americans 65 years of age and older adhered to a cholesterol screening program similar to the one proposed by the National Cholesterol Education Program, minimum annual expenditures for screening and treatment would be between $1.6 billion and $16.8 billion, depending on the effectiveness of diet and the cost of the medications used to treat hypercholesterolemia. There is no direct evidence that this program would lessen overall morbidity or extend the lives of elderly Americans.

Cholesterol screening should be targeted.

For primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD), the American College of Physicians (ACP) has recommended that initial cholesterol screening be targeted to people who have other risk factors in addition to elevated cholesterol. This would include those with symptoms of heart disease, asymptomatic men 35-65 years old and women 45-65 years old, or younger people who have > or = 2 risk factors or who might benefit from treatment for high blood cholesterol. After the age of 75, cholesterol is no longer a risk factor, so there is no rationale for testing. In primary prevention, lipoprotein fractionation should be performed in men and women who have been identified as having elevated blood cholesterol levels, not as part of initial testing. In secondary prevention, some studies indicate that cholesterol reduction may be beneficial after age 65. In asymptomatic younger people without other risk factors, the low prevalence of CHD and rapid response to cholesterol reduction once it is initiated suggest that early screening and treatment are unnecessary. Everyone should adopt the lifestyle modifications conducive to cardiovascular health, but the ACP believes that, for primary prevention, universal screening is neither cost effective nor the best use of the patient's and physician's time.

Problems with the report of the Expert Panel on blood cholesterol levels in children and adolescents.

An Expert Panel convened by the National Cholesterol Education Program has recommended selective screening and treatment of children for high blood cholesterol levels, based on family history of cardiovascular disease or high blood cholesterol. This recommendation is problematic for several reasons. First, the recommended diets are likely to cause only a slight decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, the projected benefits of which will be offset by a similar decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Lack of efficacy of the recommended diets could lead to use of more restrictive diets or to cholesterol lowering drugs. Second, even under optimistic assumptions, beneficial effects of cholesterol intervention will be small and delayed for many decades. As a result, childhood cholesterol-lowering efforts will not be cost-effective. Third, the Expert Panel's recommendations do not address important gender differences. Girls have higher average cholesterol levels than boys. They will therefore qualify for more dietary and drug treatment despite their lower age-adjusted risk of heart disease and the lack of association between cholesterol levels and cardiovascular mortality in women. Finally, recent evidence from randomized trials, cohort studies, and animal experiments suggests that cholesterol lowering may have serious adverse effects. This evidence was not discussed in the Expert Panel's report. Given current evidence, any screening and treatment of children for high blood cholesterol levels is, at best, premature.

Can technology assessment control health spending?

Because medical technology is the most important controllable component of health spending growth, the success of strategies for limiting spending growth depends upon their impact on technology dissemination. Technology assessment is fundamental to any strategy for controlling the adoption of medical technologies. Cost-effectiveness analysis holds particular promise as a method for evaluating alternative health care technologies because it explicitly incorporates costs. This paper describes how the widespread adoption of health insurance promoted the dissemination of medical technologies and how technology dissemination fueled spending growth. It then describes approaches to technology assessment and the ways in which technology assessment, in the form of cost-effectiveness analysis, can be applied to help control spending growth.

Evidence-based coverage policy.

Many health plans apply evidence-based approaches to coverage decisions. The foundation of such approaches is the systematic review of information about the effectiveness of medical interventions. This paper discusses the principles underlying evidence-based coverage policy and how they are applied by two major programs: the Technology Evaluation Center of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee. Although such policies likely have limited effects on spending, they can help to direct medical resources toward effective care.

A concise review of the cost-effectiveness of coronary heart disease prevention.

Coronary heart disease is one of the largest sources of morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure in the United States. This article reviews a number of studies that estimate the cost per unit of health benefits associated with different primary and secondary prevention strategies for coronary heart disease. Although prevention does not provide a panacea for rising health care spending, many preventive strategies are cost-effective when compared to other common clinical interventions. Prevention should be incorporated into regular clinical practice.

Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis.

