Cost-effectiveness analysis of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Abemaciclib and Ribociclib in High-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Indian Perspective

PURPOSE

Incorporating adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib along with endocrine therapy has been shown to improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, along with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors from an Indian perspective.

METHODS

A Markov chain model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib and ribociclib with letrozole compared with letrozole alone for HR+/HER2- EBC from a payer perspective in India. Key measures included lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), life-years (LY), and total costs. This study explores two scenarios for effectiveness: a best-case (BC) scenario, where the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitors in improving iDFS lasts a lifetime, and a worst-case (WC) scenario, where benefits disappear after 5 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to account for simulation uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the BC scenario, abemaciclib added 2.17 QALY and 4.96 LY, incurring ₹2,317,957.7 ($27,756.65 in US dollars [USD]) in additional costs. However, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for abemaciclib exceeded India's willingness-to-pay threshold in the BC and WC scenarios. In the BC scenario, ribociclib added 0.98 QALY and 2.58 LY with added costs of ₹1,711,504.32 ($20,494.6 USD). The ICER for ribociclib also surpassed India's threshold in both scenarios. PSA showed that neither drug was cost-effective at the current market prices in either BC/WC scenario. The cost of abemaciclib and ribociclib needs to be reduced by at least 78.61% and 87.19%, respectively, to be cost-effective in the BC scenario.

CONCLUSION

The combination of adjuvant abemaciclib or ribociclib with letrozole is not cost-effective for HR+/HER2- EBC in India in either the BC or WC scenario.

Clinical and economic outcomes of adding [18F]FES PET/CT in estrogen receptor status identification in metastatic and recurrent breast cancer in the US

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Correct identification of estrogen receptor (ER) status in breast cancer (BC) is crucial to optimize treatment; however, standard of care, involving biopsy and immunohistochemistry (IHC), and other diagnostic tools such as 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose or 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG), can yield inconclusive results. 16α-[18F]fluoro-17β-fluoroestradiol ([18F]FES) can be a powerful tool, providing high diagnostic accuracy of ER-positive disease. The aim of this study was to estimate the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC in the determination of ER-positive status in metastatic (mBC) and recurrent breast cancer (rBC) in the United States (US).

METHODS

An Excel-based decision tree, combined with a Markov model, was developed to estimate the economic consequences of adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC for determining ER-positive status in mBC and rBC over 5 years. Scenario A, where the determination of ER-positive status is carried out solely through biopsy/IHC, was compared to scenario B, where [18F]FES PET/CT is used in addition to biopsy/IHC.

RESULTS

The proportion of true positive and true negative test results increased by 0.2 to 8.0 percent points in scenario B compared to scenario A, while re-biopsies were reduced by 94% to 100%. Scenario B resulted in cost savings up to 142 million dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC may increase the diagnostic accuracy of the ER status, especially when a tumor sample cannot be obtained, or the risk of a biopsy-related complication is high. Therefore, adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC would have a positive impact on US clinical and economic outcomes.

Cost-utility analysis of Palbociclib + letrozole and ribociclib + letrozole versus Letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in Iran using partitioned survival model

BACKGROUND

Palbociclib and Ribociclib are cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 oral molecular inhibitors that have the potential to improve overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to analyze the cost-utility of Palbociclib and Ribociclib in comparison with Letrozole monotherapy as the first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) MBC patients in Iran.

METHODS

A Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) was conducted using a partitioned survival model (PSM) from the perspective of the Iranian healthcare system. The comparative strategies considered were Palbociclib + Letrozole, Ribociclib + Letrozole, and Letrozole monotherapy. The model was structured with a 1-month cycle length and a 15-year time horizon. Clinical safety, efficacy, and survival data in terms of PFS and OS for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were obtained from the latest updates of the PALOMA-1, 2, and MONALEESA-2 studies, respectively. Direct medical costs, including drug costs, visits, hospitalization, CT scans, bone x-rays, monitoring and laboratory testing, as well as medication side effects, were considered. Uncertainty evaluations were performed through deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Excel 2016 and TreeAge 2020 were used for all stages of the evaluation.

RESULTS

The base case results indicated that, despite its lower effectiveness, Letrozole monotherapy was the most cost-effective strategy, while Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole compared to Letrozole monotherapy were estimated at $137,302 and $120,478 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively, which exceeded the target threshold of $4565. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the CUA results were not sensitive to changes in the values of uncertain variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also indicated that Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole had no chance of being cost-effective based on changes in various parameters and simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Palbociclib and Ribociclib showed significant efficacy in combination with Letrozole, as evidenced by improvements in PFS. However, in the first-line treatment of MBC in Iran, these strategies were not cost-effective compared to Letrozole monotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been reported in recent research, however, the value of the effectiveness and cost of sacituzumab govitecan is still unclear.

METHODS

A microsimulation model was developed using data from the ASCENT trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan for patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic TNBC over a lifetime. Model inputs, including clinical data, patient characteristics, and direct medical costs, were based on the ASCENT trial, public databases, and published literature. The primary outcomes of the model were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and multiple scenario analyses were performed to address the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Our results revealed that sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy costs $293,037 and yielded an additional 0.2340 of QALYs in the whole population with metastatic TNBC, leading to an ICER of $1,252,295 gained. And in the population with metastatic TNBC without brain metastasis, the sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy costs $309,949 and obtained an extra 0.2633 of QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of $1,177,171/QALYs. Univariate analyses indicated that the model outcomes were most sensitive to the drug cost of sacituzumab govitecan, the utility of progression-free disease, and the utility of progressed disease.

CONCLUSION

From the US payer perspective, sacituzumab govitecan is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic TNBC compared with chemotherapy. Based on the value standpoint, a price decrease of sacituzumab govitecan is expected to increase the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan in patients with metastatic TNBC.

CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

(1) Background: This study aimed to conduct a NMA and CEA combined study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different CDK4/6 inhibitors (Abem, Palbo, and Ribo) plus NSAI with placebo plus NSAI in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC from the perspective of payers in China. (2) Methods: Studies which evaluated CDK4/6 inhibitors plus NSAI for HR+/HER2- ABC were searched. A Bayesian NMA was carried out and the main outcomes were the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The costs and efficacy of first-line therapies for HR+/HER2- ABC were evaluated using the Markov model. The main outcomes in the CEA were incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs), incremental monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). The robustness of the model was assessed by one-way, three-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Then, we further simulated the impact of different prices of CDK4/6 inhibitors on the results. (3) Results: Seven studies involving 5347 patients were included in the NMA. The three first-line CDK4/6 inhibitors plus NSAI groups provided significant PFS and OS superiority to NSAI alone. Abem + NSAI represented a significant statistical advantage onPFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.90, p = 0.009) and indicated a trend of being the best OS benefit compared to the placebo + NSAI group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72-1.08). The Abem + NSAI, Palbo + NSAI, and Ribo + NSAI groups resulted in additional costs of $12,602, $20,391, and $81,258, with additional effects of 0.38, 0.31, and 0.30 QALYs, respectively, leading to an ICUR of $33,163/QALY, $65,777/QALY, and $270,860/QALY. Additional pairwise comparisons showed that Abem + NSAI was the only cost-effective option in three CDK4/6 inhibitors plus NSAI groups at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $38,029/QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the proportion of receiving subsequent CDK4/6 inhibitors and the cost of Abem significantly influenced the results of Abem + NSAI compared with placebo + NSAI. (4) Conclusion: From the perspective of Chinese payers, Abem + NSAI was a cost-effective treatment option compared with placebo + NSAI at the WTP of $38,029/QALY, since only the ICUR of $33,163/QALY of Abem + NSAI was lower than the WTP of $38,029/QALY in China (2022). The Palbo + NSAI and Ribo + NSAI groups were not cost-effective unless drug prices were adjusted to 50% or 10% of current prices ($320.67 per cycle or $264.60 per cycle). (5) Others: We have prospectively registered the study with the PROSPERO, and the PROSPERO registration number is CRD42023399342.

Cost Effectiveness of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women in the USA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors improve progression-free survival when combined with endocrine therapies in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. However, the comparative cost effectiveness of utilizing three US Food and Drug Administration-approved CDK4/6 inhibitors is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of individual CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, abemaciclib) with letrozole versus letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the USA.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov-based decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapies over a 40-year lifetime from a third-party payer perspective. The model incorporated health states (progression-free disease, progressive disease, and death), major adverse events (neutropenia), and cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Using clinical efficacy and quality-of-life scores (utility) data from clinical trials, we estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using Medicare charges reported in US dollars per 2022 valuation and a discount rate of 3% applied to costs and outcomes. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate parametric and decision uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to letrozole, the model estimated an increase of 5.72, 5.87, and 6.39 in QALYs and costs of $799,178, $788,168, and $741,102 in combining palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib plus letrozole, respectively. Palbociclib or ribociclib plus letrozole were dominated by abemaciclib plus letrozole. Compared with letrozole, abemaciclib plus letrozole resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $457,538 per QALY with an incremental cost of $553,621 and an incremental QALY gain of 1.21. The results were sensitive to the cost of abemaciclib, disease progression utility, and patients' age.

