Cargando…

Menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations

BACKGROUND: Several evaluations of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) have been reported. The aim of this study was to systematically and critically review economic evaluations of MHT since 2002, after the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) trial results on MHT were publis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Velentzis, Louiza S., Salagame, Usha, Canfell, Karen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5420115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28476121
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2227-y
_version_ 1783234347748294656
author Velentzis, Louiza S.
Salagame, Usha
Canfell, Karen
author_facet Velentzis, Louiza S.
Salagame, Usha
Canfell, Karen
author_sort Velentzis, Louiza S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Several evaluations of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) have been reported. The aim of this study was to systematically and critically review economic evaluations of MHT since 2002, after the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) trial results on MHT were published. METHODS: The inclusion criteria for the review were: CE analyses of MHT versus no treatment, published from 2002-2016, in healthy women, which included both symptom relief outcomes and a range of longer term health outcomes (breast cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, fractures and colorectal cancer). Included economic models had outcomes expressed in cost per quality-adjusted life year or cost per life year saved. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched. CE evaluations were assessed in regard to (i) reporting standards using the CHEERS checklist and Drummond checklist; (ii) data sources for the utility of MHT with respect to menopausal symptom relief; (iii) cost derivation; (iv) outcomes considered in the models; and (v) the comprehensiveness of the models with respect to factors related to MHT use that impact long term outcomes, using breast cancer as an example outcome. RESULTS: Five studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were identified which modelled cohorts of women aged 50 and older who used combination or estrogen-only MHT for 5-15 years. For women 50-60 years of age, all evaluations found MHT to be cost-effective and below the willingness-to-pay threshold of the country for which the analysis was conducted. However, 3 analyses based the quality of life (QOL) benefit for symptom relief on one small primary study. Examination of costing methods identified a need for further clarity in the methodology used to aggregate costs from sources. Using breast cancer as an example outcome, risks as measured in the WHI were used in the majority of evaluations. Apart from the type and duration of MHT use, other effect modifiers for breast cancer outcomes (for example body mass index) were not considered. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified issues which could impact the outcome of MHT CE analyses and the generalisability of their results. The estimated CE of MHT is driven largely by estimates of QOL improvements associated with symptom relief but data sources on these utility weights are limited. Future analyses should carefully consider data sources and the evidence on the long term risks of MHT use in terms of chronic disease. This review highlights the considerable difficulties in conducting cost-effectiveness analyses in situations where short term benefits of an intervention must be evaluated in the context of long term health outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5420115
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54201152017-05-08 Menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations Velentzis, Louiza S. Salagame, Usha Canfell, Karen BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Several evaluations of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) have been reported. The aim of this study was to systematically and critically review economic evaluations of MHT since 2002, after the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) trial results on MHT were published. METHODS: The inclusion criteria for the review were: CE analyses of MHT versus no treatment, published from 2002-2016, in healthy women, which included both symptom relief outcomes and a range of longer term health outcomes (breast cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, fractures and colorectal cancer). Included economic models had outcomes expressed in cost per quality-adjusted life year or cost per life year saved. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched. CE evaluations were assessed in regard to (i) reporting standards using the CHEERS checklist and Drummond checklist; (ii) data sources for the utility of MHT with respect to menopausal symptom relief; (iii) cost derivation; (iv) outcomes considered in the models; and (v) the comprehensiveness of the models with respect to factors related to MHT use that impact long term outcomes, using breast cancer as an example outcome. RESULTS: Five studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were identified which modelled cohorts of women aged 50 and older who used combination or estrogen-only MHT for 5-15 years. For women 50-60 years of age, all evaluations found MHT to be cost-effective and below the willingness-to-pay threshold of the country for which the analysis was conducted. However, 3 analyses based the quality of life (QOL) benefit for symptom relief on one small primary study. Examination of costing methods identified a need for further clarity in the methodology used to aggregate costs from sources. Using breast cancer as an example outcome, risks as measured in the WHI were used in the majority of evaluations. Apart from the type and duration of MHT use, other effect modifiers for breast cancer outcomes (for example body mass index) were not considered. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified issues which could impact the outcome of MHT CE analyses and the generalisability of their results. The estimated CE of MHT is driven largely by estimates of QOL improvements associated with symptom relief but data sources on these utility weights are limited. Future analyses should carefully consider data sources and the evidence on the long term risks of MHT use in terms of chronic disease. This review highlights the considerable difficulties in conducting cost-effectiveness analyses in situations where short term benefits of an intervention must be evaluated in the context of long term health outcomes. BioMed Central 2017-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5420115/ /pubmed/28476121 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2227-y Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Velentzis, Louiza S.
Salagame, Usha
Canfell, Karen
Menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations
title Menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations
title_full Menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations
title_fullStr Menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations
title_full_unstemmed Menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations
title_short Menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations
title_sort menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5420115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28476121
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2227-y
work_keys_str_mv AT velentzislouizas menopausalhormonetherapyasystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessevaluations
AT salagameusha menopausalhormonetherapyasystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessevaluations
AT canfellkaren menopausalhormonetherapyasystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessevaluations