Are the True Impacts of Adverse Events Considered in Economic Models of Antineoplastic Drugs? A Systematic Review
- 142 Downloads
Antineoplastic drugs for cancer are often associated with adverse events, which influence patients’ physical health, quality of life and survival. However, the modelling of adverse events in cost-effectiveness analyses of antineoplastic drugs has not been examined.
This article reviews published economic evaluations that include a calculated cost for adverse events of antineoplastic drugs. The aim is to identify how existing models manage four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events: the selection of adverse events for inclusion in models, the influence of dose modifications on drug quantity and survival outcomes, the influence of adverse events on quality of life and the consideration of multiple simultaneous or recurring adverse events.
A systematic literature search was conducted using MESH headings and key words in multiple electronic databases, covering the years 1999–2009. Inclusion criteria for eligibility were papers covering a population of adults with solid tumour cancers, the inclusion of at least one adverse event and the resource use and/or costs of adverse event treatment.
From 4,985 citations, 26 eligible articles were identified. Studies were generally of moderate quality and addressed a range of cancers and treatment types. While the four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events were addressed by some studies, no study addressed all of the issues in the same model.
This review indicates that current modelling assumptions may restrict our understanding of the true impact of adverse events on cost effectiveness of antineoplastic drugs. This understanding could be improved through consideration of the selection of adverse events, dose modifications, multiple events and quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies.
KeywordsEconomic Evaluation Febrile Neutropenia Dose Modification Antineoplastic Therapy Antineoplastic Drug
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Liz Chinchen in conducting the literature search for this review.
Alison Pearce was supported by a University of Technology, Sydney Doctoral Scholarship, and a PhD top-up scholarship within an NHMRC Health Services Research Grant (ID455366) through the Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation; neither funding organisation had any role in the study.
Alison Pearce: Contributed to the planning of the study, designed the search strategy, conducted the literature searches, reviewed the retrieved articles for eligibility, completed and documented data extraction, and wrote the paper for publication. Alison Pearce is the guarantor for the overall content of the paper.
Marion Haas: Contributed to the planning of the study, advised on the design of the search strategy, reviewed the eligibility of articles where eligibility was uncertain, advised on data extraction and interpretation of results, and reviewed the publication.
Rosalie Viney: Contributed to the planning of the study, advised on the design of the search strategy, advised on data extraction and interpretation of results, and reviewed the publication
Liz Chinchen: Contributed to advising on search strategy techniques, conducted the literature searches and retrieved the eligible articles
Conflict of interest
All authors have declared no conflict of interest.
- 1.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Health 2010. 12th ed. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2010.Google Scholar
- 2.National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03. National Institute of Health; 2010.Google Scholar
- 5.Philipson TJ, Becker G, Goldman D, Murphy KM. Terminal care and the value of life near its end. NBER Working paper 15649. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2010.Google Scholar
- 6.Briggs A, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- 9.Cancer Institute NSW. EviQ: cancer treatments online. [cited 2011 November 21]; EviQ version 1.4.0. https://www.eviq.org.au/Home.aspx.
- 11.Hershman DL, Unger JM, Barlow WE, Hutchins LF, Martino S, Osborne CK, et al. Treatment quality and outcomes of African American versus white breast cancer patients: retrospective analysis of Southwest Oncology Studies S8814/S8897. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(13):2157–62.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.NSW Department of Health. Issues in the costing of large projects in health and healthcare. Sydney: NSW Department of Health; 2008.Google Scholar
- 45.Bristow RE, Santillan A, Salani R, Diaz-Montes TP, Giuntoli RL 2nd, Meisner BC, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel versus intravenous carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for Stage III ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106(3):476–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.Main C, Bojke L, Griffin S, et al. Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(9):1–132, iii–iv.Google Scholar
- 54.Wilson J, Yao GL, Raftery J, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of epoetin alpha, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alpha in anaemia associated with cancer, especially that attributable to cancer treatment. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(13):1–202, iii–iv.Google Scholar
- 58.Minisini A, Spazzapan S, Crivellari D, Aapro M, Biganzoli L. Incidence of febrile neutropenia and neutropenic infections in elderly patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy for breast cancer without primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005;53(2):125–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 65.Mittmann N, Au HJ, Tu D, O’Callaghan CJ, Isogai PK, Karapetis CS, et al. Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(17):1182–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 66.Craig D, McDaid C, Fonseca T, Stock C, Duffy S, Woolacott N. Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? An initial review of current practice. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(62):1–71.Google Scholar
- 68.Lyman GH. Chemotherapy dose intensity and quality cancer care. Oncology (Williston Park). 2006;20(14 Suppl 9):16–25.Google Scholar