CONCLUSIONS

At a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY gained, our model predicts that combining CDK4/6 inhibitors plus letrozole is not cost effective with a marginal increase in QALYs at a high cost. Lowering the cost of these drugs or identifying patients who can receive maximal benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitors would improve the value of this regimen in patients.

Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low metastatic breast cancer

Background

Results from DESTINY-Breast04 trial revealed that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved both progression-free survival and overall survival for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low metastatic breast cancer (mBC). However, the economic impact of this practice remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd on HER2-low mBC from the viewpoint of U.S. payers.

Methods

Using the clinical data from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a three-state Markov model was created to assess the economic and health effects of T-DXd versus chemotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and willingness-to-pay threshold were determined and compared. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to measure parameter uncertainty.

Results

In the overall HER2-low population, T-DXd provided additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an increased cost of $149,222 compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $317,494/QALY. The ICER was $353,903/QALY in the hormone receptor (HR)-positive subgroup, which decreased to $259,825/QALY in the HR-negative subgroup. The sensitivity analysis found that T-DXd would not be cost-effective in the base-case. The expected cost of T-DXd will be less than $4,281/cycle ($11.33/mg) or $1,903/cycle ($5.03/mg) to achieve a 50 or 90% cost-benefit probability, respectively.

Conclusions

T-DXd provides significant health benefit for patients with HER2-low mBC compared with chemotherapy but is unlikely to be cost-effective in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to various therapy combinations in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer from the Chinese perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical data for our model was taken from the KEYNOTE-826 trial. The direct costs and utilities were collected from local price databases or previously published literature. A three-state partitioned survival model was designed to simulate the disease process of patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. All costs were estimated in US dollars, with an annual RMB exchange rate of $1 to 6.45 Yuan in 2021. The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was set at US$37,663.26/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the influence of variables on the model parameters.

RESULTS

For patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score greater than 1,compared to the chemotherapy group, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy contributed an incremental 1.12 Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) with an incremental cost of US$71,884.42, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$64,338.19, which is beyond the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China. According to sensitivity analyses, the ICERs were most sensitive to the utility of progressive disease and the cost of pembrolizumab. However, those parameters had no significant impact on the model's outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of pembrolizumab to various therapy combinations chemotherapy is exorbitant and may not be cost-effective for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in China.

Trametinib for patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The GOG 281/LOGS trial found that trametinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC), compared with standard of care (SOC). The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trametinib versus standard of care for recurrent LGSOC from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost and effectiveness of trametinib and standard of care group in patients with recurrent LGSOC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the model robustness.

RESULT

Trametinib group provided an additional 0.58 QALYs (1.14 LYs) and an incremental cost of $248,214 compared with the SOC group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $424,097 per QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses suggested that our model was sensitive to the hazard ratio of OS and PFS between trametinib and SOC group, utility of PFS and the cycle cost of trametinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that there was 6% probability of the trametinib group being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

From the US payer perspective, trametinib is not cost-effective for patients with recurrent LGSOC at the assumed WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Based on the value standpoint, price reduction of trametinib is expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of trametinib in patients with recurrent LGSOC.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility of Palbociclib versus Ribociclib in Women with Stage IV Breast Cancer: A Real-World Data Evaluation

Palbociclib and ribociclib are indicated in the first-line treatment of hormonal-receptor-positive HER-2 negative (HR+/HER-2 negative) advanced breast cancer. Despite their clinical benefit, they can increase healthcare expenditure. Yet, there are no comparative pharmacoeconomic evaluations for them in developing countries, the Middle East, or Gulf countries. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of palbociclib and ribociclib in Qatar. A 10-year within-cycle-corrected Markov's model was developed using TreeAge Pro^® software. The model consisted of three main health states: progression-free (PFS), progressed-disease (PD), and death. Costs were obtained from the actual hospital settings, transition probabilities were calculated from individual-patient data, and utilities were summarized from the published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were calculated and compared to three gross-domestic-products per capita. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Ribociclib dominated palbociclib in terms of costs, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years gained. The conclusions remained robust in the different cases of the deterministic sensitivity analyses. Taking all combined uncertainties into account, the confidence in the base-case conclusion was approximately 60%. Therefore, in HR+/HER-2 negative stage IV breast cancer patients, the use of ribociclib is considered cost-saving compared to palbociclib.

Economic Evaluation of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Previously Treated HER2-Low Advanced Breast Cancer in the United States

PURPOSE

Recently, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial revealed that significant benefits in both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HER2-low advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) compared with chemotherapy. The current study assessed the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd from the perspective of the United States payer.

METHODS

We developed a partitioned survival model to project the disease course of breast cancer. The OS and PFS data were derived from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. We extrapolate the survival data beyond the follow-up time to assess the long-term survival prognosis. Direct medical costs and utility data were collected. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was the primary outcome that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a therapy regimen. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were implemented to explore the uncertainty of outputs.

RESULTS

In the base-case, the ICUR of T-DXd versus chemotherapy is $346,571.8/QALY and $337,789.4/QALY for all patients group and hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) subgroup, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the hazard ratio of OS, the unit cost of T-DXd, and body weight had a relatively large impact on the base-case result. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the likelihood that T-DXd was cost-effective is 14.5% and 12.6% for all patients group and HR+ subgroup, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that, at current price, trastuzumab deruxtecan is unlikely to be a preferred option for patients with HER2-low breast cancer at a threshold of $150,000/QALY from a US payer perspective.

Is adding ribociclib to fulvestrant cost-effective in treating postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer? A US payer perspective cost utility analysis

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most prevalent type of cancer in women in the United States. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant combination therapy gained US Food and Drug Administration approval to treat postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer in 2018. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant therapy in the target population from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival analysis model composed of 3 health states (progression free, progressed disease, and death) was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant. The progression-free survival and the overall survival data points were extracted from published Kaplan-Meier curves in the MONALEESA-3 study and fitted to parametric curves. The safety and efficacy of the treatment was referenced from the MONALEESA-3 trial. Costs were obtained from standard sources including the Red Book for medication costs, Medicare Clinical Laboratory/Physician Fee Schedule for clinical utilization, and the literature for costs of managing adverse events, subsequent therapy, and end-of-life care. Utility and disutility values were obtained from literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model robustness. Several scenario analyses were also investigated. RESULTS: In the base case, the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm was associated with $522,844 and 3.25 QALYs compared with $50,395 and 2.14 QALYs in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $425,951/QALY. The cost of ribociclib had the biggest impact on the model and constituted 84% of the total cost for the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis projected that the ribociclib plus fulvestrant treatment would have a net benefit over the placebo plus fulvestrant therapy at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $405,600/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, the addition of ribociclib to fulvestrant is not considered to be cost-effective in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The findings send a strong price signal to the manufacturer and can be used to facilitate payers with price negotiation in making coverage decisions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive breast cancer

Background: The DESTINY-Breast03 clinical trial demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) outperformed trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Considering the excessive cost of antibody-drug conjugates, the clinical value of T-DXd must be assessed by both its efficacy and cost. We compared the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd and T-DM1 for patients with HER2-positive mBC pretreated with anti-HER2 antibodies and a taxane from the perspectives of the United States (US) and China.

Methods: A comprehensive Markov model based on the DESTINY-Breast03 phase III randomized clinical trial was used to compared the cost and effectiveness of T-DXd and T-DM1 for HER2-positive mBC. Data on direct medical cost and utilities were collected from published literatures. The recorded data included the costs, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analysis was conducted to measure the potential uncertainty due to parameter variability. Additional subgroup cost-effectiveness analysis was performed.

Results: Treatment of HER2-positive mBC with T-DXd gained 0.73 QALYs compared with T-DM1 strategy. The incremental cost was $59,942 in the US, with an ICER of $ 82,112/QALY and an INHB of 0.33 QALYs, respectively. In China, the incremental cost of T-DXd versus T-DM1 was $222,680, with an ICER of $305,041/QALY and a negative INHB of -5.18 QALYs. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in the US and $37,653/QALY in China, the probability of T-DXd as the dominant option was 77.5 and 0.1%, respectively. The unit price of T-DXd greatly influenced the results according to one-way sensitivity analysis. To meet the 50% or 90% chance of being cost-effective, the estimated cost of T-DXd would need to be less than $17.24/mg and $12.06/mg in China, respectively.

Conclusion: T-DXd is more cost-effective than T-DM1 for patients with HER2-positive mBC in the US, but not in China at current drug prices.

Cost-effectiveness of palbociclib in early breast cancer patients with a high risk of relapse: Results from the PENELOPE-B trial

Background

Patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) are at a high risk of relapse. PENELOPE-B was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial that investigated adding palbociclib (PAL) for thirteen 28-day cycles to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) in these patients. Clinical results showed no significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival with PAL.

Methods

We performed a pre-planned cost-effectiveness analysis of PAL within PENELOPE-B from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance. Health-related quality of life scores, collected in the trial using the EQ-5D-3L instrument, were converted to utilities based on the German valuation algorithm. Resource use was valued using German price weights. Outcomes were discounted at 3% and modeled with mixed-level linear models to adjust for attrition, repeated measurements, and residual baseline imbalances. Subgroup analyses were performed for key prognostic risk factors. Scenario analyses addressed data limitations and evaluated the robustness of the estimated cost-effectiveness of PAL to methodological choices.

Results

The effects of PAL on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were marginal during the active treatment phase, increasing thereafter to 0.088 (95% confidence interval: −0.001; 0.177) QALYs gained over the 4 years of follow-up. The incremental costs were dominated by PAL averaging EUR 33,000 per patient; costs were higher in the PAL arm but not significantly different after the second year. At an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 380,000 per QALY gained, PAL was not cost-effective compared to the standard-of-care ET. Analyses restricted to Germany and other subgroups were consistent with the main results. Findings were robust in the scenarios evaluated.

Conclusions

One year of PAL added to ET is not cost-effective in women with residual invasive disease after NACT in Germany.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Abemaciclib plus Fulvestrant versus Placebo plus Fulvestrant in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Abemaciclib is a selective and potent small-molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4 and CDK6) which is administered orally. Compared to placebo plus fulvestrant (PF), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (AF) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). However, an economic evaluation of these two treatments is currently lacking. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments for HR*, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) in the USA.

METHODS

A Markov simulation model was constructed using data from a published clinical trial (MONARCH 2). The two simulated treatment strategies included AF or PF. Costs were obtained from the clinical trials and the website, and utility was derived from the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the two treatment strategies.

RESULTS

The total costs were USD 400,377.43 and USD 89,937.77 for AF and PF treatment, respectively. The AF treatment produced 2.09 long-term quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the PF treatment produced 1.08 QALYs. Hence, patients who received AF treatment spent an additional USD 310,439.66 and generated an increase of 1.01 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of USD 307,366 per QALY. At current prices, AF was not cost-effective assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 150,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Despite significant gains in PFS over AF, it is not a cost-effective treatment for HR*, HER2- ABC in the USA at current drug prices.

Cost-effectiveness of Ribociclib in HER2- negative breast cancer: A synthesis of current evidence

Background

The main aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of Ribociclib in the treatment of patients with breast cancer by assessing the published evidence.

Method

A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to identify the economic evaluations/cost-effectiveness study of Ribociclib. In this study, several databases were inspected, including PubMed, NHS Economic Evaluation, Cochran, and Scopus. Studies were eligible if they assessed the cost-effectiveness of Ribociclib and reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The study was performed and conducted following the PRISMA reporting guidelines.

Results

Of 70 studies identified, 8 articles meet our inclusion criteria. The cost-effectiveness threshold varied from $24,144.18 in Spain to $198,000/QALY in the USA. Moreover, the result demonstrated that the mean ICER varied across different countries $1,863.47/QALY in Spain and $813,132/QALY in the USA.

Conclusion

Among all CDK4/6 inhibitors medications, current evidence indicated that the use of Ribociclib for HER2- negative breast cancer management was beneficial and considered to be cost-effective. Future research is needed to investigate the role of Ribociclib in long-term treatment.

