1
|
Meertens A, Van Coile L, Van Iseghem T, Brochez L, Verhaeghe N, Hoorens I. Cost-of-Illness of Skin Cancer: A Systematic Review. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2024; 42:751-765. [PMID: 38755518 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01389-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 05/18/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Skin cancer's rising incidence demands understanding of its economic impact. The current understanding is fragmented because of the various methodological approaches applied in skin cancer cost-of-illness studies. OBJECTIVE This study systematically reviews melanoma and keratinocyte carcinoma cost-of-illness studies to provide an overview of the applied methodological approaches and to identify the main cost drivers. METHODS This systematic review was conducted adhering to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from December 2022 until December 2023 using a search strategy with entry terms related to the concepts of skin cancer and cost of illness. The records were screened on the basis of the title and abstract and subsequently on full text against predetermined eligibility criteria. Articles published before 2012 were excluded. A nine-item checklist adapted for cost-of-illness studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the articles. RESULTS This review included a total of 45 studies, together evaluating more than half a million patients. The majority of the studies (n = 36) focused on melanoma skin cancer, a few (n = 3) focused on keratinocyte carcinomas, and 6 studies examined both. Direct costs were estimated in all studies, while indirect costs were only estimated in nine studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across studies, mainly owing to disparities in study population, methodological approaches, included cost categories, and differences in healthcare systems. In melanoma skin cancer, both direct and indirect costs increased with progressing tumor stage. In advanced stage melanoma, systemic therapy emerged as the main cost driver. In contrast, for keratinocyte carcinoma no obvious cost drivers were identified. CONCLUSIONS A homogeneous skin cancer cost-of-illness study design would be beneficial to enhance between-studies comparability, identification of cost drivers, and support evidence-based decision-making for skin cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annick Meertens
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent (CRIG), Ghent, Belgium
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Laura Van Coile
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent (CRIG), Ghent, Belgium
| | - Tijs Van Iseghem
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Lieve Brochez
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent (CRIG), Ghent, Belgium
| | - Nick Verhaeghe
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
- Department of Public Health, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Hoorens
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent (CRIG), Ghent, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Masucci L, Tian F, Tully S, Feng Z, McFarlane T, Chan KKW, Wong WWL. CAR T-cell Therapy for Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma in Canada: A Cost-Utility Analysis. Med Decis Making 2024; 44:296-306. [PMID: 38486447 PMCID: PMC10988988 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x241234070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2023] [Accepted: 01/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a novel cell therapy for treating non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The development of CAR T-cell therapy has transformed oncology treatment by offering a potential cure. However, due to the high cost of these therapies, and the large number of eligible patients, decision makers are faced with difficult funding decisions. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel for adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Canada using updated survival data from the recent JULIET trial. METHODS We developed an individual-simulated discrete event simulation model to assess the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of tisagenlecleucel compared with salvage chemotherapy. Survival estimates were obtained from a published clinical trial and retrospective analysis. If patients remained progression free for 5 y, they were assumed to be in long-term remission. Costing and utility data were obtained from reports and published sources. A Canadian health care payer perspective was used, and outcomes were modeled over a lifetime horizon. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually, with costs reported in 2021 Canadian dollars. A probabilistic analysis was used, and model parameters were varied in 1-way sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses. RESULTS After we incorporated the latest clinical evidence, tisagenlecleucel led to an additional cost of $503,417 and additional effectiveness of 2.48 QALYs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $202,991 compared with salvage chemotherapy. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, tisagenlecleucel had a 0% likelihood of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS At the current drug price, tisagenlecleucel was not found to be a cost-effective option. These results heavily depend on assumptions regarding long-term survival and the price of CAR T. Real-world evidence is needed to reduce uncertainty. HIGHLIGHTS For patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who failed 2 or more lines of systemic therapy, CAR T was not found to be a cost-effective treatment option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.These results heavily depend on the expected long-term survival. The uncertainty in the model may be improved using real-world evidence reported in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Masucci
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Toronto General Hospital, ON, Canada
| | - Feng Tian
- School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Stephen Tully
- School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Zeny Feng
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | - Tom McFarlane
- School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Kelvin K. W. Chan
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - William W. L. Wong
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Toronto General Hospital, ON, Canada
- School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lewis D, Wong WWL, Lipscomb J, Horton S. An Exploratory Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of a Multi-cancer Early Detection Blood Test Compared with Standard of Care Screening in Ontario, Canada. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2024; 42:393-407. [PMID: 38150120 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01345-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/06/2023] [Indexed: 12/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Determining whether multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are cost effective is important in deciding whether they should be included in the clinical path of cancer care, especially for cancers where screening tools do not exist. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The main objective of this study is to determine the cost effectiveness of including a MCED screening regimen together with existing provincial screening protocols for selected cancers that are prevalent in Ontario, Canada, among average risk persons aged 50-75 years. The selected cancers include breast, colorectal, lung, esophageal, liver, pancreatic, stomach, and ovarian. METHODS Cost effectiveness was estimated from a provincial Ministry of Health perspective. A state-transition Markov model representing the decision path of both the proposed and existing screening strategies along the natural history of the selected types of cancers was implemented. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using data from available literature and the guidelines published by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis, which included a discount rate of 1.5% applied to all costs and outcomes. Costs were also converted to 2022 Canadian dollars. To test the robustness of the model, both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS MCED screening resulted in more diagnosed cases of each type of cancer, even at an earlier stage of disease. This was also associated with fewer related deaths compared with standard of care. Notwithstanding, the analysis revealed that the MCED intervention was not cost effective [ICER: CAD$143,369 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)], given a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the MCED intervention strategy was preferred to standard of care no more than 2% of the time at this WTP for both males and females. The model was most sensitive to the cost of MCED screening, and the levels of specificity of the MCED and colorectal cancer screening tests. CONCLUSION The main contribution of the study is to present and execute a methodological approach that can be adopted to test the cost effectiveness of an MCED tool in the Canadian setting. The model is also sufficiently generic that it could be adapted to other jurisdictions, and with consideration for increasing the WTP threshold beyond the common $100,000 per QALY limit, given the life-threatening nature of cancer, to ensure that MCED interventions are cost-effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diedron Lewis
- School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
| | - William W L Wong
- School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Joseph Lipscomb
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Cancer Prevention and Control Research Program, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Susan Horton
- School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Seefat MR, Cucchi DGJ, Groen K, Donker ML, van der Hem KG, Westerman M, Gerrits AM, Beeker A, van de Donk NWCJ, Blommestein HM, Zweegman S. Treatment sequences and drug costs from diagnosis to death in multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2024; 112:360-366. [PMID: 37821211 DOI: 10.1111/ejh.14119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2023] [Revised: 09/29/2023] [Accepted: 09/30/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Abstract
Novel therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) have improved patient survival, but their high costs strain healthcare budgets. End-of-life phases of treatment are generally the most expensive, however, these high costs may be less justifiable in the context of a less pronounced clinical benefit. To manage drug expenses effectively, detailed information on end-of-life drug administration and costs are crucial. In this retrospective study, we analysed treatment sequences and drug costs from 96 MM patients in the Netherlands who died between January 2017 and July 2019. Patients received up to 16 lines of therapy (median overall survival: 56.5 months), with average lifetime costs of €209 871 (€3111/month; range: €3942-€776 185) for anti-MM drugs. About 85% of patients received anti-MM treatment in the last 3 months before death, incurring costs of €20 761 (range: €70-€50 122; 10% of total). Half of the patients received anti-MM treatment in the last 14 days, mainly fully oral regimens (66%). End-of-life treatment costs are substantial despite limited survival benefits. The use of expensive treatment options is expected to increase costs further. These data serve as a reference point for future cost studies, and further research is needed to identify factors predicting the efficacy and clinical benefit of continuing end-of-life therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M R Seefat
- Department of Hematology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D G J Cucchi
- Department of Hematology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Internal Medicine, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - K Groen
- Department of Hematology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M L Donker
- Department of Hematology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - K G van der Hem
- Department of Internal Medicine, Zaandam Medical Center, Zaandam, The Netherlands
| | - M Westerman
- Department of Internal Medicine, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - A M Gerrits
- Department of Internal Medicine, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Beeker
- Department of Internal Medicine, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
| | - N W C J van de Donk
- Department of Hematology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H M Blommestein
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Zweegman
- Department of Hematology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Erman A, Sahakyan Y, Everett K, Greenaway C, Janjua N, Kwong JC, Wong WWL, Lu H, Sander B. Hepatitis C Attributable Healthcare Costs and Mortality among Immigrants: A Population-Based Matched Cohort Study. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 2024:5573068. [PMID: 38434933 PMCID: PMC10908570 DOI: 10.1155/2024/5573068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2023] [Revised: 02/09/2024] [Accepted: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 03/05/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Data on the economic burden of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) among immigrants are limited. Our objective was to estimate the CHC-attributable mortality and healthcare costs among immigrants in Ontario, Canada. Methods We conducted a population-based matched cohort study among immigrants diagnosed with CHC between May 31, 2003, and December 31, 2018, using linked health administrative data. Immigrants with CHC (exposed) were matched 1 : 1 to immigrants without CHC (unexposed) using a combination of hard (index date, sex, and age) and propensity-score matching. Net costs (2020 Canadian dollars) collected from the healthcare payer perspective were calculated using a phase-of-care approach and used to estimate long-term costs adjusted for survival. Results We matched 5,575 exposed individuals with unexposed controls, achieving a balanced match. The mean age was 47 years, and 52% was male. On average, 10.5% of exposed and 3.5% of unexposed individuals died 15 years postindex (relative risk = 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-3.5). The net 30-day costs per person were $88 (95% CI: 55 to 122) for the prediagnosis, $324 (95% CI: 291 to 356) for the initial phase, $1,016 (95% CI: 900 to 1,132) for the late phase, and $975 (95% CI: -25 to 1,974) for the terminal phase. The mean net healthcare cost adjusted for survival at 15 years was $90,448. Conclusions Compared to unexposed immigrants, immigrants infected with CHC have higher mortality rates and greater healthcare costs. These findings will support the planning of HCV elimination efforts among key risk groups in the province.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aysegul Erman
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Yeva Sahakyan
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Karl Everett
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Christina Greenaway
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Naveed Janjua
- BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Jeffrey C. Kwong
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
- University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Public Health Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Hong Lu
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Beate Sander
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Public Health Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sahakyan Y, Li Q, Alibhai SM, Puts M, Yeretzian ST, Anwar MR, Brennenstuhl S, McLean B, Strohschein F, Tomlinson G, Wills A, Abrahamyan L. Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in Older Adults With Cancer: Economic Evaluation Within 5C Trial. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:59-69. [PMID: 37871266 PMCID: PMC10730076 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.00930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2023] [Revised: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/22/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Geriatric assessment (GA) is a guideline-recommended approach to optimize cancer management in older adults. We conducted a cost-utility analysis alongside the 5C randomized controlled trial to compare GA and management (GAM) plus usual care (UC) against UC alone in older adults with cancer. METHODS The economic evaluation, conducted from societal and health care payer perspectives, used a 12-month time horizon. The Canadian 5C study randomly assigned patients to receive GAM or UC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using the EuroQol five dimension-5L questionnaire and health care utilization using cost diaries and chart reviews. We evaluated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for the full sample and preselected subgroups. RESULTS A total of 350 patients were included, of whom 173 received GAM and 177 UC. At 12 months, the average QALYs per patient were 0.728 and 0.751 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔQALY, -0.023 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.028]). Considering a societal perspective, the total average costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) per patient were $46,739 and $45,177 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔCost, $1,563 [95% CI, -$6,583 to $10,403]). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, GAM was not cost-effective compared with UC (INMB, -$2,713 [95% CI, -$11,767 to $5,801]). The INMB was positive ($2,984 [95% CI, -$7,050 to $14,179]; probability of being cost-effective, 72%) for patients treated with curative intent, but remained negative for patients treated with palliative intent (INMB, -$9,909 [95% CI, -$24,436 to $4,153]). Findings were similar considering a health care payer perspective. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first cost-utility analysis of GAM in cancer. GAM was cost-effective for patients with cancer treated with curative but not with palliative intent. The study provides further considerations for future adoption of GAM in practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yeva Sahakyan
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Qixuan Li
- Biostatistics Department, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Shabbir M.H. Alibhai
- Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Martine Puts
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Shant T. Yeretzian
- Turpanjian College of Health Sciences, American University of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia
| | - Mohammed R. Anwar
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sarah Brennenstuhl
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Bianca McLean
- Department of Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT
| | - Fay Strohschein
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Cancer Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - George Tomlinson
- Biostatistics Department, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Aria Wills
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lusine Abrahamyan
