Cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in the management of breast cancer patients with bone metastases

• Published in: Annals of oncology Vol. 17; no. 7; pp. 1072 - 1082
• Main Authors: Botteman, M., Barghout, V., Stephens, J., Hay, J., Brandman, J., Aapro, M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.07.2006; Oxford University Press; Oxford Publishing Limited (England)
• Subjects: Antineoplastic agents; Biological and medical sciences; Bone Diseases - economics; Bone Diseases - prevention & control; bone metastases; Bone Neoplasms - complications; Bone Neoplasms - drug therapy; Bone Neoplasms - economics; Bone Neoplasms - secondary; breast cancer; Breast Neoplasms - economics; Breast Neoplasms - pathology; Computer Simulation; cost and cost analysis; cost effectiveness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diphosphonates - adverse effects; Diphosphonates - economics; Diphosphonates - therapeutic use; Diseases of the osteoarticular system; Female; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; Life Expectancy; Mammary gland diseases; Medical sciences; Models, Statistical; Multivariate Analysis; Outcome Assessment, Health Care - statistics & numerical data; Pain; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Sensitivity and Specificity; Treatment Outcome; Tumors; Tumors of striated muscle and skeleton; United Kingdom; United Kingdom; bone metastases; breast cancer; cost and cost analysis; cost effectiveness; Human; Diseases of the osteoarticular system; Breast cancer; Malignant tumor; Bisphosphonates; Mammary gland diseases; Bone metastasis; Clinical management; Treatment; Health economy; Cost analysis; Cost efficiency analysis
• ISSN: 0923-7534; 1569-8041
• DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdl093

Background: Bisphosphonates are recommended to prevent skeletal related events (SREs) in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM). However, their clinical and economic profiles vary from one agent to the other. Materials and methods: Using modeling techniques, we simulated from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS) the cost and quality adjusted survival (QALY) associated with five commonly-used bisphosphonates or no therapy in this patient population. The simulation followed patients into several health states (i.e. alive or dead, experiencing an SRE or no SRE, and receiving first or second line therapy). Drugs costs, infusion costs, SREs costs, and utility values were estimated from published sources. Utilities were applied to time with and without SREs to capture the impact on quality of life. Results: Compared to no therapy, all bisphosphonates are either cost saving or highly cost-effective (with a cost per QALY ≤ £6126). Within this evaluation, zoledronic acid was more effective and less expensive than all other options. Conclusions: Based on our model, the use of bisphosphonates in breast cancer patients with bone metastases should lead to improved patient outcomes and cost savings to the NHS and possibly other similar entities.