IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i3d10.1007_s40273-017-0595-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for the Management of Bone Metastases: A Systematic Literature Review

Author

Listed:
  • Lazaros Andronis

    (University of Birmingham
    University of Warwick)

  • Ilias Goranitis

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Sue Bayliss

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Rui Duarte

    (University of Liverpool)

Abstract

Background Metastatic cancers occur when cancer cells break away from the primary tumour. One of the most common sites of metastasis is the bone, with several therapeutic options currently available for managing bone metastases. In a resource-constrained environment, policy makers and practitioners need to know which options are cost effective. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to review and appraise published economic evaluations on treatments for the management of bone metastases. Methods We searched eight bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, CSDR, DARE, HTA, EED and CPCI) for relevant economic evaluations published from each database’s inception date until March 2017. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were carried out according to published guidelines. Results Twenty-four relevant economic analyses were identified. Seventeen of these studies focused on bone metastases resulting from a particular type of cancer, i.e. prostate (n = 8), breast (n = 7), lung (n = 1) or renal (n = 1), while seven report results for various primary tumours. Across types of cancer, evidence suggests that bisphosphonates result in lower morbidity and improved quality of life, for an additional cost, which is typically below conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds. While denosumab leads to health gains compared with zoledronic acid, it also results in substantial additional costs and is unlikely to represent value for money. The limited literature on the radiopharmaceutical strontium-89 (Sr89) and external beam radiotherapy (EBR) suggest that these treatments are cost effective compared with no treatment. Conclusions The reviewed evidence suggests that bisphosphonate treatments are cost-effective options for bone metastases, while denosumab is unlikely to represent value for money. Evidence on EBR and Sr89 is limited and less conclusive.

Suggested Citation

  • Lazaros Andronis & Ilias Goranitis & Sue Bayliss & Rui Duarte, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for the Management of Bone Metastases: A Systematic Literature Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 301-322, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0595-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0595-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0595-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-017-0595-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jessica Y. Matuoka & James G. Kahn & Silvia R. Secoli, 2019. "Denosumab versus bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(4), pages 487-499, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    2. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    3. Georgina Jones & Victoria Brennan & Richard Jacques & Hilary Wood & Simon Dixon & Stephen Radley, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    5. Hareth Al-Janabi & Nikki McCaffrey & Julie Ratcliffe, 2013. "Carer Preferences in Economic Evaluation and Healthcare Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 6(4), pages 235-239, December.
    6. Torbjørn Wisløff & Gunhild Hagen & Vida Hamidi & Espen Movik & Marianne Klemp & Jan Olsen, 2014. "Estimating QALY Gains in Applied Studies: A Review of Cost-Utility Analyses Published in 2010," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 367-375, April.
    7. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    8. Simon Walker & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Steve Palmer, 2012. "Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing or patient access scheme? A framework for coverage decisions," Working Papers 077cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    9. Catherine Milte & Ruth Walker & Mary Luszcz & Emily Lancsar & Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "How Important Is Health Status in Defining Quality of Life for Older People? An Exploratory Study of the Views of Older South Australians," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 73-84, February.
    10. Renske J. Hoefman & Job van Exel & John M. Rose & E. J. van de Wetering & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2014. "A Discrete Choice Experiment to Obtain a Tariff for Valuing Informal Care Situations Measured with the CarerQol Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 84-96, January.
    11. Goebbels, Adrienne F.G. & Lakerveld, Jeroen & Ament, André J.H.A. & Bot, Sandra D.M. & Severens, Johan L., 2012. "Exploring non-health outcomes of health promotion: The perspective of participants in a lifestyle behaviour change intervention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 177-186.
    12. K. Klose & S. Kreimeier & U. Tangermann & I. Aumann & K. Damm, 2016. "Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Samer Kharroubi, 2015. "A Comparison of Japan and UK SF-6D Health-State Valuations Using a Non-Parametric Bayesian Method," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 409-420, August.
    14. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.
    15. Elizabeth Goodwin & Colin Green, 2016. "A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Development of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures of Health," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 161-183, April.
    16. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    17. Renske J. Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2017. "Measuring Care-Related Quality of Life of Caregivers for Use in Economic Evaluations: CarerQol Tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 469-478, April.
    18. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, 2010. "A Review and Critique of Studies Reporting Utility Values for Schizophrenia-Related Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(12), pages 1109-1121, December.
    20. McCarthy, Ian M., 2016. "Eliminating composite bias in treatment effects estimates: Applications to quality of life assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-58.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0595-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.