Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 273–279

Conflict of interest in economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: a systematic review

  • Sekwon Jang
  • Young Kwang Chae
  • Tufia Haddad
  • Navneet S. Majhail
Review

Abstract

To determine whether authors conducting economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions if the economic study is sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug. Articles reporting the economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer were selected from PubMed in May 2009. Information was collected on the types of analysis, the qualitative conclusion, the quantitative results, and the funding sources. Fisher’s exact test was conducted to compare the frequency of unfavorable conclusions based on study sponsorship. Thirty-two eligible articles were identified. Twenty-six were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 4 were funded by non-pharmaceutical companies. Two studies did not report a funding source. Twenty-one studies evaluated aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant setting, while 11 studies examined their use in advanced breast cancer. Twenty-two studies evaluated one type aromatase inhibitor, while 10 compared multiple types of aromatase inhibitors. Only one of the 26 (4%) pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported unfavorable cost-effectiveness of an aromatase inhibitor, which was a competitor’s product, whereas two of four (50%) non-pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies concluded aromatase inhibitors are not cost-effective in certain clinical scenarios (P < 0.05). Seven pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies conducted a comparison among several aromatase inhibitors; all 7 studies reported favorable conclusions for the sponsoring company’s products. The majority of economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are sponsored by pharmaceuticals. Economic evaluations of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer that are funded by a pharmaceutical company are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions about the sponsor’s product.

