Hormone replacement therapy: a 2008 perspective

Cost-effectiveness of population screening for BRCA mutations in Ashkenazi jewish women compared with family history-based testing

BACKGROUND

Population-based testing for BRCA1/2 mutations detects the high proportion of carriers not identified by cancer family history (FH)-based testing. We compared the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing with the standard FH-based approach in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) women.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed to compare lifetime costs and effects amongst AJ women in the UK of BRCA founder-mutation testing amongst: 1) all women in the population age 30 years or older and 2) just those with a strong FH (≥10% mutation risk). The model assumes that BRCA carriers are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and annual MRI/mammography screening or risk-reducing mastectomy. Model probabilities utilize the Genetic Cancer Prediction through Population Screening trial/published literature to estimate total costs, effects in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cancer incidence, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and population impact. Costs are reported at 2010 prices. Costs/outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. We used deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to evaluate model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared with FH-based testing, population-screening saved 0.090 more life-years and 0.101 more QALYs resulting in 33 days' gain in life expectancy. Population screening was found to be cost saving with a baseline-discounted ICER of -£2079/QALY. Population-based screening lowered ovarian and breast cancer incidence by 0.34% and 0.62%. Assuming 71% testing uptake, this leads to 276 fewer ovarian and 508 fewer breast cancer cases. Overall, reduction in treatment costs led to a discounted cost savings of £3.7 million. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and 94% of simulations on PSA (threshold £20000) indicated that population screening is cost-effective, compared with current NHS policy.

CONCLUSION

Population-based screening for BRCA mutations is highly cost-effective compared with an FH-based approach in AJ women age 30 years and older.

Defining what is normal at menopause: how women's and clinician's different understandings may lead to a lack of provision for those in most need

Many aspects of women's reproductive life have fallen under the medical gaze and the end of women's fertility has been no exception. For several years hormone therapy (HT) was considered the best solution for menopause symptoms and in some countries more than 50% of eligible women were prescribed oestrogen. Clinicians were accused of 'medicalising the normal' by applying the biomedical model to a natural lifestage and thus defining menopause as an illness which deviates from biological normality. The purpose of this paper is to review what women and their clinicians 'know' about menopause, and what happens when these two different types of knowledge collide. In the last decade, menopause has been demedicalised, partly because of criticism from feminist researchers, partly due to the publication of major studies indicating elevated risk of breast and ovarian cancers and venous thromboembolisms and, partly because neither physicians nor women experiencing menopause know what constitutes normality. The combined result has been that many clinicians have been cautious about prescribing drugs to treat problematic symptoms. This raises the concern that demedicalisation of menopause may have gone too far, leaving the 20-30% of women who experience distressing symptoms without adequate help or relief.