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Brenner DR, Carbonell C, O’Sullivan DE, Ruan Y, Basmadjian RB, Bu V, Farah E, Loewen SK, Bond TR, Estey A, Pujadas Botey A, Robson PJ. Exploring the Future of Cancer Impact in Alberta: Projections and Trends 2020-2040. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:9981-9995. [PMID: 37999145 PMCID: PMC10670527 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30110725] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2023] [Revised: 11/06/2023] [Accepted: 11/09/2023] [Indexed: 11/25/2023] Open
Abstract
The impact of cancer in Alberta is expected to grow considerably, largely driven by population growth and aging. The Future of Cancer Impact (FOCI) initiative offers an overview of the present state of cancer care in Alberta and highlights potential opportunities for research and innovation across the continuum. In this paper, we present a series of detailed projections and analyses regarding cancer epidemiological estimates in Alberta, Canada. Data on cancer incidence and mortality in Alberta (1998-2018) and limited-duration cancer prevalence in Alberta (2000-2019) were collected from the Alberta Cancer Registry. We used the Canproj package in the R software to project these epidemiological estimates up to the year 2040. To estimate the direct management costs, we ran a series of microsimulations using the OncoSim All Cancers Model. Our findings indicate that from 2020, the total number of annual new cancer cases and cancer-related deaths are projected to increase by 56% and 49% by 2040, respectively. From 2019, the five-year prevalence of all cancers in Alberta is projected to increase by 86% by 2040. In line with these trends, the overall direct cost of cancer management is estimated to increase by 53% in 2040. These estimates and projections are integral to future strategic planning and investment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Darren R. Brenner
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
| | | | | | - Yibing Ruan
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
| | | | - Vickey Bu
- Cancer Research & Analytics, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB T5J 3H1, Canada
| | - Eliya Farah
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
| | - Shaun K. Loewen
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Calgary, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada
| | - Tara R. Bond
- Cancer Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2S 3C3, Canada
| | - Angela Estey
- Cancer Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2S 3C3, Canada
| | - Anna Pujadas Botey
- Cancer Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2S 3C3, Canada
- School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada
| | - Paula J. Robson
- Cancer Research & Analytics, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB T5J 3H1, Canada
- Cancer Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2S 3C3, Canada
- School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Porteous A, Gibson S, Eddowes LA, Drayson M, Pratt G, Bowcock S, Willis F, Parkin H, Renwick S, Laketic-Ljubojevic I, Howell D, Smith A, Stern S. An Economic Model to Establish the Costs Associated With Routes to Presentation for Patients With Multiple Myeloma in the United Kingdom. Value Health Reg Issues 2023; 35:27-33. [PMID: 36841011 DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2023.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2022] [Revised: 12/01/2022] [Accepted: 01/04/2023] [Indexed: 02/27/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Patients with myeloma often face significant diagnostic delay, with up to one-third of UK patients diagnosed after an emergency presentation (EP). Compared with other routes, patients presenting as an emergency have more advanced disease, increased complications, and poorer prognosis. METHODS An economic model was developed using a decision-tree framework and lifetime time horizon to estimate costs related to different presentation routes (EP, general practitioner [GP] 2-week wait, GP urgent, GP routine, and consultant to consultant) for UK patients diagnosed as having myeloma. After diagnosis, patients received one of 3 first-line management options (observation, active treatment, or end-of-life care). Inputs were derived from UK health technology assessments and targeted literature reviews, or based on authors' clinical experience where data were unavailable. Active treatment, complication, and end-of-life care costs were included. RESULTS The average per-patient cost of treating myeloma (across all routes) was estimated at £146 261. The average per-patient cost associated with EP (£152 677) was the highest; differences were minimal compared with GP 2-week wait (£149 631) and consultant to consultant (£147 237). GP urgent (£140 025) and GP routine (£130 212) were associated with marginally lower costs. Complication (£42 252) and end-of-life care (£11 273) costs were numerically higher for EP than other routes (£25 021-£38 170 and £9772-£10 458, respectively). CONCLUSIONS An economic benefit may be associated with earlier diagnosis, gained via reduced complication and end-of-life care costs. Strategies to expedite myeloma diagnosis and minimize EPs have the potential to improve patient outcomes and may result in long-term savings that could offset any upfront costs associated with their implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Mark Drayson
- Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, England, UK
| | - Guy Pratt
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, UK
| | | | - Fenella Willis
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, UK
| | | | | | | | - Debra Howell
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, UK
| | - Alex Smith
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, UK
| | - Simon Stern
- Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Sutton, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Vijenthira A, Kuruvilla J, Crump M, Jain M, Prica A. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Frontline Polatuzumab-Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Prednisone and/or Second-Line Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Versus Standard of Care for Treatment of Patients With Intermediate- to High-Risk Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:1577-1589. [PMID: 36315922 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00478] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Recent studies of polatuzumab vedotin and CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) have shown significant improvements in progression-free survival over standard of care (SOC) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, they are costly, and it is unclear whether these strategies, alone or combined, are cost-effective over SOC. METHODS A Markov model was constructed to compare four strategies for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate- to high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: strategy 1: polatuzumab-rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (R-CHP) plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse (< 12 months); strategy 2: polatuzumab-R-CHP plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant; strategy 3: rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse; strategy 4: SOC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant). Transition probabilities were estimated from trial data. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from US and Canadian payer perspectives. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000 US dollars (USD) or Canadian dollars (CAD)/QALY were used. RESULTS In probabilistic analyses (10,000 simulations), each strategy was incrementally more effective than the previous strategy, but also more costly. Adding polatuzumab-R-CHP to the SOC had an ICER of $546,956 (338,797-1,199,923) USD/QALY and $245,381 (151,671-573,250) CAD/QALY. Adding second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $309,813 (190,197-694,200) USD/QALY and $303,163 (221,300-1,063,864) CAD/QALY. Simultaneously adding both polatuzumab-R-CHP and second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $488,284 (326,765-840,157) USD/QALY and $267,050 (182,832-520,922) CAD/QALY. CONCLUSION Given uncertain incremental benefits in long-term survival and high costs, neither polatuzumab-R-CHP frontline, CAR-T second-line, nor a combination are likely to be cost-effective in the United States or Canada at current pricing compared with the SOC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abi Vijenthira
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - John Kuruvilla
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Michael Crump
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Michael Jain
- Department of Blood and Marrow Transplant and Cellular Immunotherapy, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
| | - Anca Prica
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Ruan Y, Poirier A, Yong J, Garner R, Sun Z, Than J, Brenner DR. Long-term projections of cancer incidence and mortality in Canada: The OncoSim All Cancers Model. Prev Med 2023; 168:107425. [PMID: 36681276 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107425] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2022] [Revised: 01/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
Using the OncoSim All Cancers Model, we estimated the annual cancer incidence, mortality and cancer management costs in Canada from 2020 to 2040. Incidence for each cancer type was estimated from logistic regression analyses of the Canadian Cancer Registry (1992-2017), with province/territory, sex, five-year age groups and year as covariates. Deaths were estimated by sex and tumour site for cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2017 (deaths to the end of 2017). The total cost of a cancer type was the sum of costs for individuals across four phases of cancer care. The projections presented in this study were generated based on a simulation of 32 million cases. The OncoSim All Cancers Model projects a 40% increase in the overall number of incident cancer cases from 2020 to 2040. The number of the four most commonly diagnosed cancers in Canada (breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate) are projected to increase annually. The overall number of cancer deaths is projected to increase by 44% from 2020 to 2040. More cancer deaths are projected in males than in females. The age-standardized mortality rate is expected to remain relatively stable over time. Overall cancer management costs are projected to increase from $20.6B in 2020 to $31.4B in 2040. Due mainly to an aging population and population growth in Canada, we estimate that cancer incidence, mortality and cancer management costs will increase considerably between 2020 and 2040. These results highlight the importance of planning for increasing investment and capacity in cancer control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yibing Ruan
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Abbey Poirier
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Jean Yong
- Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rochelle Garner
- Health Analysis Division, Analytical Studies and Modelling Branch, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Zhuolu Sun
- Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - John Than
- Health Analysis Division, Analytical Studies and Modelling Branch, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Darren R Brenner
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada; Departments of Oncology and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
ß-Adrenoreceptors in Human Cancers. Int J Mol Sci 2023; 24:ijms24043671. [PMID: 36835082 PMCID: PMC9964924 DOI: 10.3390/ijms24043671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2023] [Revised: 02/04/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2023] [Indexed: 02/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Cancer is the leading cause of death and represents a significant economic burden worldwide. The numbers are constantly growing as a result of increasing life expectancy, toxic environmental factors, and adoption of Western lifestyle. Among lifestyle factors, stress and the related signaling pathways have recently been implicated in the development of tumors. Here we present some epidemiological and preclinical data concerning stress-related activation of the ß-adrenoreceptors (ß-ARs), which contributes to the formation, sequential transformation, and migration of different tumor cell types. We focused our survey on research results for breast and lung cancer, melanoma, and gliomas published in the past five years. Based on the converging evidence, we present a conceptual framework of how cancer cells hijack a physiological mechanism involving ß-ARs toward a positive modulation of their own survival. In addition, we also highlight the potential contribution of ß-AR activation to tumorigenesis and metastasis formation. Finally, we outline the antitumor effects of targeting the ß-adrenergic signaling pathways, methods for which primarily include repurposed ß-blocker drugs. However, we also call attention to the emerging (though as yet largely explorative) method of chemogenetics, which has a great potential in suppressing tumor growth either by selectively modulating neuronal cell groups involved in stress responses affecting cancer cells or by directly manipulating specific (e.g., the ß-AR) receptors on a tumor and its microenvironment.
Collapse
|
12
|
Karampampa K, Zhang W, Venkatachalam M, Cotte FE, Dhanda D. Cost-effectiveness of idecabtagene vicleucel compared with conventional care in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients in Canada and France. J Med Econ 2023; 26:243-253. [PMID: 36705644 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2023.2173466] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) is approved for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have already received an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody and have progressed on their last therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ide-cel versus conventional care in Canada and France. METHODS A partitioned survival model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ide-cel (target dose 450 × 106 CAR T cells) in its approved indication in terms of life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs. Patient-level data from the KarMMa Phase II clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03361748) and KarMMa-RW study were used to inform the model; overall and progression-free survival were extrapolated using standard parametric functions after the observed periods. The model adopted Canadian and French societal perspectives over a lifetime horizon. Costs, utilities, discounting (Canada: 1.5%, France: 2.5%), and general population mortality were country-specific. RESULTS The base case demonstrated that ide-cel was associated with more additional LYs (+2.64 and +2.51) and QALYs (+2.31 and +2.54) than conventional care at incremental costs of CAN$588,490 and €392,251 in Canada and France, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ide-cel was $255,245 per QALY in Canada, and €154,593 per QALY in France. CONCLUSION Ide-cel was associated with significant survival improvements in terms of both LYs and QALYs in patients with progressive triple-class-exposed RRMM. The ICER for ide-cel was similar to that of other approved and reimbursed RRMM therapies.
Collapse
|
13
|
Browning AF, Chong L, Read M, Hii MW. Economic burden of complications and readmission following oesophageal cancer surgery. ANZ J Surg 2022; 92:2901-2906. [PMID: 36129457 DOI: 10.1111/ans.18062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2022] [Revised: 08/18/2022] [Accepted: 09/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oesophageal cancer is the seventh most prevalent malignancy globally, and the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death. Oesophageal cancer is also one of the most costly cancers to treat. The aim of this study was to assess the financial impact of post-operative morbidity and hospital readmissions following oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained database of patients with oesophageal cancer who underwent an oesophagectomy at a single centre between July 2014 and June 2019 (N = 56). Readmission costs were also assessed in this cohort for 12 months post-operatively. RESULTS The total median cost for oesophagectomy in this cohort was AU$57 250. Major complications occurred in 40% of patients, with a median total admission cost of AU$74 606, significantly higher than patients with either minor or no complications (median admission cost of AU$52 713, P < 0.001). Patients whose operation was complicated by an anastomotic leak had a higher median admission cost than those without a leak (AU$104 328 and AU$54 972 respectively, P < 0.001). Cost centres representing the greatest proportion of costs were theatre resources and surgical ward care (medical and nursing). A total of 110 readmissions in 25 patients were recorded in the 12 months post-operatively, the majority for gastroscopy and dilatation of anastomotic stricture. CONCLUSION Post-oesophagectomy morbidity greatly increases cost of care. In addition to the clinical benefits, interventions to minimize post-operative complications are likely to result in substantial cost savings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison F Browning
- Department of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Hepatobiliary and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lynn Chong
- Department of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Hepatobiliary and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Matthew Read
- Department of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Hepatobiliary and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Michael W Hii
- Department of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Hepatobiliary and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Venetoclax in Combination with Azacitidine for the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Canadian Cost-Utility Analysis. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:7524-7536. [PMID: 36290869 PMCID: PMC9601219 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29100592] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2022] [Revised: 09/07/2022] [Accepted: 10/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
Treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) typically involves intensive chemotherapy (IC); however, there is an unmet need for approximately 50% of AML patients who are deemed unfit or ineligible for IC. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, from a Canadian perspective, the economic impact of venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (Ven+Aza) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed AML who are 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude using IC. A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Ven+Aza compared with Aza. Health states included event-free survival, progressive/relapsed disease, and death. Efficacy parameters were based on the VIALE-A trial. Analyses were conducted from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. Over a lifetime horizon, Ven+Aza was associated with a gain of 1.65 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with Aza. From an MoH perspective, Ven+Aza and Aza were associated with total costs of $204,305 and $82,333, respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $73,841/QALY. Results were similar from a societal perspective. This economic evaluation demonstrates that, in comparison with Aza, Ven+Aza is a cost-effective strategy for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed AML who are deemed unfit for IC.
Collapse
|
15
|
Francisci S, Capodaglio G, Gigli A, Mollica C, Guzzinati S. Cancer cost profiles: The Epicost estimation approach. Front Public Health 2022; 10:974505. [PMID: 36211660 PMCID: PMC9533128 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.974505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2022] [Accepted: 08/02/2022] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Sustainability of cancer burden is becoming increasingly central in the policy makers' debate, and poses a challenge for the welfare systems, due to trends towards greater intensity of healthcare service use, which imply increasing costs of cancer care. Measuring and projecting the economic burden associated with cancer and identifying effective policies for minimising its impact are important issues for healthcare systems. Scope of this paper is to illustrate a novel comprehensive approach (called Epicost) to the estimation of the economic burden of cancer, based on micro-data collected from multiple data sources. It consists of a model of cost analysis to estimate the amount of reimbursement payed by the National Health Service to health service providers (hospitals, ambulatories, pharmacies) for the expenses incurred in the diagnoses and treatments of a cohort of cancer patients; these cancer costs are estimated in various phases of the disease reflecting patients' patterns of care: initial, monitoring and final phase. The main methodological features are illustrated using a cohort of colon cancer cases from a Cancer Registry in Italy. This approach has been successfully implemented in Italy and it has been adapted to other European countries, such as Belgium, Norway and Poland in the framework of the Innovative Partnership for Action Against Cancer (iPAAC) Joint Action, sponsored by the European Commission. It is replicable in countries/regions where population-based cancer registry data is available and linkable at individual level with administrative data on costs of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silvia Francisci
- National Centre for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, National Health Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Guilia Capodaglio
- Screening and Health Impact Assessment Unit, Azienda Zero, Padova, Italy
| | - Anna Gigli
- Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, National Research Council, Rome, Italy
| | - Cristina Mollica
- Department of Statistical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Stefano Guzzinati
- Regional Epidemiological Service, Veneto Cancer Registry (RTV), Azienda Zero, Padova, Italy,*Correspondence: Stefano Guzzinati
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Treatment Costs of Colorectal Cancer by Sex and Age: Population-Based Study on Health Insurance Data from Germany. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14153836. [PMID: 35954499 PMCID: PMC9367511 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14153836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Revised: 07/27/2022] [Accepted: 08/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the German general population remains scarce as key input parameters, the costs to treat CRC, are largely unknown. Here, we provide detailed estimates on CRC treatment costs over time. Methods: Using insurance claims data from the Vilua healthcare research database, we included subjects with newly diagnosed CRC and subjects who died of CRC between 2012 and 2016. We assessed annualized CRC-related inpatient, outpatient and medication costs for up to five years after first diagnosis and prior to death, stratified by sex and age. Findings: We identified 1748 and 1117 subjects with follow-up data for at least 1 year after diagnosis and prior to death, respectively. In those newly diagnosed, average costs were highest in the first year after diagnosis (men, EUR 16,375−16,450; women, EUR 10,071−13,250) and dropped steeply in the following years, with no consistent pattern of differences with respect to age. Costs prior to death were substantially higher as compared to the initial phase of care and consistently on a high level even several years before death, peaking in the final year of life, with strong differences by sex and age (men vs. women, <70 years, EUR 34,351 vs. EUR 31,417; ≥70 years, EUR 14,463 vs. EUR 9930). Conclusion: Once clinically manifest, CRC causes substantial treatment costs over time, particularly in the palliative care setting. Strong differences in treatment costs by sex and age warrant further investigation.
Collapse
|
17
|
Merollini KMD, Gordon LG, Ho YM, Aitken JF, Kimlin MG. Cancer Survivors’ Long-Term Health Service Costs in Queensland, Australia: Results of a Population-Level Data Linkage Study (Cos-Q). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph19159473. [PMID: 35954835 PMCID: PMC9368477 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159473] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2022] [Revised: 07/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/28/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
Worldwide, the number of cancer survivors is rapidly increasing. The aim of this study was to quantify long-term health service costs of cancer survivorship on a population level. The study cohort comprised residents of Queensland, Australia, diagnosed with a first primary malignancy between 1997 and 2015. Administrative databases were linked with cancer registry records to capture all health service utilization. Health service costs between 2013–2016 were analyzed using a bottom-up costing approach. The cumulative mean annual healthcare expenditure (2013–2016) for the cohort of N = 230,380 individuals was AU$3.66 billion. The highest costs were incurred by patients with a history of prostate (AU$538 m), breast (AU$496 m) or colorectal (AU$476 m) cancers. Costs by time since diagnosis were typically highest in the first year after diagnosis and decreased over time. Overall mean annual healthcare costs per person (2013–2016) were AU$15,889 (SD: AU$25,065) and highest costs per individual were for myeloma (AU$45,951), brain (AU$30,264) or liver cancer (AU$29,619) patients. Our results inform policy makers in Australia of the long-term health service costs of cancer survivors, provide data for economic evaluations and reinforce the benefits of investing in cancer prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katharina M. D. Merollini
- School of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, QLD 4558, Australia
- Sunshine Coast Health Institute, Birtinya, QLD 4575, Australia
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +61-7-5202-3159
| | - Louisa G. Gordon
- Health Economics, Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia;
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia;
- School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
| | - Yiu M. Ho
- Rockhampton Hospital, Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Rockhampton, QLD 4700, Australia;
- Rural Clinical School, The University of Queensland, Rockhampton, QLD 4700, Australia
| | - Joanne F. Aitken
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia;
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD 4006, Australia
- School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4006, Australia
| | - Michael G. Kimlin
- School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Tsui TCO, Zeitouny S, Bremner KE, Cheung DC, Mulder C, Croxford R, Del Giudice L, Lapointe-Shaw L, Mendlowitz A, Wong WWL, Perlis N, Sander B, Teckle P, Tomlinson G, Walker JD, Malikov K, McGrail KM, Peacock S, Kulkarni GS, Pataky RE, Krahn MD. Initial health care costs for COVID-19 in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada: an interprovincial population-based cohort study. CMAJ Open 2022; 10:E818-E830. [PMID: 36126976 PMCID: PMC9497846 DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20210328] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND COVID-19 imposed substantial health and economic burdens. Comprehensive population-based estimates of health care costs for COVID-19 are essential for planning and policy evaluation. We estimated publicly funded health care costs in 2 Canadian provinces during the pandemic's first wave. METHODS In this historical cohort study, we linked patients with their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result by June 30, 2020, in 2 Canadian provinces (British Columbia and Ontario) to health care administrative databases and matched to negative or untested controls. We stratified patients by highest level of initial care: community, long-term care, hospital (without admission to the intensive care unit [ICU]) and ICU. Mean publicly funded health care costs for patients and controls, mean net (attributable to COVID-19) costs and total costs were estimated from 30 days before to 120 days after the index date, or to July 31, 2020, in 30-day periods for patients still being followed by the start of each period. RESULTS We identified 2465 matched people with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 in BC and 28 893 in Ontario. Mean age was 53.4 (standard deviation [SD] 21.8) years (BC) and 53.7 (SD 22.7) years (Ontario); 55.7% (BC) and 56.1% (Ontario) were female. Net costs in the first 30 days after the index date were $22 010 (95% confidence interval [CI] 19 512 to 24 509) and $15 750 (95% CI 15 354 to 16 147) for patients admitted to hospital, and $65 828 (95% CI 58 535 to 73 122) and $56 088 (95% CI 53 721 to 58 455) for ICU patients in BC and Ontario, respectively. In the community and long-term care settings, net costs were near 0. Total costs for all people, from 30 days before to 30 days after the index date, were $22 128 330 (BC) and $175 778 210 (Ontario). INTERPRETATION During the first wave, we found that mean costs attributable to COVID-19 were highest for patients with ICU admission and higher in BC than Ontario. Reducing the number of people who acquire COVID-19 and severity of illness are required to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Teresa C O Tsui
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Seraphine Zeitouny
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Karen E Bremner
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Douglas C Cheung
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Carol Mulder
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Ruth Croxford
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Lisa Del Giudice
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Lauren Lapointe-Shaw
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Andrew Mendlowitz
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - William W L Wong
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Nathan Perlis
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Beate Sander
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Paulos Teckle
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - George Tomlinson
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Jennifer D Walker
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Kamil Malikov
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Kimberlyn M McGrail
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Stuart Peacock
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Girish S Kulkarni
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Reka E Pataky
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| | - Murray D Krahn
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Bremner, Cheung, Krahn, Mendlowitz, Sander, Tsui); Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (Lapointe-Shaw); General Internal Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw), Toronto General Hospital; Biostatistics Research Unit (Tomlinson), University Health Network; Hospital for Sick Children (Tsui); Chiefs of Ontario (Mulder); Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (Malikov); ICES Central (Croxford, Lapointe-Shaw, Wong, Sander, Walker, Kulkarni, Krahn); Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Del Giudice); Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Tsui); Divisions of Urology (Cheung, Kulkarni, Perlis) and Surgical Oncology (Cheung, Kulkarni), Department of Surgery, and Department of Family and Community Medicine (Del Giudice), Temerty Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz), University of Toronto; Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Zeitouny, Teckle, Peacock, Pataky), BC Cancer Agency; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Zeitouny), School of Population and Public Health (McGrail, Pataky), University of British Columbia; University Canada West (Teckle), Vancouver, BC; Queens University (Mulder), Kingston, Ont.; School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo (Wong), Kitchener, Ont.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Walker), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Peacock), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Arciero V, Luo J, Parmar A, Dai WF, Beca JM, Raphael MJ, Isaranuwatchai W, Habbous S, Tadrous M, Earle CC, Biagi JJ, Mittmann N, Arias J, Gavura S, Chan KKW. Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel vs FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2022; 6:pkac047. [PMID: 35758620 PMCID: PMC9346632 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkac047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2022] [Revised: 05/08/2022] [Accepted: 06/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada. METHODS This study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method. RESULTS A total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar. CONCLUSIONS Gem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vanessa Arciero
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Ambica Parmar
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Wei Fang Dai
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jaclyn M Beca
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Michael J Raphael
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON, Canada
- St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Steven Habbous
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Craig C Earle
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jim J Biagi
- Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Nicole Mittmann
- Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jessica Arias
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Scott Gavura
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Kelvin K W Chan
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
The Burden of Health-Related Out-of-Pocket Cancer Costs in Canada: A Case-Control Study Using Linked Data. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:4541-4557. [PMID: 35877219 PMCID: PMC9322389 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29070359] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2022] [Revised: 06/02/2022] [Accepted: 06/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: The burden of out-of-pocket costs among cancer patients/survivors in Canada is not well understood. The objective of this study was to examine the health-related out-of-pocket cost burden experienced by households with a cancer patient/survivor compared to those without, examine the components of health-related costs and determine who experiences a greater burden. Data and methods: This study used a data linkage between the Survey of Household Spending and the Canadian Cancer Registry to identify households with a cancer patient/survivor (cases) and those without (controls). The out-of-pocket burden (out-of-pocket costs measured relative to household income) and mean costs were described and regression analyses examined the characteristics associated with the household out-of-pocket burden and annual out-of-pocket costs. Results: The health-related out-of-pocket cost burden and annual costs measured in households with a cancer patient/survivor were 3.08% (95% CI: 2.55–3.62%) and CAD 1600 (95% CI: 1456–1759), respectively, compared to a burden of 2.84% (95% CI: 2.31–3.38) and annual costs of CAD 1511 (95% CI: 1377–1659) measured in control households, respectively. Households with a colorectal cancer patient/survivor had a significantly higher out-of-pocket burden compared to controls (mean difference: 1.0%, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.46). Among both cases and controls, the lowest income quintile households experienced the highest health-related out-of-pocket cost burden. Interpretation: Within a universal health care system, it is still relevant to monitor health-related out-of-pocket spending that is not covered by existing insurance mechanisms; however, this is not routinely assessed in Canada. We demonstrate the feasibility of measuring such costs in households with a cancer patient/survivor using routinely collected data. While the burden and annual health-related out-of-pocket costs of households with a cancer patient/survivor were not significantly higher than control households in this study, the routine measurement of out-of-pocket costs in Canada could be systemized, providing a novel, system-level, equity-informed performance indicator, which is relevant for monitoring inequities in the burden of out-of-pocket costs.
Collapse
|
21
|
Kool R, Yanev I, Hijal T, Vanhuyse M, Cury FL, Souhami L, Kassouf W, Dragomir A. Trimodal therapy vs. radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis. Can Urol Assoc J 2022; 16:189-198. [PMID: 35099381 PMCID: PMC9245963 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.7430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Trimodal therapy (TMT) is a suitable alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). In this study, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of RC±NAC vs. TMT for MIBC in the universal and publicly funded Canadian healthcare system. METHODS We developed a Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations. Rates and probabilities of transitioning within different health states (e.g., cure, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, death) were input in the model after a scoped literature review. Two main scenarios were considered: 1) academic center; and 2) populational-level. Results were reported in life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS A total of 20 000 patients were simulated. For the academic center model, TMT was associated with increased effectiveness (both in LYG and QALY) at a higher cost compared to RC±NAC at five and 10 years. This resulted in an ICER of $19 746/QALY per patient undergoing the TMT strategy at 10 years of followup. For the populational-level model, RC±NAC was associated with higher effectiveness at 10 years, with an ICER of $3319/QALY per patient. This study was limited by heterogeneity within the studies used to build the model. CONCLUSIONS In this study, TMT performed in academic centers was cost-effective compared to RC±NAC, with higher effectiveness at a higher cost. On the other hand, RC±NAC was considered cost-effective compared to TMT at the populational-level. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ronald Kool
- Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Ivan Yanev
- Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Tarek Hijal
- Division of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Marie Vanhuyse
- Division of Medical Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Fabio L. Cury
- Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
- Division of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Luis Souhami
- Division of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Wassim Kassouf
- Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Alice Dragomir
- Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Nanwa N, Kwong JC, Feld JJ, Fangyun Wu C, Sander B. The mean attributable health care costs associated with hepatitis B virus in Ontario, Canada: A matched cohort study. CANADIAN LIVER JOURNAL 2022; 5:339-361. [DOI: 10.3138/canlivj-2021-0029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2021] [Revised: 11/15/2021] [Accepted: 11/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No Canadian studies examined the economic impact of hepatitis B virus (HBV) using population-based, patient-level data. We determined attributable costs associated with HBV from a health care payer perspective. METHODS: We conducted an incidence-based, matched cohort, cost-of-illness study. We identified infected subjects (positive HBV surface antigen, DNA, or e-antigen) between 2004 and 2014, using health administrative data. The index date was the first positive specimen. The cohort was organized into three groups: no HBV-related complications, HBV-related complications before index date, and HBV-related complications post-index date. To evaluate costs (2017 Canadian dollars), we adopted the phase-of-care approach defining six phases. Mean attributable costs were determined by evaluating mean differences between matched pairs. Hard match variables were sex, age group, index year, rurality, neighbourhood income quintile, comorbidities, and immigrant status. Costs were combined with crude survival data to calculate 1-, 5-, and 10-year costs. RESULTS: We identified 41,469 infected subjects with a mean age of 44.2 years. The majority were males (54.7%), immigrants (58.4%), and residents of major urban centres (96.8%). Eight percent had HBV-related complications before index date and 11.5% had them post index date. Across groups, mean attributable costs ranged from CAD-$27–$19 for pre-diagnosis, CAD$167–$1,062 for initial care, CAD$53–$407 for continuing care, CAD$1,033 for HBV-related complications, $304 for continuing care for complications, and CAD$2,552–$4,281 for final care. Mean cumulative 1-, 5-, and 10-year costs ranged between CAD$253–$3,067, $3,067–$20,349, and CAD$6,128–$38,968, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HBV is associated with long-term economic burden. These results support decision-making on HBV prevention and monitoring strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natasha Nanwa
- Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- ICES Central, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) collaborative, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeffrey C Kwong
- Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- ICES Central, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Toronto Western Family Health Team, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Centre for Vaccine Preventable Diseases, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jordan J Feld
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Toronto Centre for Liver Disease, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Sandra Rotman Centre for Global Health, Toronto General Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Beate Sander
- Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- ICES Central, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) collaborative, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Population Health Economics Research (PHER), University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (IHPME), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
The Economic Burden of Cancer in Canada from a Societal Perspective. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:2735-2748. [PMID: 35448197 PMCID: PMC9025082 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29040223] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2022] [Revised: 04/05/2022] [Accepted: 04/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer patients and their families experience considerable financial hardship; however, the current published literature on the economic burden of cancer at the population level has typically focused on the costs from the health system’s perspective. This study aims to estimate the economic burden of cancer in Canada from a societal perspective. The analysis was conducted using the OncoSim-All Cancers model, a Canadian cancer microsimulation model. OncoSim simulates cancer incidence and deaths using incidence and mortality data from the Canadian Cancer Registry and demography projections from Statistics Canada. Using a phase-based costing framework, we estimated the economic burden of cancer in Canada in 2021 by incorporating published direct health system costs and patients’ and families’ costs (out-of-pocket costs, time costs, indirect costs). From a societal perspective, cancer-related costs were CAD 26.2 billion in Canada in 2021; 30% of costs were borne by patients and their families. The economic burden was the highest in the first year after cancer was diagnosed (i.e., initial care). During this time, patients and families’ costs amounted to almost CAD 4.8 billion in 2021. This study provides a comprehensive estimate of the economic burden of cancer, which could inform cost–benefit analyses of proposed cancer prevention interventions.
Collapse
|
24
|
Dai WF, Beca JM, Nagamuthu C, Liu N, de Oliveira C, Earle CC, Trudeau M, Chan KKW. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pertuzumab With Trastuzumab in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8:597-606. [PMID: 35201264 PMCID: PMC8874900 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.8049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2021] [Accepted: 12/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The initial assessment of pertuzumab use for treatment of metastatic breast cancer by health technology assessment agencies suggested that pertuzumab was not cost-effective. In Ontario, Canada, pertuzumab became funded in November 2013 based on the substantial clinical benefit. To date, there is a paucity of analysis of pertuzumab using real-world data for cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE To assess the cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy vs trastuzumab and chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A population-based retrospective economic evaluation was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Patients who received first-line treatments for metastatic breast cancer from January 1, 2008, to March 31, 2018, were identified. Patients were followed up from the start of treatment up to 5 years, with maximum follow-up to March 31, 2019. Patients were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to the New Drug Funding Program database to identify receipt of first-line treatment (N = 1158). INTERVENTIONS Treatment with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy after public funding (November 25, 2013) compared with treatment with trastuzumab and chemotherapy before funding. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Cost-effectiveness, from a public payer perspective, was estimated from administrative data with a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted (1.5%). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for life-years gained and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) with bootstrapped 95% CIs were calculated. Sensitivity analysis with price reduction of pertuzumab alone or in combination with trastuzumab was conducted. RESULTS A total of 579 pairs of matched patients receiving pertuzumab and controls were included. The mean (SD) age of the matched study cohort was 58 (12.97) years; 1151 were women (99.4%). Pertuzumab resulted in 0.61 life-years gained and 0.44 QALYs gained at an incremental cost of $192 139 (all costs measured in Canadian dollar values, CAD) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $316 203 per life-year gained and $436 679 per QALY. The main factors associated with cost included the cost of pertuzumab (60%), outpatient cancer treatment delivery (24%), and trastuzumab (15%). With 100% price reduction of pertuzumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $174 027 per QALY. When the price of pertuzumab and trastuzumab were both reduced by more than 71%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased below $100 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The findings of this population-based study suggest that pertuzumab may increase survival for patients with metastatic breast cancer but would not be considered cost-effective, even after 100% price reduction, under conventional thresholds.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Fang Dai
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jaclyn M. Beca
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Ontario Health, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | - Claire de Oliveira
- ICES, Ontario, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics and Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Kelvin K. W. Chan
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Ontario Health, Ontario, Canada
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Widjaja E, Demoe L, Yossofzai O, Guttmann A, Tomlinson G, Rutka J, Snead OC, Sander B. Health Care System Costs Associated With Surgery and Medical Therapy for Children With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy in Ontario. Neurology 2022; 98:e1204-e1215. [PMID: 35169008 DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000200026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2021] [Accepted: 01/03/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Improvement in seizure control after epilepsy surgery could lead to lower health care resource use and costs, but it is uncertain whether this could offset the high costs related to surgery. This study aimed to evaluate phase-specific and cumulative long-term health care costs of surgery compared to medical therapy in children with drug-resistant epilepsy from the health care payer perspective. METHODS Children who were evaluated for epilepsy surgery and treated with surgery or medical therapy from 2003 to 2018 at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto were identified from chart review and linked to their health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with stabilized weights was used to balance the baseline covariates between the 2 groups. Patients were assigned to presurgery, surgery, short-term (first 2 years), intermediate-term (2-5 years), and long-term (>5 years) postsurgery care phases on the basis of treatment trajectory. Phase-specific and cumulative long-term health care costs were evaluated. Costs were converted from Canadian to US dollars year 2018 value. RESULTS There were 372 surgical and 258 medical patients. Costs were higher in surgical than medical patients for presurgery (3 and 39 weeks), surgery, and short-term care phase, and the attributable costs of surgery per 7 patient-days were $1,602 (95% CI $1,438-$1,785), $172 (95% CI $147-$185), $19,819 (95% CI $18,822-$20,932), and $28 (95% CI $22-$32), respectively. Costs were lower in surgical patients for intermediate- and long-term care phase, and the attributable costs were -$72 (95% CI -$124 to -$35) and -$94 (95% CI -$129 to -$63), respectively. In surgical patients, costs were highest for surgery followed by presurgery care phase, with hospitalizations accounting for the highest cost component. In medical patients, costs increased gradually from presurgery to long-term care phase. Cumulative costs were higher for surgical than medical patients in the first 7 years after surgery, but from 8 years on, costs were lower for surgical patients. DISCUSSION This study demonstrated the long-term economic benefits of epilepsy surgery compared to medical therapy for the health care system with the use of real-world data, which would justify the high costs of surgery. The results will support future economic evaluation comparing minimally invasive treatment such as laser therapy to surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elysa Widjaja
- From the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (E.W., A.G., G.T., B.H.S.) and Leong Centre for Healthy Children (A.G.), University of Toronto; Diagnostic Imaging (E.W.), Division of Neurology (E.W., O.C.S.), Neurosciences and Mental Health (L.D., O.Y.), Division of Pediatric Medicine (A.G.), and Department of Neurosurgery (J.R.), Hospital for Sick Children; ICES (E.W., A.G., B.H.S.); Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (G.T., B.H.S.), University Health Network; and Public Health Ontario (B.H.S.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Lindsay Demoe
- From the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (E.W., A.G., G.T., B.H.S.) and Leong Centre for Healthy Children (A.G.), University of Toronto; Diagnostic Imaging (E.W.), Division of Neurology (E.W., O.C.S.), Neurosciences and Mental Health (L.D., O.Y.), Division of Pediatric Medicine (A.G.), and Department of Neurosurgery (J.R.), Hospital for Sick Children; ICES (E.W., A.G., B.H.S.); Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (G.T., B.H.S.), University Health Network; and Public Health Ontario (B.H.S.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Omar Yossofzai
- From the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (E.W., A.G., G.T., B.H.S.) and Leong Centre for Healthy Children (A.G.), University of Toronto; Diagnostic Imaging (E.W.), Division of Neurology (E.W., O.C.S.), Neurosciences and Mental Health (L.D., O.Y.), Division of Pediatric Medicine (A.G.), and Department of Neurosurgery (J.R.), Hospital for Sick Children; ICES (E.W., A.G., B.H.S.); Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (G.T., B.H.S.), University Health Network; and Public Health Ontario (B.H.S.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Astrid Guttmann
- From the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (E.W., A.G., G.T., B.H.S.) and Leong Centre for Healthy Children (A.G.), University of Toronto; Diagnostic Imaging (E.W.), Division of Neurology (E.W., O.C.S.), Neurosciences and Mental Health (L.D., O.Y.), Division of Pediatric Medicine (A.G.), and Department of Neurosurgery (J.R.), Hospital for Sick Children; ICES (E.W., A.G., B.H.S.); Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (G.T., B.H.S.), University Health Network; and Public Health Ontario (B.H.S.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - George Tomlinson
- From the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (E.W., A.G., G.T., B.H.S.) and Leong Centre for Healthy Children (A.G.), University of Toronto; Diagnostic Imaging (E.W.), Division of Neurology (E.W., O.C.S.), Neurosciences and Mental Health (L.D., O.Y.), Division of Pediatric Medicine (A.G.), and Department of Neurosurgery (J.R.), Hospital for Sick Children; ICES (E.W., A.G., B.H.S.); Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (G.T., B.H.S.), University Health Network; and Public Health Ontario (B.H.S.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - James Rutka
- From the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (E.W., A.G., G.T., B.H.S.) and Leong Centre for Healthy Children (A.G.), University of Toronto; Diagnostic Imaging (E.W.), Division of Neurology (E.W., O.C.S.), Neurosciences and Mental Health (L.D., O.Y.), Division of Pediatric Medicine (A.G.), and Department of Neurosurgery (J.R.), Hospital for Sick Children; ICES (E.W., A.G., B.H.S.); Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (G.T., B.H.S.), University Health Network; and Public Health Ontario (B.H.S.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - O Carter Snead
- From the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (E.W., A.G., G.T., B.H.S.) and Leong Centre for Healthy Children (A.G.), University of Toronto; Diagnostic Imaging (E.W.), Division of Neurology (E.W., O.C.S.), Neurosciences and Mental Health (L.D., O.Y.), Division of Pediatric Medicine (A.G.), and Department of Neurosurgery (J.R.), Hospital for Sick Children; ICES (E.W., A.G., B.H.S.); Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (G.T., B.H.S.), University Health Network; and Public Health Ontario (B.H.S.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Beate Sander
- From the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (E.W., A.G., G.T., B.H.S.) and Leong Centre for Healthy Children (A.G.), University of Toronto; Diagnostic Imaging (E.W.), Division of Neurology (E.W., O.C.S.), Neurosciences and Mental Health (L.D., O.Y.), Division of Pediatric Medicine (A.G.), and Department of Neurosurgery (J.R.), Hospital for Sick Children; ICES (E.W., A.G., B.H.S.); Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (G.T., B.H.S.), University Health Network; and Public Health Ontario (B.H.S.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Canada: Population-Based Estimates of Disease Burden and Economic Costs. TOXICS 2022; 10:toxics10030146. [PMID: 35324771 PMCID: PMC8948756 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10030146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2022] [Revised: 02/23/2022] [Accepted: 03/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) contributes to substantial disease burden worldwide. We aim to quantify the disease burden and costs of EDC exposure in Canada and to compare these results with previously published findings in the European Union (EU) and United States (US). EDC biomonitoring data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (2007–2011) was applied to 15 exposure–response relationships, and population and cost estimates were based on the 2010 general Canadian population. EDC exposure in Canada (CAD 24.6 billion) resulted in substantially lower costs than the US (USD 340 billion) and EU (USD 217 billion). Nonetheless, our findings suggest that EDC exposure contributes to substantial and costly disease burden in Canada, amounting to 1.25% of the annual Canadian gross domestic product. As in the US, exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers was the greatest contributor of costs (8.8 billion for 374,395 lost IQ points and 2.6 billion for 1610 cases of intellectual disability). In the EU, organophosphate pesticides were the largest contributor to costs (USD 121 billion). While the burden of EDC exposure is greater in the US and EU, there remains a similar need for stronger EDC regulatory action in Canada beyond the current framework of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999.
Collapse
|
27
|
Paszat L, Sutradhar R, Luo J, Rabeneck L, Tinmouth J, Baxter NN. Overall Health Care Cost During the Year Following Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer Stratified by History of Colorectal Evaluative Procedures. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2021; 4:274-283. [PMID: 34877466 PMCID: PMC8643617 DOI: 10.1093/jcag/gwab001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2020] [Accepted: 02/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The cost-effectiveness of colorectal screening has been modeled; however, the cost of health care following the diagnosis of colorectal cancer has not been described stratified by history of colorectal evaluative procedures. Methods We identified persons with first diagnosis of colorectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 from the Ontario Cancer Registry, and categorized them by history of colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1 (the 10 years before the 6-month prediagnostic interval) with or without procedures during Period 2 (the 6 month prediagnostic interval), versus only during Period 2, versus none. We extracted overall health care cost 1 year following diagnosis from population-wide administrative databases. Results Among cases diagnosed at 52 to 74 years, overall health care cost among those with no colorectal evaluative procedures on or before the date of diagnosis is $71,039.65 (SD $51,825.18), compared to $48,406.15 (SD $38,843.64) among those who received colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1, with or without procedures during Period 2. Among the population aged 20 to 74 years at diagnosis, cases with ≥1 screening colonoscopies for hereditary CRC syndrome, the mean overall initial cost was between $32,300.32 (SD) and $33,084.67 (SD $39,905.77), and those with ≥1 screening colonoscopies because of a first-degree relative with CRC, was between $36,344.71 (SD $35,539.85) and $45,456.41 (SD $49,818.59). Conclusions Overall health care cost is lower among cases who received colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1, with or without procedures during Period 2, and among those with screening colonoscopy for hereditary CRC syndromes or affected first-degree relatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lawrence Paszat
- Institute for Healthcare Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rinku Sutradhar
- Institute for Healthcare Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jin Luo
- Cancer Research Program, ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Linda Rabeneck
- Institute for Healthcare Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jill Tinmouth
- Institute for Healthcare Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nancy N Baxter
- Institute for Healthcare Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Weymann D, Laskin J, Jones SJM, Roscoe R, Lim HJ, Renouf DJ, Schrader KA, Sun S, Yip S, Marra MA, Regier DA. Early-stage economic analysis of research-based comprehensive genomic sequencing for advanced cancer care. J Community Genet 2021; 13:523-538. [PMID: 34843087 PMCID: PMC8628132 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00557-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 10/06/2021] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Genomic research is driving discovery for future population benefit. Limited evidence exists on immediate patient and health system impacts of research participation. This study uses real-world data and quasi-experimental matching to examine early-stage cost and health impacts of research-based genomic sequencing. British Columbia’s Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) single-arm program applies whole genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) to characterize genomic landscapes in advanced cancers. Our cohort includes POG patients enrolled between 2014 and 2015 and 1:1 genetic algorithm–matched usual care controls. We undertake a cost consequence analysis and estimate 1-year effects of WGTA on patient management, patient survival, and health system costs reported in 2015 Canadian dollars. WGTA costs are imputed and forecast using system of equations modeling. We use Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to explore survival differences and inverse probability of censoring weighted linear regression to estimate mean 1-year survival times and costs. Non-parametric bootstrapping simulates sampling distributions and enables scenario analysis, revealing drivers of incremental costs, survival, and net monetary benefit for assumed willingness to pay thresholds. We identified 230 POG patients and 230 matched controls for cohort inclusion. The mean period cost of research-funded WGTA was $26,211 (SD: $14,191). Sequencing costs declined rapidly, with WGTA forecasts hitting $13,741 in 2021. The incremental healthcare system effect (non-research expenditures) was $5203 (95% CI: 75, 10,424) compared to usual care. No overall survival differences were observed, but outcome heterogeneity was present. POG patients receiving WGTA-informed treatment experienced incremental survival gains of 2.49 months (95% CI: 1.32, 3.64). Future cost consequences became favorable as WGTA cost drivers declined and WGTA-informed treatment rates improved to 60%. Our study demonstrates the ability of real-world data to support evaluations of only-in-research health technologies. We identify situations where precision oncology research initiatives may produce survival benefit at a cost that is within healthcare systems’ willingness to pay. This economic evidence informs the early-stage healthcare impacts of precision oncology research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deirdre Weymann
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Research Centre, 675 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L3, Canada
| | - Janessa Laskin
- Division of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Steven J M Jones
- Canada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
| | - Robyn Roscoe
- Canada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Howard J Lim
- Division of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Daniel J Renouf
- Division of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Kasmintan A Schrader
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Molecular Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Sophie Sun
- Division of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Stephen Yip
- Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Pathology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Marco A Marra
- Canada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Dean A Regier
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Research Centre, 675 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L3, Canada.
- School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Beca JM, Walsh S, Raza K, Hubay S, Robinson A, Mow E, Keech J, Chan KKW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment with crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada. BMC Cancer 2021; 21:1162. [PMID: 34715804 PMCID: PMC8556902 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08746-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2021] [Accepted: 08/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction While no direct comparative data exist for crizotinib in ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies have suggested clinical benefit with this targeted agent. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib compared to standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. Methods A Markov model was developed with a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of the Canadian publicly-funded health care system. Health states included progression-free survival (PFS), up to two further lines of therapy post-progression, palliation and death. Given a lack of comparative data and small study samples, crizotinib or chemotherapy studies with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC patients were identified and time-to-event data from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves were collected to pool PFS data. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, monitoring, adverse events and palliative care were included in 2018 Canadian dollars, with 1.5% discounting. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated probabilistically using 5000 simulations. Results In the base-case probabilistic analysis, crizotinib produced additional 0.885 life-years and 0.772 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $238,077, producing an ICER of $273,286/QALY gained. No simulations were found to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. A scenario analysis assuming efficacy equivalent to the ALK+ NSCLC population showed a slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness profile for crizotinib. Conclusions Available data appear to support superior activity of crizotinib compared to chemotherapy in ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. At the list price, crizotinib was not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds across a wide range of sensitivity analyses. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08746-z.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jaclyn M Beca
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), 525 University Ave, 3rd floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada. .,Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, 525 University Ave, 3rd floor, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Shaun Walsh
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), 525 University Ave, 3rd floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada.,Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, 525 University Ave, 3rd floor, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Kaiwan Raza
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), 525 University Ave, 3rd floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada
| | - Stacey Hubay
- Grand River Hospital, 835 King St W, Kitchener, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew Robinson
- Kingston General Hospital, 76 Stuart St, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Elena Mow
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), 525 University Ave, 3rd floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada
| | - James Keech
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), 525 University Ave, 3rd floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada
| | - Kelvin K W Chan
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, 525 University Ave, 3rd floor, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave TG 260, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Zaorsky NG, Khunsriraksakul C, Acri SL, Liu DJ, Ba DM, Lin JL, Liu G, Segel JE, Drabick JJ, Mackley HB, Leslie DL. Medical Service Use and Charges for Cancer Care in 2018 for Privately Insured Patients Younger Than 65 Years in the US. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2127784. [PMID: 34613403 PMCID: PMC8495533 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27784] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Currently, there are limited published data regarding resource use and spending on cancer care in the US. OBJECTIVE To characterize the most frequent medical services provided and the associated spending for privately insured patients with cancer in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study used data from the MarketScan database for the calendar year 2018 from a sample of 27.1 million privately insured individuals, including patients with a diagnosis of the 15 most prevalent cancers, predominantly from large insurers and self-insured employers. Overall societal health care spending was estimated for each cancer type by multiplying the mean total spending per patient (estimated from MarketScan) by the number of privately insured patients living with that cancer in 2018, as reported by the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Analyses were performed from February 1, 2018, to July 8, 2021. EXPOSURES Evaluation and management as prescribed by treating care team. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes based on cancer diagnosis code. RESULTS The estimated cost of cancer care in 2018 for 402 115 patients with the 15 most prevalent cancer types was approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US. There were a total of 38.4 million documented procedure codes for 15 cancers in the MarketScan database, totaling $10.8 billion. Patients with breast cancer contributed the greatest total number of services (10.9 million [28.4%]), followed by those with colorectal cancer (3.9 million [10.2%]) and prostate cancer (3.6 million [9.4%]). Pathology and laboratory tests contributed the highest number of services performed (11.7 million [30.5%]), followed by medical services (6.3 million [16.4%]) and medical supplies and nonphysician services (6.1 million [15.9%]). The costliest cancers were those of the breast ($3.4 billion [31.5%]), followed by lung ($1.1 billion [10.2%]) and colorectum ($1.1 billion [10.2%]). Medical supplies and nonphysician services contributed the highest total spent ($4.0 billion [37.0%]), followed by radiology ($2.1 billion [19.4%]) and surgery ($1.8 billion [16.7%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This analysis suggests that patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers had the greatest number of services performed, particularly for pathology and laboratory tests, whereas patients with breast, lung, lymphoma, and colorectal cancer incurred the greatest costs, particularly for medical supplies and nonphysician services. The cost of cancer care in 2018 for the 15 most prevalent cancer types was estimated to be approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas G. Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Samantha L. Acri
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Dajiang J. Liu
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Djibril M. Ba
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - John L. Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Guodong Liu
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Joel E. Segel
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
- Department of Health Policy and Administration, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
- Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Joseph J. Drabick
- Department of Medical Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Heath B. Mackley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania
| | - Douglas L. Leslie
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Chen L, Speers CH, Cheung WY, Spinelli JJ, Kennecke HF. Impact of new cancer therapies on outpatient treatment delivery for colorectal cancer: A population-based study. Int J Health Plann Manage 2021; 37:258-270. [PMID: 34545610 DOI: 10.1002/hpm.3308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2020] [Revised: 05/17/2021] [Accepted: 08/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
We investigated the impact of new systemic therapies approved in Canada for colorectal cancer on the frequency, intensity and duration of oncology clinic and infusion visits over five treatment phases from diagnosis (P1, P3) to treatment (P2, P4) of primary and metastatic disease, respectively, and during the last 6 months of life (P5). In total, 15,157 adult patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer and referred between 2000 and 2012 to any cancer clinic in British Columbia, Canada, were included. Frequency, intensity and duration of medical oncology clinic visits (CVs), oncology infusions (OIs) and oncology prescriptions (OPs) were measured by treatment phase. Mean, total and adjusted total duration for CVs increased for P1-5. CVs increased in P1-5, and in P1-4 when adjusted by treatment length. Adjusted and unadjusted OIs decreased in P1 coinciding with the introduction of an oral treatment option, but increased in P2-5. Mean OI duration increased in P1-5, while total and adjusted total decreased in P1 and increased in P2-5. OPs increased in P2-4, but were unchanged in P1 and P5. Multi-fold increases in resources and time required per patient were also observed, which have significant implications for demand projections in cancer care planning and delivery. In conclusion, patients required more visits in almost all treatment phases, visits on average took longer and patients were in treatment for longer periods of time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leo Chen
- School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Caroline H Speers
- Gastrointestinal Cancer Outcomes Unit, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Winson Y Cheung
- Department of Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - John J Spinelli
- Population Oncology, BC Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Hagen F Kennecke
- Providence Cancer Institute Franz Clinic, Portland Providence Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Excess cost of care associated with sepsis in cancer patients: Results from a population-based case-control matched cohort. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0255107. [PMID: 34379649 PMCID: PMC8357157 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2020] [Accepted: 07/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer patients are at significant risk of developing sepsis due to underlying malignancy and necessary treatments. Little is known about the economic burden of sepsis in this high-risk population. We estimate the short- and long-term healthcare costs of care of cancer patients with and without sepsis using individual-level linked-administrative data. METHODS We conducted a population-based matched cohort study of cancer patients aged ≥18, diagnosed between 2010 and 2017. Cases were identified if diagnosed with sepsis during the study period, and were matched 1:1 by age, sex, cancer type and other variables to controls without sepsis. Mean costs (2018 Canadian dollars) for patients with and without sepsis up to 5 years were estimated adjusted using survival probabilities at partitioned intervals. We estimated excess cost associated with sepsis presented as a cost difference between the two cohorts. Haematological and solid cancers were analysed separately. RESULTS 77,483 cancer patients with sepsis were identified and matched. 64.3% of the cohort were aged ≥65, 46.3% female and 17.8% with haematological malignancies. Among solid tumour patients, the excess cost of care among patients who developed sepsis was $29,081 (95%CI, $28,404-$29,757) in the first year, rising to $60,714 (95%CI, $59,729-$61,698) over 5 years. This was higher for haematology patients; $46,154 (95%CI, $45,505-$46,804) in year 1, increasing to $75,931 (95%CI, $74,895-$76,968). CONCLUSIONS Sepsis imposes substantial economic burden and can result in a doubling of cancer care costs, particularly during the first year of cancer diagnosis. These estimates are helpful in improving our understanding of burden of sepsis along the cancer pathway and to deploy targeted strategies to alleviate this burden.
Collapse
|
33
|
Gigli A, Francisci S, Guzzinati S, Hall A, Hachey M, Scoppa S, Mariotto A. Cancer prevalence by phase of care: an indicator for assessing health service needs. TUMORI JOURNAL 2021; 107:311-317. [PMID: 33095121 PMCID: PMC8326901 DOI: 10.1177/0300891620961839] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2020] [Revised: 07/24/2020] [Accepted: 08/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Cancer prevalence (people alive on a certain date in a population who previously had a cancer diagnosis) is expected to increase in the United States and Europe due to improvements in survival and population aging. Examination of prevalence by phase of care allows us to identify subgroups of patients according to their care trajectories, thus allowing us to improve health care planning, resource allocation, and calculation of costs. METHODS A new method to estimate prevalence by phase of care using grouped data is illustrated. Prevalence is divided into 3 mutually exclusive phases: initial, continuing, and end-of-life. An application to US and Italian data is applied to prevalent cases diagnosed with colon-rectum, stomach, lung, or breast cancer. RESULTS The distribution of phase of care prevalence estimated by cancer type and sex and results from the two datasets are very similar. Most survivors are in the continuing phase; the end-of-life phase is larger for cancers with worse prognosis. All phases prevalence is generally higher in the Italian than in the US dataset, except for lung cancer in women, where prevalence proportion in the Italian dataset is 30% lower than in the United States. DISCUSSION Incidence, survival, and population age structure are the main determinants of prevalence and they can affect differences in all phases of prevalence, as well as in discrete phases. Incidence is the most influential determinant. Ours is the first study that compares prevalence by phase of care between two populations in Italy and the United States. Despite great differences in health care management in the two countries, we found extremely similar distribution of survivors by phase of care for most cancer sites under study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Gigli
- Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, National Research Council, Rome, Lazio, Italy
| | - Silvia Francisci
- National Centre for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, National Health Institute, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Aaron Hall
- Information Management Services, Calverton, MD, USA
| | - Mark Hachey
- Information Management Services, Calverton, MD, USA
| | - Steve Scoppa
- Information Management Services, Calverton, MD, USA
| | - Angela Mariotto
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Bugge C, Saether EM, Kristiansen IS. Men receive more end-of-life cancer hospital treatment than women: fact or fiction? Acta Oncol 2021; 60:984-991. [PMID: 33979241 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.1917000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND An important goal of health care systems is equitable access to health care. Previous research, however, indicates that men receive more cancer care and health care resources than women. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a gender difference in terms of end-of-life cancer treatment in hospitals in Norway. MATERIAL AND METHODS We used nationwide patient-level data from the Norwegian Patient Registry (2013-2017, n = 64,694), and aggregated data from the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry (2013-2018, n = 66,534). We described direct medical costs and utilization of cancer treatment in hospitals (in-patient stays and out-patient clinics) and specialized palliative home care teams by the means of the following variables: gender, type of cancer, age, region of residence, place of death, and use of pharmaceutical anti-cancer treatment last month before death. Generalized linear models with a gamma distribution and log-link function were fitted to identify determinants of direct medical costs in hospital's last year of life. RESULTS Women aged 0-69 years had an average direct medical cost in hospitals of €26,117 during the last year of life, compared to €29,540 for men, while they were respectively €19,889 and €22,405 for those aged 70 years or older. These gender differences were confirmed in regression models with gender as the only covariate. Adjusted additionally for the type of cancer, the difference was 11%, while including age as a covariate reduced the difference to 6%. When the place of death was also included, the difference was down to 4%. DISCUSSION The gender difference in hospital costs last year of life can largely be explained by age at death and the proportion dying in hospitals. When adjusting for confounding factors, the differences in end-of-life costs in hospitals are minimal.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christoffer Bugge
- Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Norway
- Oslo Economics, Oslo, Norway
| | | | - Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
- Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Norway
- Oslo Economics, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Bugge C, Brustugun OT, Sæther EM, Kristiansen IS. Phase- and gender-specific, lifetime, and future costs of cancer: A retrospective population-based registry study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100:e26523. [PMID: 34190187 PMCID: PMC8257845 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000026523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2020] [Accepted: 06/04/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Valid estimates of cancer treatment costs are import for priority setting, but few studies have examined costs of multiple cancers in the same setting.We performed a retrospective population-based registry study to evaluate phase-specific (initial, continuing, and terminal phase) direct medical costs and lifetime costs for 13 cancers and all cancers combined in Norway. Mean monthly cancer attributable costs were estimated using nationwide activity data from all Norwegian hospitals. Mean lifetime costs were estimated by combining phase-specific monthly costs and survival times from the national cancer registry. Scenarios for future costs were developed from the lifetime costs and the expected number of new cancer cases toward 2034 estimated by NORDCAN.For all cancers combined, mean discounted per patient direct medical costs were Euros (EUR) 21,808 in the initial 12 months, EUR 4347 in the subsequent continuing phase, and EUR 12,085 in the terminal phase (last 12 months). Lifetime costs were higher for cancers with a 5-year relative survival between 50% and 70% (myeloma: EUR 89,686, mouth/pharynx: EUR 66,619, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: EUR 65,528). The scenario analyses indicate that future cancer costs are highly dependent on future cancer incidence, changes in death risk, and cancer-specific unit costs.Gender- and cancer-specific estimates of treatment costs are important for assessing equity of care and to better understand resource consumption associated with different cancers.Cancers with an intermediate prognosis (50%-70% 5-year relative survival) are associated with higher direct medical costs than those with relatively good or poor prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christoffer Bugge
- Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo
- Oslo Economics, Oslo
| | - Odd Terje Brustugun
- Section of Oncology, Drammen Hospital, Vestre Viken Health Trust, Drammen, Norway
| | | | - Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
- Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo
- Oslo Economics, Oslo
- Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Cheng CY, Datzmann T, Hernandez D, Schmitt J, Schlander M. Do certified cancer centers provide more cost-effective care? A health economic analysis of colon cancer care in Germany using administrative data. Int J Cancer 2021; 149:1744-1754. [PMID: 34213799 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33728] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2021] [Revised: 06/22/2021] [Accepted: 06/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Hospital certification has become an important measure to improve cancer care quality, with the potential effect of prolonging patient survival and reducing medical spending. However, yet to be explored is the cost-effectiveness of cancer care provided in certified hospitals, considering significant additional costs incurred from certification requirements. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) using two colon cancer populations (N = 1909) treated in different levels of certified hospitals (CHs) vs noncertified hospitals (NCHs) from a healthcare system's perspective. We matched patient-level data of incident colon cancer cases, diagnosed between 2008 and 2013 from a large statutory health insurance in Saxony, Germany, to calculate net treatment costs by phase (initial, continuing and terminal phase). The costs were supplemented with extra costs from 31 additional services required for certification. Effectiveness measure was total survival time in life-years. Outcome of interest was incremental costs per additional life-year. The annualized net colon cancer treatment costs by phase showed a U shape with high costs in the initial (mean €26 855; 95% CI €25 058-€28 652) and the terminal phases (mean €30 096; 95% CI €26 199-€33 993). The base-case CEA results and all sensitivity analyses consistently demonstrated longer survival and lower costs for the colon cancer cohort treated in CHs vs NCHs. To conclude, we used administrative data to derive the first cost-effectiveness evidence supporting that colon cancer care delivered in the certified cancer centers in Germany improves survival outcomes and saves costs from a healthcare system's perspective. Generalization of the study results should be exercised with caution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chih-Yuan Cheng
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Mannheim Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Thomas Datzmann
- Center for Evidence-based Healthcare (ZEGV), University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Diego Hernandez
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jochen Schmitt
- Center for Evidence-based Healthcare (ZEGV), University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Michael Schlander
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Mannheim Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.,Alfred Weber Institute, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Core Center Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Mendlowitz A, Bremner KE, Walker JD, Wong WWL, Feld JJ, Sander B, Jones L, Isaranuwatchai W, Krahn M. Health care costs associated with hepatitis C virus infection in First Nations populations in Ontario: a retrospective matched cohort study. CMAJ Open 2021; 9:E897-E906. [PMID: 34584004 PMCID: PMC8486469 DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20200247] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colonization and marginalization have affected the risk for and experience of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection for First Nations people in Canada. In partnership with the Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle, we estimated the publicly borne health care costs associated with HCV infection among Status First Nations people in Ontario. METHODS In this retrospective matched cohort study, we used linked health administrative databases to identify Status First Nations people in Ontario who tested positive for HCV antibodies or RNA between 2004 and 2014, and Status First Nations people who had no HCV testing records or only a negative test result (control group, matched 2:1 to case participants). We estimated total and net costs (difference between case and control participants) for 4 phases of care: prediagnosis (6 mo before HCV infection diagnosis), initial (after diagnosis), late (liver disease) and terminal (6 mo before death), until death or Dec. 31, 2017, whichever occurred first. We stratified costs by sex and residence within or outside of First Nations communities. All costs were measured in 2018 Canadian dollars. RESULTS From 2004 to 2014, 2197 people were diagnosed with HCV infection. The mean net total costs per 30 days of HCV infection were $348 (95% confidence interval [CI] $277 to $427) for the prediagnosis phase, $377 (95% CI $288 to $470) for the initial phase, $1768 (95% CI $1153 to $2427) for the late phase and $893 (95% CI -$1114 to $3149) for the terminal phase. After diagnosis of HCV infection, net costs varied considerably among those who resided within compared to outside of First Nations communities. Net costs were higher for females than for males except in the terminal phase. INTERPRETATION The costs per 30 days of HCV infection among Status First Nations people in Ontario increased substantially with progression to advanced liver disease and finally to death. These estimates will allow for planning and evaluation of provincial and territorial population-specific hepatitis C control efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Mendlowitz
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz, Sander, Isaranuwatchai, Krahn), University of Toronto; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Mendlowitz, Bremner, Sander, Krahn), University Health Network; ICES Central (Mendlowitz, Walker, Sander, Krahn), Toronto, Ont.; School of Rural and Northern Health (Walker), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.; School of Pharmacy (Wong), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.; Toronto Centre for Liver Disease (Feld), Toronto General Hospital; Public Health Ontario (Sander), Toronto, Ont.; Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle (Jones), London, Ont.; St. Michael's Hospital (Isaranuwatchai), Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
| | - Karen E Bremner
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz, Sander, Isaranuwatchai, Krahn), University of Toronto; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Mendlowitz, Bremner, Sander, Krahn), University Health Network; ICES Central (Mendlowitz, Walker, Sander, Krahn), Toronto, Ont.; School of Rural and Northern Health (Walker), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.; School of Pharmacy (Wong), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.; Toronto Centre for Liver Disease (Feld), Toronto General Hospital; Public Health Ontario (Sander), Toronto, Ont.; Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle (Jones), London, Ont.; St. Michael's Hospital (Isaranuwatchai), Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ont
| | - Jennifer D Walker
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz, Sander, Isaranuwatchai, Krahn), University of Toronto; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Mendlowitz, Bremner, Sander, Krahn), University Health Network; ICES Central (Mendlowitz, Walker, Sander, Krahn), Toronto, Ont.; School of Rural and Northern Health (Walker), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.; School of Pharmacy (Wong), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.; Toronto Centre for Liver Disease (Feld), Toronto General Hospital; Public Health Ontario (Sander), Toronto, Ont.; Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle (Jones), London, Ont.; St. Michael's Hospital (Isaranuwatchai), Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ont
| | - William W L Wong
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz, Sander, Isaranuwatchai, Krahn), University of Toronto; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Mendlowitz, Bremner, Sander, Krahn), University Health Network; ICES Central (Mendlowitz, Walker, Sander, Krahn), Toronto, Ont.; School of Rural and Northern Health (Walker), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.; School of Pharmacy (Wong), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.; Toronto Centre for Liver Disease (Feld), Toronto General Hospital; Public Health Ontario (Sander), Toronto, Ont.; Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle (Jones), London, Ont.; St. Michael's Hospital (Isaranuwatchai), Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ont
| | - Jordan J Feld
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz, Sander, Isaranuwatchai, Krahn), University of Toronto; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Mendlowitz, Bremner, Sander, Krahn), University Health Network; ICES Central (Mendlowitz, Walker, Sander, Krahn), Toronto, Ont.; School of Rural and Northern Health (Walker), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.; School of Pharmacy (Wong), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.; Toronto Centre for Liver Disease (Feld), Toronto General Hospital; Public Health Ontario (Sander), Toronto, Ont.; Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle (Jones), London, Ont.; St. Michael's Hospital (Isaranuwatchai), Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ont
| | - Beate Sander
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz, Sander, Isaranuwatchai, Krahn), University of Toronto; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Mendlowitz, Bremner, Sander, Krahn), University Health Network; ICES Central (Mendlowitz, Walker, Sander, Krahn), Toronto, Ont.; School of Rural and Northern Health (Walker), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.; School of Pharmacy (Wong), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.; Toronto Centre for Liver Disease (Feld), Toronto General Hospital; Public Health Ontario (Sander), Toronto, Ont.; Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle (Jones), London, Ont.; St. Michael's Hospital (Isaranuwatchai), Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ont
| | - Lyndia Jones
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz, Sander, Isaranuwatchai, Krahn), University of Toronto; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Mendlowitz, Bremner, Sander, Krahn), University Health Network; ICES Central (Mendlowitz, Walker, Sander, Krahn), Toronto, Ont.; School of Rural and Northern Health (Walker), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.; School of Pharmacy (Wong), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.; Toronto Centre for Liver Disease (Feld), Toronto General Hospital; Public Health Ontario (Sander), Toronto, Ont.; Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle (Jones), London, Ont.; St. Michael's Hospital (Isaranuwatchai), Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ont
| | - Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz, Sander, Isaranuwatchai, Krahn), University of Toronto; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Mendlowitz, Bremner, Sander, Krahn), University Health Network; ICES Central (Mendlowitz, Walker, Sander, Krahn), Toronto, Ont.; School of Rural and Northern Health (Walker), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.; School of Pharmacy (Wong), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.; Toronto Centre for Liver Disease (Feld), Toronto General Hospital; Public Health Ontario (Sander), Toronto, Ont.; Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle (Jones), London, Ont.; St. Michael's Hospital (Isaranuwatchai), Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ont
| | - Murray Krahn
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mendlowitz, Sander, Isaranuwatchai, Krahn), University of Toronto; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative (Mendlowitz, Bremner, Sander, Krahn), University Health Network; ICES Central (Mendlowitz, Walker, Sander, Krahn), Toronto, Ont.; School of Rural and Northern Health (Walker), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.; School of Pharmacy (Wong), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.; Toronto Centre for Liver Disease (Feld), Toronto General Hospital; Public Health Ontario (Sander), Toronto, Ont.; Ontario First Nations HIV/AIDS Education Circle (Jones), London, Ont.; St. Michael's Hospital (Isaranuwatchai), Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ont
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Bhattacharya K, Bentley JP, Ramachandran S, Chang Y, Banahan BF, Shah R, Bhakta N, Yang Y. Phase-Specific and Lifetime Costs of Multiple Myeloma Among Older Adults in the US. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2116357. [PMID: 34241627 PMCID: PMC8271356 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.16357] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Health care costs associated with diagnosis and care among older adults with multiple myeloma (MM) are substantial, with cost of care and the factors involved differing across various phases of the disease care continuum, yet little is known about cost of care attributable to MM from a Medicare perspective. OBJECTIVE To estimate incremental phase-specific and lifetime costs and cost drivers among older adults with MM enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A retrospective cohort study was conducted using population-based registry data from the 2007-2015 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database linked with 2006-2016 Medicare administrative claims data. Data analysis included 4533 patients with newly diagnosed MM and 4533 matched noncancer Medicare beneficiaries from a 5% sample of Medicare to assess incremental MM lifetime and phase-specific costs (prediagnosis, initial care, continuing care, and terminal care) and factors associated with phase-specific incremental MM costs. The study was conducted from June 1, 2019, to April 30, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Incremental MM costs were calculated for the disease lifetime and the following 4 phases of care: prediagnosis, initial, continuing care, and terminal. RESULTS Of the 4533 patients with MM included in the study, 2374 were women (52.4%), 3418 (75.4%) were White, and mean (SD) age was 75.8 (6.8) years (2313 [51.0%] aged ≥75 years). The characteristics of the control group were similar; however, mean (SD) age was 74.2 (8.8) years (2839 [62.6%] aged ≤74 years). Mean adjusted incremental MM lifetime costs were $184 495 (95% CI, $183 099-$185 968). Mean per member per month phase-specific incremental MM costs were estimated to be $1244 (95% CI, $1216-$1272) for the prediagnosis phase, $11 181 (95% CI, $11 052-$11 309) for the initial phase, $5634 (95% CI, $5577-$5694) for the continuing care phase, and $6280 (95% CI, $6248-$6314) for the terminal phase. Although inpatient and outpatient costs were estimated as the major cost drivers for the prediagnosis (inpatient, 55.8%; outpatient, 40.2%), initial care (inpatient, 38.1%; outpatient, 35.5%), and terminal (inpatient, 33.0%; outpatient, 34.6%) care phases, prescription drugs (44.9%) were the largest cost drivers in the continuing care phase. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The findings of this study suggest that there is substantial burden to Medicare associated with diagnosis and care among older adults with MM, and the cost of care and cost drivers vary across different phases of the cancer care continuum. The study findings might aid policy discussions regarding MM care and coverage and help further the development of alternative payment models for MM, accounting for differential costs across various phases of the disease continuum and their drivers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kaustuv Bhattacharya
- Center for Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
- Department of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
| | - John P. Bentley
- Center for Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
- Department of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
| | - Sujith Ramachandran
- Center for Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
- Department of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
| | - Yunhee Chang
- Department of Nutrition and Hospitality Management, University of Mississippi, University
| | - Benjamin F. Banahan
- Center for Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
- Department of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
| | | | - Nickhill Bhakta
- Department of Global Pediatric Medicine, St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Yi Yang
- Center for Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
- Department of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Cost-Utility Analysis of Radiation Treatment Modalities for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021; 28:2385-2398. [PMID: 34202403 PMCID: PMC8293133 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28040219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2021] [Revised: 06/16/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Variable costs of different radiation treatment modalities have played an important factor in selecting the most appropriate treatment for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS Analysis using a Markov model was conducted to simulate 20-year disease trajectory, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health system costs of a cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients with mean age of 60 years. Clinical outcomes on toxicity and disease recurrence were measured and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed, varying input parameters simultaneously according to their distributions. RESULTS Among the six radiation treatment modalities, including conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), hypofractionated IMRT, IMRT combined with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, HDR brachytherapy monotherapy, low-dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), SBRT was found to be more cost-effective when compared with LDR-b and other treatment modalities, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $2985 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS Stereotactic body radiotherapy is the most cost-effective radiation treatment modality in treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer, while treatment toxicity and cost data are the key drivers of the cost-utility. Further work is required with long-term follow-up for SBRT.
Collapse
|
40
|
Monteith BE, Venner CP, Cheung MC, Pater J, Shepherd L, Richardson H, Reece D, Gul E, Lalancette M, Castonguay V, Kukreti V, Tiedemann R, Phua C, Bhella S, Dudebout J, Sherry M, Yen H, Chen BE, Hay AE. A descriptive cost-analysis of MYX.1/MCRN003, a phase 2 clinical trial evaluating high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2021; 107:333-342. [PMID: 34053112 DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2021] [Revised: 05/18/2021] [Accepted: 05/21/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prevalence of multiple myeloma is increasing and there is a need to evaluate escalating therapy costs (Canadian Cancer Statistics A, 2020). The MYX.1 phase II trial showed that high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (wKCD) is efficacious in relapsed and refractory disease. We conducted a descriptive cost analysis, from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system, using trial data. METHODS The primary outcome was the mean total cost per patient. Resource utilization data were collected from all 75 trial patients over a trial time horizon. Costs are presented in Canadian dollars (2020). RESULTS The cost of treatment was calculated from the time of patient (pt) enrollment until the second data lock. The mean total cost was $203 336.08/pt (range $17 891.27-$505 583.55) Canadian dollars (CAD, where 1 CAD = 0.67 Euro (EUR)) and $14 081.45/pt per cycle. The median number of cycles was 15. The predominant cost driver was the cost of chemotherapy accounting for an average of $179 332.78/pt or $12 419.17/pt per cycle. Carfilzomib acquisition accounted for the majority of chemotherapy costs - $162 471.65/pt or $11 251.50/pt per cycle. Fifty-six percent (56%) of patients had at least one hospitalization during the trial period with an average cost of $12 657.86 per hospitalization. Three patients developed thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) with an average cost of $18 863.32/pt including the cost of hospitalizations and therapeutic plasma exchange. CONCLUSIONS High-dose wKCD is an active triplet regimen for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) associated with reduced total cost compared with twice-weekly carfilzomib-based regimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bethany E Monteith
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.,Cancer Center of Southeastern Ontario, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | | | - Matthew C Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Joe Pater
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Lois Shepherd
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | | | - Donna Reece
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Engin Gul
- Canadian Myeloma Research Group (formerly the Myeloma Canada Research Network), Vaughan, ON, Canada
| | - Marc Lalancette
- CHU de Québec, Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada
| | - Vincent Castonguay
- CHU de Québec, Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada
| | - Vishal Kukreti
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rodger Tiedemann
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Chai Phua
- Victoria Hospital, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Sita Bhella
- Cancer Center of Southeastern Ontario, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Jill Dudebout
- Cancer Center of Southeastern Ontario, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Max Sherry
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Hope Yen
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Bingshu E Chen
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Annette E Hay
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.,Cancer Center of Southeastern Ontario, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&I). J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11060511. [PMID: 34199804 PMCID: PMC8226444 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11060511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2021] [Revised: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 05/31/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Early detection of breast cancer through screening reduces breast cancer mortality. The benefits of screening must also be considered within the context of potential harms (e.g., false positives, overdiagnosis). Furthermore, while breast cancer risk is highly variable within the population, most screening programs use age to determine eligibility. A risk-based approach is expected to improve the benefit-harm ratio of breast cancer screening programs. The PERSPECTIVE I&I (Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation) project seeks to improve personalized risk assessment to allow for a cost-effective, population-based approach to risk-based screening and determine best practices for implementation in Canada. This commentary describes the four inter-related activities that comprise the PERSPECTIVE I&I project. 1: Identification and validation of novel moderate to high-risk susceptibility genes. 2: Improvement, validation, and adaptation of a risk prediction web-tool for the Canadian context. 3: Development and piloting of a socio-ethical framework to support implementation of risk-based breast cancer screening. 4: Economic analysis to optimize the implementation of risk-based screening. Risk-based screening and prevention is expected to benefit all women, empowering them to work with their healthcare provider to make informed decisions about screening and prevention.
Collapse
|
42
|
Ruan Y, Poirier AE, Pader J, Asakawa K, Lu C, Memon S, Miller AB, Walter SD, Villeneuve PJ, King WD, Volesky KD, Smith L, De P, Friedenreich CM, Brenner DR. Estimating the future cancer management costs attributable to modifiable risk factors in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2021; 112:1083-1092. [PMID: 34036521 DOI: 10.17269/s41997-021-00502-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2020] [Accepted: 02/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES An estimated 33-37% of incident cancers in Canada are attributable to modifiable risk factors. Interventions targeting these risk factors would minimize the substantial health and economic burdens Canadians face due to cancer. We estimate the future health and economic burden of cancer in Canada by incorporating data from the Canadian Population Attributable Risk of Cancer (ComPARe) study into OncoSim, a web-based microsimulation tool. METHODS Using the integrated OncoSim population attributable risk and population impact measures, we evaluated risk factor-targeted intervention scenarios implemented in 2020, assuming the targeted risk factor prevalence reduction would be achieved by 2032 with a 12-year latency period. RESULTS We estimate that smoking will be the largest contributor to cancer-related costs, with a cost of CAD $44.4 billion between 2032 and 2044. An estimated CAD $3.3 billion of the cost could be avoided with a 30% reduction in smoking prevalence by 2022. Following smoking, the next highest cancer management costs are associated with inadequate physical activity and excess body weight, accounting for CAD $10.7 billion ($2.7 billion avoidable) and CAD $9.8 billion ($3.2 billion avoidable), respectively. Avoidable costs for other risk factors range from CAD $90 million to CAD $2.5 billion. CONCLUSION Interventions targeting modifiable cancer risk factors could prevent a substantial number of incident cancer cases and billions of dollars in cancer management costs. With limited budgets and rising costs in cancer care in Canada, these simulation models and results are valuable for researchers and policymakers to inform decisions and prioritize and evaluate intervention programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yibing Ruan
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, T2S 3C3, Canada
| | - Abbey E Poirier
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, T2S 3C3, Canada
| | - Joy Pader
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, T2S 3C3, Canada
| | | | - Chaohui Lu
- Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Saima Memon
- Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Anthony B Miller
- Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Stephen D Walter
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Paul J Villeneuve
- Department of Health Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Will D King
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Karena D Volesky
- Gerald Bronfman Department of Oncology, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Leah Smith
- Canadian Cancer Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Christine M Friedenreich
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, T2S 3C3, Canada.,Departments of Oncology and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Darren R Brenner
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, T2S 3C3, Canada. .,Departments of Oncology and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Lipton JH, Zargar M, Warner E, Greenblatt EE, Lee E, Chan KKW, Wong WWL. Cost effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation and preimplantation genetic testing to prevent transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations. Hum Reprod 2021; 35:434-445. [PMID: 32099994 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2018] [Revised: 08/09/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Is it cost-effective to use in vitro fertilisation and preimplantation genetic testing of monogenic defects (IVT/PGT-M) to prevent transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations to second-generation new births in comparison with naturally conceived births? SUMMARY ANSWER In this cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that IVF/PGT-M is cost-effective for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers if using a willingness to pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation have a significantly increased risk of several types of cancer throughout their lifetime. The cost of risk reduction, screening and treatment of cancer in this population is high. In addition, there is a 50% chance of passing on this genetic mutation to each child. One option to avoid transmission of an inherited deleterious gene to one's offspring involves in vitro fertilisation with preimplantation genetic testing. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We implemented a state transition model comparing the healthcare impact of a cohort of healthy children born after IVF/PGT-M, who have a population risk of developing cancer, to a cohort of naturally conceived live-births, half of whom are carriers of the BRCA mutation. Transition probabilities are based on published sources, a lifetime horizon and a perspective of a provincial Ministry of Health in Canada. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The target population is the second-generation new births who have at least one parent with a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, IVF/PGT-M is a cost-effective intervention for carriers of either BRCA mutation. For BRCA1, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for IVF/PGT-M is $14 242/QALY. For BRCA2, the ICER of intervention is $12 893/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results show that IVF/PGT-M has a 98.4 and 97.3% chance of being cost-effective for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively, at the $50 000/QALY threshold. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Our model did not include the short-term negative effect of IVF/PGT-M on the woman's quality of life; in addition, our model did not consider any ethical issues related to post-implantation genetic testing. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS In countries in which the healthcare of a large segment of the population is covered by a single payer system such as the government, it would be cost-effective for that payer to cover the cost of IVF/PGT-M for couples in which one member has a BRCA mutation, in order to avoid the future costs and disutility of managing offspring with an inherited BRCA mutation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Dr Wong's research program was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canadian Liver Foundation and an Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science Early Researcher Award. All authors declared no conflict of interests.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph H Lipton
- Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
| | - Mahdi Zargar
- School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Ellen Warner
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Esther Lee
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Kelvin K W Chan
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Canada
| | - William W L Wong
- School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Schizas D, Mylonas KS, Hasemaki N, Mpaili E, Ntomi V, Michalinos A, Theochari NA, Theochari CA, Mpoura M, Bakopoulos A, Liakakos T. Esophageal cancer surgery in Greece during the era of the financial crisis. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34:5881832. [PMID: 32766686 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doaa067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2020] [Revised: 05/12/2020] [Accepted: 06/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study is to describe outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery in a quaternary upper gastrointestinal (GI) center in Athens during the era of the Greek financial crisis. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients that underwent esophagectomy for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer at an upper GI unit of the University of Athens, during the period January 2004-June 2019. Time-to-event analyses were performed to explore trends in survival and recurrence. A total of 146 patients were identified. Nearly half of the patients (49.3%) underwent surgery during the last 4 years of the financial crisis (2015-2018). Mean age at the time of surgery was 62.3 ± 10.3 years, and patients did not present at older ages during the recession (P = 0.50). Most patients were stage III at the time of surgery both prior to the recession (35%) and during the financial crisis (39.8%, P = 0.17). Ivor-Lewis was the most commonly performed procedure (67.1%) across all eras (P = 0.06). Gastric conduit was the most common form of GI reconstruction (95.9%) following all types of surgery (P < 0.001). Pre-recession anastomoses were usually performed using a circular stapler (65%). Both during (88.1%) and following the recession (100%), the vast majority of anastomoses were hand-sewn. R0 resection was achieved in 142 (97.9%) patients. Anastomosis technique did not affect postoperative leak (P = 0.3) or morbidity rates (P = 0.1). Morbidity rates were not significantly different prior to (25%), during (46.9%), and after (62.5%) the financial crisis, P = 0.16. Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (26.9%, P = 0.90) or radiation (8.4%, P = 0.44) as well as adjuvant chemotherapy (54.8%, P = 0.85) and irradiation (13.7%, P = 0.49) was the same across all eras. Disease-free survival (DFS) and all-cause mortality rates were 41.2 and 47.3%, respectively. Median DFS and observed survival (OS) were 11.3 and 22.7 months, respectively. The financial crisis did not influence relapse (P = 0.17) and survival rates (P = 0.91). The establishment of capital controls also had no impact on recurrence (P = 0.18) and survival (P = 0.94). Austerity measures during the Greek financial crisis did not influence long-term esophageal cancer outcomes. Therefore, achieving international standards in esophagectomy may be possible in resource-limited countries when centralizing care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dimitrios Schizas
- First Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Konstantinos S Mylonas
- First Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Natasha Hasemaki
- First Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Efstratia Mpaili
- First Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Vasileia Ntomi
- Third Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | | | - Nikoletta A Theochari
- First Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Christina A Theochari
- First Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Maria Mpoura
- First Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Anargyros Bakopoulos
- Third Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Theodoros Liakakos
- First Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
de Oliveira C, Cheng J, Chan K, Earle CC, Krahn M, Mittmann N. High-Cost Patients and Preventable Spending: A Population-Based Study. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 18:23-31. [PMID: 31910386 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.7342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2019] [Accepted: 07/26/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although high-cost (HC) patients make up a small proportion of patients, they account for most health system costs. However, little is known about HC patients with cancer or whether some of their care could potentially be prevented. This analysis sought to characterize HC patients with cancer and quantify the costs of preventable acute care (emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations). METHODS This analysis examined a population-based sample of all HC patients in Ontario in 2013. HC patients were defined as those above the 90th percentile of the cost distribution; all other patients were defined as non-high-cost (NHC). Patients with cancer were identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were examined and the costs of preventable acute care for both groups by category of visit/condition were estimated using validated algorithms. RESULTS Compared with NHC patients with cancer (n=369,422), HC patients with cancer (n=187,770) were older (mean age 70 vs 65 years), more likely to live in low-income neighborhoods (19% vs 16%), sicker, and more likely to live in long-term care homes (8% vs 0%). Although most patients from both cohorts tended to be diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer, those with multiple myeloma or pancreatic or liver cancers were overrepresented among the HC group. Moreover, HC patients were more likely to have advanced cancer at diagnosis and be in the initial or terminal phase of treatment compared with NHC patients. Among HC patients with cancer, 9% of spending stemmed from potentially preventable/avoidable acute care, whereas for NHC patients, this spending was approximately 30%. CONCLUSIONS HC patients with cancer are a unique subpopulation. Given the type of care they receive, there seems to be limited scope to prevent acute care spending among this patient group. To reduce costs, other strategies, such as making hospital care more efficient and generating less costly encounters involving chemotherapy, should be explored.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire de Oliveira
- Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto.,Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto.,Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto
| | - Joyce Cheng
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto
| | - Kelvin Chan
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto
| | | | - Murray Krahn
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Toronto; and
| | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
The Economic Impact of Rectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study in Italy. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2021; 18:ijerph18020474. [PMID: 33430156 PMCID: PMC7827442 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18020474] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2020] [Revised: 01/02/2021] [Accepted: 01/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Costs of cancer care are increasing worldwide, and sustainability of cancer burden is critical. In this study, the economic impact of rectal cancer on the Italian healthcare system, measured as public healthcare expenditure related to investigation and treatment of rectal cancer patients is estimated. A cross-sectional cohort of 9358 rectal cancer patients is linked, on an individual basis, to claims associated to rectal cancer diagnosis and treatments. Costs refer mainly to years 2010–2011 and are estimated by phase of care, as healthcare needs vary along the care pathway: diagnostic procedures are mainly provided in the first year, surveillance procedures are addressed to chronically ill patients, and end-of-life procedures are given in the terminal status. Clinical approaches and corresponding costs are specific by cancer type and vary by phase of care, stage at diagnosis, and age. Surgery is undertaken by the great majority of patients. Thus, hospitalization is the main cost driver. The evidence produced can be used to improve planning and allocation of healthcare resources. In particular, early diagnosis of rectal cancer is a gain in healthcare budget. Policies raising spreading of and adherence to screening plans, above all when addressed to people living in Southern Italy, should be strongly encouraged.
Collapse
|
47
|
Shah R, Corman S, Shah A, Kebede N, Nwankwo C. Phase-specific and lifetime economic burden of cervical cancer and endometrial cancer in a commercially insured United States population. J Med Econ 2021; 24:1221-1230. [PMID: 34686073 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2021.1996958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
AIM To estimate the incremental phase-specific and lifetime economic burden among newly diagnosed cervical and endometrial cancer patients vs. non-cancer controls. METHODS Cervical and endometrial cancer patients newly diagnosed between January 2015 and June 2018 were identified in the Optum Clinformatics DataMart database. The index date was the date of the first diagnosis for cancer cases and the first claim date after 12 months of continuous enrollment for non-cancer controls. Patients were followed until death/loss of enrollment/end of data availability. Per patient per month (PPPM) costs attributable to cancer were calculated for four phases: pre-diagnosis (3 months before diagnosis), initial (6 months post-diagnosis), terminal (6 months pre-death), and continuation (remaining time between initial and terminal phases). Survival data were obtained to determine the monthly proportion of patients in each phase. Total survival adjusted monthly costs were obtained by multiplying the proportion of patients in each phase by the total cost incurred during that month. Phase-specific and lifetime incremental costs of cervical and endometrial cancer were obtained using generalized linear models. RESULTS The analytic cohort included 1,002 cervical cancer patients and 4,005 matched non-cancer controls and 5,003 endometrial cancer patients matched with 19,999 non-cancer controls. Mean adjusted incremental PPPM lifetime costs (95% CI) for cervical cancer and endometrial cancer cases were $5,910 ($5,373-$6,446) and $3,475 ($3,259-$3,691), respectively. Incremental total PPPM phase-specific costs attributable to cervical and endometrial cancer were pre-diagnosis (cervical: $1,057; endometrial: $3,315), initial ($12,084; $8,618), continuation ($2,732; $1,147), and terminal ($2,702; $5,442). Incremental costs were significantly higher for cancer patients vs. non-cancer controls across patient lifetime and all phases of care (except terminal phase costs for cervical cancer). Outpatient costs were the major driver of costs across all post-diagnosis phases. CONCLUSION This study highlights the cost burden associated with cervical/endometrial cancer and cost variation by phases of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruchit Shah
- Open Health Evidence and Access, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Anuj Shah
- Open Health Evidence and Access, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Widjaja E, Guttmann A, Tomlinson G, Snead OC, Sander B. Economic burden of epilepsy in children: A population-based matched cohort study in Canada. Epilepsia 2020; 62:152-162. [PMID: 33258123 DOI: 10.1111/epi.16775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2020] [Revised: 11/06/2020] [Accepted: 11/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The economic burden of childhood epilepsy to the health care system remains poorly understood. This study aimed to determine phase-specific and cumulative long-term health care costs in children with epilepsy (CWE) from the health care payer perspective. METHODS This cohort study utilized linked health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Incident childhood epilepsy cases were identified from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2017. CWE were matched to children without epilepsy (CWOE) on age, sex, rurality, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities, and assigned prediagnosis, initial, ongoing, and final care phase based on clinical trajectory. Phase-specific, 1-year and 5-year cumulative health care costs, attributable costs of epilepsy, and distribution of costs across different ages were evaluated. RESULTS A total of 24 411 CWE were matched to CWOE. The costs were higher for prediagnosis and initial care than ongoing care in CWE. Hospitalization was the main cost component. The costs of prediagnosis, initial, and ongoing care were higher in CWE than CWOE, with the attributable costs at $490 (95% confidence interval [CI] = $352-$616), $1322 (95% CI = $1247-$1402), and $305 (95% CI = $276-$333) per 30 patient-days, respectively. Final care costs were lower in CWE than CWOE, with attributable costs at -$2515 (95% CI = -$6288 to $961) per 30 patient-days. One-year and 5-year cumulative costs were higher in CWE ($14 776 [95% CI = $13 994-$15 546] and $39 261 [95% CI = $37 132-$41 293], respectively) than CWOE ($6152 [95% CI = $5587-$6768] and $15 598 [95% CI = $14 291-$17 006], respectively). The total health care costs were highest in the first year of life in CWE for prediagnosis, initial, and ongoing care. SIGNIFICANCE Health care costs varied along the continuum of epilepsy care, and were mainly driven by hospitalization costs. The findings identified avenues for remediation, such as enhancing care around the time of epilepsy diagnosis and better care coordination for epilepsy and comorbidities, to reduce hospitalization costs and the economic burden of epilepsy care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elysa Widjaja
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Diagnostic Imaging, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Division of Neurology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.,ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Astrid Guttmann
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.,ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Department of Pediatrics, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Leong Centre for Healthy Children, University of Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - George Tomlinson
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - O Carter Snead
- Division of Neurology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Beate Sander
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.,ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Public Health Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Beta-Blockers and Cancer: Where Are We? Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2020; 13:ph13060105. [PMID: 32466499 PMCID: PMC7345088 DOI: 10.3390/ph13060105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2020] [Revised: 05/21/2020] [Accepted: 05/22/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. After diagnosis, cancer treatment may involve radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. Several of the approaches used to treat cancer also attack normal cells and, thus, there is the need for more effective treatments that decrease the toxicity to normal cells and increase the success rates of treatment. The use of beta-blockers in cancer has been studied for their antagonist action on the adrenergic system through inhibition of beta-adrenergic receptors. Besides regulating processes such as blood pressure, heart rate, and airway strength or reactivity, beta-blockers block mechanisms that trigger tumorigenesis, angiogenesis, and tumor metastasis. This study presents a literature review of the available studies addressing cancer treatments and beta-blockers. Overall, data suggest that propranolol may be used as a complement for the treatment of several types of cancer due to its ability to improve cancer outcomes by decreasing cancer cell proliferation rates. Nonetheless, additional in vitro studies should be performed to fully understand the protective role of BBs in cancer patients.
Collapse
|
50
|
Wu CF, Lairson DR, Dahlstrom KR, Fokom Domgue J, Fu S, Sturgis EM, Chan W. Lifetime health care costs of oropharyngeal cancer for commercially insured patients in the United States. Head Neck 2020; 42:2321-2329. [PMID: 32359131 DOI: 10.1002/hed.26201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2019] [Accepted: 04/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Incidence of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) is expected to increase but its health care cost is unknown. The purpose for this study was to estimate the phase-specific lifetime health care costs of OPC for commercially insured individuals in the United States. METHODS We used the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter Database to identify our patient population. Cox survival analysis was used to estimate patients' monthly survival probabilities. We determined the ratios of the cumulative costs up to a particular survival probability and the costs from that time point to death for all subjects who died before end of the 5-year follow-up period. This relationship was then used to predict phase-specific lifetime health care costs. RESULTS Our study included 2445 patients with OPC. The predicted phase-specific lifetime health care costs attributable to OPC were $88 872, $24 038, and $1537 in the initial, continuous, and terminal phases, respectively, among commercially insured patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chi-Fang Wu
- Department of Management, Policy, and Community Health, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David R Lairson
- Department of Management, Policy, and Community Health, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Kristina R Dahlstrom
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Joël Fokom Domgue
- Department of Epidemiology and Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Yaounde, Yaounde, Cameroon
| | - Shuangshuang Fu
- Department of Health Services Research, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Erich M Sturgis
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Wenyaw Chan
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|