A cost-consequence model of using the 21-gene assay to identify patients with early-stage node-positive breast cancer who benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Patients with early-stage hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) negative invasive breast cancer with 1-3 positive lymph nodes (N1) often undergo surgical excisions followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). Many patients have no benefit from ACT and receive unnecessary, costly treatment often associated with short- and long-term adverse events (AEs). Gene expression profiling (GEP) assays, such as the 21-gene assay (i.e. the Oncotype DX assay), can identify patients at higher risk for recurrence who may benefit from ACT. However, the budgetary consequence of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no GEP testing in the Netherlands is unknown. Our study therefore assessed it using a cost-consequence model. METHODS: A validated model was used to create the N1 model. The model compared the costs and consequences of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no GEP testing and MammaPrint, and subsequent ACT use with corresponding costs for chemotherapy, treatment of AEs, productivity losses, GEP testing, and treatment of recurrences, according to the Oncotype DX results. The model time horizon was 5 years. RESULTS: Costs for the total population amounted to €8.0 million (M), €16.2 M, and €9.5 M, and cost per patient amounted to €13,540, €27,455, and €16,154 for using the Oncotype DX assay, no GEP testing, and MammaPrint, respectively. Total cost savings of using the Oncotype DX assay amounted to €8.2 M versus no GEP testing and €1.5 M versus MammaPrint. Using the Oncotype DX assay would result in fewer patients receiving ACT and thus fewer AEs, sick days, and hospitalizations, leading to overall cost savings compared with no GEP testing and MammaPrint. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing Oncotype DX testing in this population can prevent unnecessary overtreatment, reducing clinical and economic burden on the patient and Dutch healthcare system.

Early-stage invasive breast cancer patients often undergo surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. However, many of these patients have no benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and thus receive unnecessary and costly treatment often associated with side-effects. Patients who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy can be identified by analyzing the genomic profile of the patients' tumors using a molecular diagnostic test called the 21-gene assay (also known as Oncotype DX assay). However, the budgetary consequences of using Oncotype DX for this purpose in the Netherlands are currently unknown and, therefore, assessed using a health-economic model. The model compared the costs and consequences of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no molecular diagnostic testing and an alternative molecular diagnostic test called MammaPrint. The three diagnostic testing strategies resulted in different costs in terms of several different costing categories and were compared with one another. The total costs were lowest for the diagnostic strategy using the Oncotype DX assay, as it would result in fewer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy compared with no molecular diagnostic testing and MammaPrint. Implementing the Oncotype DX assay as a molecular diagnostic test can identify the right patient who benefits from chemotherapy (prevent over- and undertreatment) and lead to cost-savings, reducing the clinical and economic burden on the patient and Dutch healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of escitalopram compared with paroxetine in treatment of generalized anxiety disorder in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is associated with substantial economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To assess, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram and paroxetine in the treatment of GAD in the UK. METHOD: A decision analytic model with a 9 month time horizon was adapted to the UK setting. Model inputs included drug- and nondrug-specific probabilities from head-to-head trial data, published literature, and expert opinion. Main outcome measures were success (response after 12 wk of treatment and no relapse during the following 24 wk) and costs. Resource use was based on National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance for GAD patient management, and estimated unit costs came from standard national sources. Human capital approach was used to estimate costs of absence from work. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective. RESULTS: Escitalopram-treated patients were associated with 14.4% higher first-line treatment success and significantly lower discontinuation rates due to adverse events than were those treated with paroxetine. Treatment with escitalopram yielded lower expected costs with greater effectiveness compared with paroxetine. These clinical advantages led to less sick leave and resource use as a result of lower switch rates and use of secondary care. Total expected 9 month costs were 1408 pounds sterling (2560 US dollars) lower for escitalopram-treated patients than for paroxetine-treated patients. Sensitivity analyses on key parameters demonstrated robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram appears to be cost-effective compared with paroxetine in the treatment of GAD in the UK.