Keywords

Conflict of interest Economic analysis Aromatase inhibitor Breast cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    Nabholtz JM, Buzdar A, Pollak M et al (2000) Anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen as first line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results of a North American multicenter randomized trial. Arimidex Study Group. J Clin Oncol 18:3758–3767PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mouridsen H, Gershanovich M, Sun Y et al (2001) Superior efficacy of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III study of the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 19:2596–2606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaufmann M, Bajetta E, Dirix LY et al (2000) Exemestane is superior to megestrol acetate after tamoxifen failure in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III randomized double blind trial. The Exemestane Study Group. J Clin Oncol 18:1399–1411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Budzar AU, Jones SE, Vogel CL et al (1997) A phase III trial comparing anastrozole (1 and 10 milligrams), a potent and selective aromatase inhibitor, with MA in postmenopausal women with advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer 79:730–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dombernowsky P, Smith I, Falkson G et al (1998) Letrozole, a new aromatase inhibitor for advanced breast cancer: double blind randomized trial showing a dose effect and improved efficacy and tolerability compared with megestrol acetate. J Clin Oncol 16:453–461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baum M, Buzdar A, Cuzick J et al (2003) Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial efficacy and safety update analyses. Cancer 98:1802–1810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Th¨urlimann B, Keshaviah A, Coates AS et al (2005) A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:2747–2757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coombes RC, Hall E, Gibson LJ et al (2004) A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 350:1081–1092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S et al (2007) Efficacy of letrozole extended adjuvant therapy according to estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status of the primary tumor. J Clin Oncol 25:2006–2011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eisen A, Trudeau M, Shelly W et al. (2009) The role of aromatase inhibitors in adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: guideline recommendations. Cancer Care Ont. http://www.cancercare.on.ca/pdf/pebc1-18f.pdf. Accessed 13 Oct 2009
  11. 11.
    Annemans L (2008) Methodological issues in evaluating cost effectiveness of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors in early breast cancer: a need for improved modeling to aid decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 26:409–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ et al (2009) Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 302:1437–1443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ et al (1999) Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 282:1453–1457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krimsky S (1999) Conflict of interest and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 282:1474–1475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomas RK, Williams M, Glen J et al (2009) Comparing the cost of adjuvant anastrozole with the benefits of managing less patients with relapsed breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117(2):289–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Locker GY, Mansel R, Cella D et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as primary adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: a US healthcare system perspective. The 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (‘Arimidex’, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 106(2):229–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mansel R, Locker G, Fallowfield L et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole vs tamoxifen in adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer in the United Kingdom: the 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (‘Arimidex’, Tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial. Br J Cancer 97:152–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rocchi A, Verma S (2006) Anastrozole is cost-effective vs tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer: Canadian perspectives on the ATAC completed-treatment analysis. Support Care Cancer 14:917–927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lundkvist J, Wilking N, Holmberg S et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness of exemestane versus tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer after 2–3 years treatment with tamoxifen in Sweden. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102:289–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Risebrough NA, Verma S, Trudeau M et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness of switching to exemestane versus continued tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. Cancer 110:499–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson D, Taylor DC, Montoya EL et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness of switching to exemestane after 2 to 3 years of therapy with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Value Health 10:367–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Delea TE, El-Ouagari K, Karnon J et al (2008) Cost-effectiveness of letrozole versus tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive early breast cancer from a Canadian perspective. Breast Cancer Res Treat 108:375–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Delea TE, Karnon J, Sofrygin O et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness of letrozole versus tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy in hormone receptor-positive postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 7:608–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    El Ouagari K, Karnon J, Delea T et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness of letrozole in the extended adjuvant treatment of women with early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101:37–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karnon J, Delea T, Johnston SR et al (2006) Cost effectiveness of extended adjuvant letrozole in postmenopausal women after adjuvant tamoxifen therapy: the UK perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 24:237–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Delea TE, Karnon J, Smith RE et al (2006) Cost-effectiveness of extended adjuvant letrozole therapy after 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 12:374–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karnon J, Delea T, Barghout V (2008) Cost utility analysis of early adjuvant letrozole or anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early invasive breast cancer: the UK perspective. Eur J Health Econ 9:171–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Skedgel C, Rayson D, Dewar R et al (2007) Cost-utility of adjuvant hormone therapies with aromatase inhibitors in post-menopausal women with breast cancer: upfront anastrozole, sequential tamoxifen-exemestane and extended tamoxifen-letrozole. Breast 16:252–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gil JM, Rubio-Terrés C, Del Castillo A et al (2006) Pharmacoeconomic analysis of adjuvant therapy with exemestane, anastrozole, letrozole or tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with operable and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 8:339–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simons WR, Jones D, Buzdar A (2003) Cost-effectiveness of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Clin Ther 25:2972–2987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lindgren P, Jönsson B, Redaelli A et al (2002) Cost-effectiveness analysis of exemestane compared with megestrol in advanced breast cancer: a model for Europe and Australia. Pharmacoeconomics 20:101–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hillner BE, Radice D (2001) Cost-effectiveness analysis of exemestane compared with megestrol in patients with advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer 91:484–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Karnon J, Jones T (2003) A stochastic economic evaluation of letrozole versus tamoxifen as a first-line hormonal therapy: for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients. Pharmacoeconomics 21:513–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Karnon J, Johnston SR, Jones T et al (2003) A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of letrozole followed by tamoxifen versus tamoxifen followed by letrozole for postmenopausal advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 14:1629–1633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nuijten M, McCormick J, Waibel F et al (2000) Economic evaluation of letrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women in Canada. Value Health 3:31–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nuijten M, Meester L, Waibel F et al (1999) Cost effectiveness of letrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 16:379–397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marchetti M, Caruggi M, Colombo G (2004) Cost utility and budget impact of third-generation aromatase inhibitors for advanced breast cancer: a literature-based model analysis of costs in the Italian National Health Service. Clin Ther 26:1546–1561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Verma S, Rocchi A (2003) Economic evaluation of antiaromatase agents in the second-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 11:728–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dranitsaris G, Verma S, Trudeau M (2003) Cost utility analysis of first-line hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: comparison of two aromatase inhibitors to tamoxifen. Am J Clin Oncol 26:289–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dranitsaris G, Leung P, Mather J et al (2000) Cost-utility analysis of second-line hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: a comparison of two aromatase inhibitors to megestrol acetate. Anticancer Drugs 11:591–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hillner BE (2004) Benefit and projected cost-effectiveness of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Cancer 101:1311–1322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Skedgel C, Rayson D, Dewar R et al (2007) Cost-utility of adjuvant hormone therapies for breast cancer in post-menopausal women: sequential tamoxifen-exemestane and upfront anastrozole. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101:325–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Younis T, Rayson D, Dewar R et al (2007) Modeling for cost-effective-adjuvant aromatase inhibitor strategies for postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 18:293–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lønning PE (2006) Comparing cost/utility of giving an aromatase inhibitor as monotherapy for 5 years versus sequential administration following 2–3 or 5 years of tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal breast cancer. Ann Oncol 17:217–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Piskur P, Sonc M, Cufer T et al (2006) Pharmacoeconomic aspects of adjuvant anastrozole or tamoxifen in breast cancer: a Slovenian perspective. Anticancer Drugs 17:719–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Moeremans K, Annemans L (2006) Cost-effectiveness of anastrozole compared to tamoxifen in hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Analysis based on the ATAC trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16:576–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sekwon Jang
    • 1
  • Young Kwang Chae
    • 2
  • Tufia Haddad
    • 1
  • Navneet S. Majhail
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Hematology, Oncology and TransplantationUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineAlbert Einstein Medical CenterPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations