Guest Julian F, Clegg John P, Davie Alison M, McCloskey Eugene
CATALYST Health Economics Consultants, Northwood, Middlesex, UK.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2005 May;21(5):805-15. doi: 10.1185/030079905X40472.
To estimate the costs and consequences of using pamidronate compared to zoledronic acid in the prophylactic management of skeletal morbidity among breast cancer patients in the UK.
This was a modelling study performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS).
Published clinical outcomes from a comparative study were combined with resource utilisation estimates derived from a panel of clinicians. This enabled the construction of a decision model depicting the management of patients with breast cancer receiving antineoplastic therapy who are 18 years of age or above and who have at least one bone metastasis (lytic or mixed). There are no significant differences in outcome between using pamidronate and zoledronic acid in breast cancer patients. Therefore, a cost minimisation analysis was performed to identify the treatment strategy that achieves the same outcome for least cost. The expected time attributable to a pamidronate and zoledronic acid infusion was also estimated.
Starting treatment with pamidronate among patients receiving chemotherapy is expected to lead to a healthcare cost of 6046 pounds over 12 months compared to 6981 pounds with zoledronic acid. In comparison, for patients receiving hormonal therapy, starting treatment with pamidronate is expected to lead to a healthcare cost of 5401 pounds over 12 months compared to 6043 pounds with zoledronic acid. This cost difference is primarily due to the lower acquisition cost of pamidronate and fewer tests among pamidronate-treated patients. Accordingly, pamidronate affords a less expensive management modality. Multivariate analysis showed the expected time attributable to a pamidronate infusion to be 110 to 277 minutes compared with 136 to 296 minutes for a zoledronic acid infusion.
Use of pamidronate instead of zoledronic acid affords an economic benefit to the NHS. Moreover, published clinical trials show no statistical difference between pamidronate and zoledronic acid at 1 year. Hence, within the limitations of our model and the published evidence, pamidronate is the preferred first-line intravenous bisphosphonate for use in breast cancer patients receiving antineoplastic therapy who are 18 years of age or above and who have at least one bone metastasis (lytic or mixed).
评估在英国乳腺癌患者骨骼疾病预防性治疗中,使用帕米膦酸盐与唑来膦酸相比的成本及后果。
这是一项从英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)角度进行的建模研究。
将一项比较研究中已发表的临床结果与一组临床医生提供的资源利用估计值相结合。这使得能够构建一个决策模型,描述接受抗肿瘤治疗、年龄在18岁及以上且至少有一处骨转移(溶骨性或混合型)的乳腺癌患者的治疗情况。在乳腺癌患者中,使用帕米膦酸盐和唑来膦酸的结果无显著差异。因此,进行了成本最小化分析,以确定能以最低成本实现相同结果的治疗策略。还估计了帕米膦酸盐和唑来膦酸输注的预期时间。
接受化疗的患者中,起始使用帕米膦酸盐治疗预计在12个月内产生的医疗成本为6046英镑,而使用唑来膦酸为6981英镑。相比之下,接受激素治疗的患者中,起始使用帕米膦酸盐治疗预计在12个月内产生的医疗成本为5401英镑,而使用唑来膦酸为6043英镑。这种成本差异主要是由于帕米膦酸盐的购置成本较低以及接受帕米膦酸盐治疗的患者检查较少。因此,帕米膦酸盐提供了一种成本较低的管理方式。多变量分析显示,帕米膦酸盐输注的预期时间为110至277分钟,而唑来膦酸输注为136至296分钟。
使用帕米膦酸盐而非唑来膦酸对NHS具有经济效益。此外,已发表的临床试验表明,1年内帕米膦酸盐和唑来膦酸之间无统计学差异。因此,在我们模型和已发表证据的局限性内,帕米膦酸盐是年龄在18岁及以上、接受抗肿瘤治疗且至少有一处骨转移(溶骨性或混合型)的乳腺癌患者首选的一线静脉用双膦酸盐。