ObjectivesIn Sweden, breast cancer (BC) represents 30% of newly diagnosed cancers and is the most common cancer in women. For hormone-dependent BC, endocrine therapies varying in efficacy and price are available. The aim of this study is to assess the cost effectiveness of fulvestrant 500 mg as a second-line hormonal therapy for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic or locally advanced BC versus letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane in Sweden.MethodsA three-state (pre-progression, post-progression, and death) partitioned-survival model was used to estimate progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by extrapolating trial results beyond the trial period to capture costs and benefits over a lifetime perspective. The comparative effectiveness was sourced from a network meta-analysis. The evaluation was conducted from a Swedish national payer perspective; costs, resource use, and quality of life were based on published sources and expert opinion.ResultsCompared to anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were €33,808, €33,883, and €49,225 per QALY with incremental costs of €13,283, €14,986, and €13,862, and incremental QALYs of 0.393, 0.442, and 0.282, respectively. Incremental cost per life-year (LY) gained €21,312 (incremental LY of 0.623), €20,338 (incremental LY of 0.737), and €27,854 (incremental LY of 0.498) for respective comparators. Applying the upper and lower credible intervals for PFS/OS from the meta-analysis had the greatest effect on the ICER in the sensitivity analysis. The results were relatively stable when varying other parameters.ConclusionsOur results indicate that fulvestrant 500 mg may be a cost-effective alternative to aromatase inhibitors at a threshold of €100,000/QALY.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s41669-017-0031-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Purpose The aim of this study was to describe patient characteristics and quantify hospital stays and outpatient visits (H&OV) following diagnosis with moderate-to-severe acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in Finland and Sweden. Methods A retrospective chart audit collected data from patient medical records of 3 specialized centers performing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT; Finland, n = 2; Sweden, n = 1). Eligible patients received allogeneic HSCT (January 1, 2016–June 30, 2017) from any donor source, were diagnosed with grade II–IV aGVHD (MAGIC or modified Glucksberg criteria) at any time from transplantation to 12 months before data collection, and were ≥ 18 years old at diagnosis. Criteria for comparing patients graded with modified Glucksberg and MAGIC severity scales were defined. Results Fifty-five patients (Finland, n = 45; Sweden, n = 10) were included. Myeloablative conditioning was the most common conditioning regimen (81.8%); immunosuppression regimens were based on combinations of methotrexate (96.4%), in vivo T-cell depletion (80.0%), cyclosporine (63.6%), mycophenolate (40.0%), and tacrolimus (34.5%). Sixteen patients (29.1%) developed grade III/IV aGVHD; skin was the most common organ involved (80.0%). Most patients required ≥ 1 hospital stay (89.1%; median of 2 hospitalizations per patient); 7 patients (14.3%) required admission to an intensive care unit. Median hospitalization duration from HSCT to discharge was 26 days. Most patients also required outpatient or emergency department visits (90.9%). Subgroup analyses showed longer hospital stays for patients receiving multiple treatment lines; no clear differences in H&OV were observed between prophylactic regimens. Conclusion Based on this retrospective study, moderate-to-severe aGVHD is associated with considerable healthcare resource utilization in Finland and Sweden, particularly in patients who received multiple lines of therapy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.