Objective: To examine the life expectancy and cost-effectiveness of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and raloxifene therapy in healthy 50-year-old postmenopausal women.
Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model, discounting the value of future costs and benefits to account for their time of occurrence.
Results: Both HRT and raloxifene therapy increase life expectancy and are cost-effective relative to no therapy for 50-year-old postmenopausal women. For women at average breast cancer and coronary heart disease risk, lifetime HRT increases quality-adjusted life expectancy more (1.75 versus 1.32 quality-adjusted life years) and costs less ($3802 versus $12,968) than lifetime raloxifene therapy. However, raloxifene is more cost-effective than HRT for women at average coronary risk who have a lifetime breast cancer risk of 15% or higher or who receive 10 years or less of postmenopausal therapy. Raloxifene is also the more cost-effective alternative if HRT reduces coronary heart disease risk by less than 20%.
Conclusions: Assuming the benefit of HRT in coronary heart disease prevention from observational studies, long-term HRT is the most cost-effective alternative for women at average breast cancer and coronary heart disease risk seeking to extend their quality-adjusted life expectancy after menopause. However, raloxifene is the more cost-effective alternative for women at average coronary risk with one or more major breast cancer risk factors (first-degree relative, prior breast biopsy, atypical hyperplasia or BRCA1/2 mutation). These results can help inform decisions about postmenopausal therapy until the results of large scale randomized trials of these therapies become available.