To address controversies in the applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, we investigate the principles underlying the technique and discuss the implications for the evaluation of medical interventions. Using a standard von Neumann-Morgenstern utility framework, we show how a cost-effectiveness criterion can be derived to guide resource allocation decisions, and how it varies with age, gender, income level, and risk aversion. Although cost-effectiveness analysis can be a useful and powerful tool for resource allocation decisions, a uniform cost-effectiveness criterion that is applied to a heterogeneous population level is unlikely to yield Pareto-optimal resource allocations.

The cost of VA-sponsored research.

BACKGROUND: Under pressures to reduce health care costs, clinical income is a shrinking source of support for research. Such pressures also threaten research at the medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VA research is particularly vulnerable because medical care appropriations constitute a large, though unknown, source of support. This study measures the medical care component and the total of VA research funds. METHOD: The incremental costs of VA research were estimated from a survey of 497 clinician investigators and data on payroll, facility costs, and research grants and appropriations. RESULTS: The incremental costs of VA research totaled $541.4 million in the 1992-93 fiscal year. This included $245.6 million in federal appropriations for VA research, $33.1 million in research grants administered by the VA, and $262.8 million in support from other VA appropriations. Research added as much as $219.8 million to VA patient care costs. CONCLUSION: The VA is adopting strategies to increase the internal payoff of its research. The fiscal constraints facing VA and other academic medical centers mean that they will be able to support research with their own funds only when it benefits them directly.

Cost effectiveness of coronary heart disease prevention strategies in adults.

Although risk-factor modification has gained wide acceptance as an effective approach to the prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD), health planners, physicians and patients confront considerable uncertainty over the most appropriate and efficient preventive strategies. Some preventive approaches are both inexpensive and effective; others are expensive while their effectiveness is slight or unproven. Effectiveness varies with an individual's age, gender and other risk factors. Information provided by a cost-effectiveness analysis can clarify the value of alternative strategies for CHD prevention in specific populations, thereby helping to choose among them. It does so by producing a standard measure of value--the cost per year of life saved (YLS) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved--that reveals which of several alternative interventions provides the greatest health benefit from a given expenditure. This article summarises the extensive literature on the cost effectiveness of CHD prevention with an emphasis on primary prevention. Published work indicates that smoking-cessation programmes, particularly those that rely on counselling with or without nicotine supplements, are highly cost effective in many settings. Although the evidence is limited, exercise programmes also appear to be cost effective. The detection and treatment of hypertension is highly cost effective, particularly when inexpensive drugs with proven effectiveness, such as diuretics or beta-blockers, are used. Hormone-replacement therapy is a cost-effective approach to CHD prevention in most postmenopausal women, although direct clinical trial data are lacking and it is uncertain which hormone preparation is best. Cholesterol reduction is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of CHD in individuals without other treatable risk factors who are at very high risk of developing CHD. For individuals with multiple CHD risk factors, the choice of risk-modification strategies is complex and depends upon the interactions of risk and the relative costs of treating each risk.

Developing and testing a multimedia presentation of a health-state description.

Quality-adjustment weights for health states are an essential component of cost-utility analysis (CUA). Quality-adjustment weights are obtained by presenting large numbers of subjects with multiattribute descriptions of health states for rating. Comprehending multiattribute health states is a difficult task for most respondents. The authors hypothesized that multimedia (MM) presentation using computers might facilitate this task better than would a paper-based text (Text). To test this hypothesis, they developed closely matched MM and Text descriptions of health states in the first-person narrative style, and developed a method of testing the presentation of a health state. Subjects were randomized to exposure to either MM or Text and subject recall of the health state and recognition of features of the health state were tested. How well defined the preferences of the subjects were after each presentation method was assessed by having the subjects mark on a double-anchored visual-analog scale the "best" and "worst" they believed the quality of life in the health state might be. MM subjects had better recall (11.85 vs 9.44 of a total of 24 meaning units, p = 0.098) and better recognition (4.71 vs 4.22, p = 0.08). The average interval between the "best" and "worst" ratings was shorter for the MM subjects (2.19 cm vs 3.26 cm, p = 0.12).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)