Back

Using Mendelian Randomization to model the causal effect of cancer on health economic outcomes and to simulate the cost-effectiveness of anti-cancer interventions

Dixon, P.; Martin, R.; Harrison, S.

2023-02-08 health economics
10.1101/2023.02.06.23285521 medRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDCancer is associated with significant economic impacts. Quantifying the scale of these impacts is challenged by confounding variables that jointly influence both cancer status and economic outcomes such as healthcare costs and quality of life. Moreover, the increasing costs attributed to cancer drug development complicate the cost-effective provision of cancer care. METHODSWe address both challenges in this paper by using germline genetic variation in the risk of incident cancer as instrumental variables in Mendelian Randomization analyses of eight cancers. We developed causal estimates of the genetically predicted effect of bladder, breast, colorectal, lung, multiple myeloma, ovarian, prostate and thyroid cancers on healthcare costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) using outcome data drawn from the UK Biobank cohort. We then used Mendelian Randomization to model a hypothetical population-wide preventative intervention based on a repurposed class of anti-diabetic drugs known as sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors very recently shown to reduce the odds of incident prostate cancer. RESULTSGenetic liability to prostate cancer and to breast cancer had material causal impacts on healthcare costs and QALYs. Mendelian Randomization results for the less common cancers were associated with considerable uncertainty. SGLT2 inhibition was unlikely to be a cost-effective preventative intervention for prostate cancer, although this conclusion depended on the price at which these drugs would be offered for a novel anti-cancer indication. IMPLICATIONSOur new causal estimates of cancer exposures on health economic outcomes may be used as inputs into decision analytic models of cancer interventions such as screening programmes or simulations of longer-term outcomes associated with therapies investigated in RCTs with short follow-ups. Our new method allows us to rapidly and efficiently estimate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical population-scale anti-cancer intervention to inform and complement other means of assessing long-term intervention cost-effectiveness.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.2%
2
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.7%
4
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.1%
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
7
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.2%
8
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.1%
11
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.3%
14
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
15
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
16
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
17
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
22
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
23
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
25
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
Molecular Metabolism
105 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
28
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%