Role of CDK4/6 inhibitors in patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal receptor-2 negative (HER-2) metastatic breast cancer study protocol for a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUCTION

It is currently unclear which cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, combined with endocrine therapy, is the preferred treatment approach in patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal receptor-2 (HER2) negative metastatic breast cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the existing evidence for the comparative efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of different CDK4/6 inhibitors for metastatic breast cancer in first-line and second-line settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will systematically conduct a literature search in Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library and additional searches by handsearching citations of previous systematic reviews. We will also screen major conference proceedings (American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium). Preliminary scoping searches were conducted in July 2021, but the search will be updated when new trials are available. The primary outcome was progression-free survival. The secondary outcomes were overall survival, objective response rates, grade 3-4 haematological and non-haematological toxicities, quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The risk of bias will be assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tools, and the quality of evidence will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be performed to further confirm our findings. In addition, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be conducted to determine uncertainty.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study does not require ethics approval as only secondary data will be collected. The results of our study will provide an overview of the current level of CDK4/6 inhibitors for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, and undertake subgroup analyses to explore variables that might affect these effects. The results of this study will be presented at an international clinical conference and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021266597.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy for advanced hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer: a systematic review

Background

Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2−) breast cancer is the most common molecular subtype of breast cancer in many countries, and endocrine therapy remains a mainstay in its treatment. Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors are a new class of targeted agents administered orally that are recommended being used in combination with endocrine therapy as first and second line treatments for advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer. However, their high prices largely hinder using these drugs in real world settings. To offer a new basis for future research, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of combinations of CDK4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy in the treatment of advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer.

Methods

We systematically searched several frequently used databases and identified economic evaluations published from February 2015 to April 2021. The systematic review was performed after retrieving the literatures and extracting data based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each selected economic evaluation was assessed by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

Results

The literature search yielded 161 articles, among which fourteen studies (15 articles) with CHEER scores ranging from 58.33% to 87.50% entered the final analysis. Markov models were used in most studies. Based on the currently available data, CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy were less cost-effective in first- or second-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer. However, ribociclib plus letrozole was more cost-effective than palbociclib plus letrozole in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women. The economic impacts of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy in non-postmenopausal patients or second-line therapy cannot be fully evaluated due to the limited number of studies. The three most common factors affecting economic outcomes were the prices of CDK4/6 inhibitors, hazard ratios for progression-free survival and overall survival, and health status utility values.

Discussion

CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy have shown significantly improved efficacy outcomes in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer (mBC)/advancer breast cancer (ABC) first-line and second-line treatment for endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant populations, while more potential fields including neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings are being identified to benefit a wider range of breast cancer patients. Meanwhile, risk of severe adverse events that more likely to happen in patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors can lead to reduced life quality and higher medical costs patients need to afford. The adverse drug reaction related cost in several economic burden studies were explored to be primarily driven by hospitalizations and outpatient, and assessment of cost associated with CDK4/6 inhibitors adverse events is worth further developing. Drug wastage costs were found higher in palbociclib regimen than ribociclib regimen due to different dosing patterns. Moreover, current economic evaluations showed that ribociclib plus letrozole had better economic benefits than palbociclib plus letrozole for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2− ABC.

Barriers and facilitators to taking CDK4/6 inhibitors among patients with metastatic breast cancer: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Most studies of adherence to treatment for breast cancer have focused on early-stage patients. Findings from these studies may not generalize to patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators of adherence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors among patients with MBC, guided by the social ecologic model (SEM).

METHODS

Patients with MBC (N = 25), their caregivers (N = 9), and oncology providers (N = 13) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring their experiences with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by three raters using a combined deductive and inductive approach.

RESULTS

Qualitative analysis identified barriers and facilitators of adherence at each SEM level. Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors were most frequently discussed. Intrapersonal factors included knowledge/beliefs about CDK4/6 inhibitors, side effects, and establishing a routine. Interpersonal factors included effective communication with/coordination by the care team, support from family and friends, and information from other patients with MBC. Although less frequently discussed, policy factors (i.e., cost of CDK4/6 inhibitors) were of great concern to patients, caregivers, and providers.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to adherence to CDK4/6 inhibitors exist at multiple levels. Our results underscore the potential value of a multilevel intervention (e.g., patient education, evidence-based strategies for symptom management, tips for open and assertive communication with providers, information about financial resources/support available, and so on) to support adherence in this population.

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018

Importance

Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Objective

To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs.

Results

Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

Economic Evaluation of Sacituzumab Govitecan for the Treatment of Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China and the US

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG) for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on mTNBC from the Chinese and United States (US) perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of SG versus single-agent chemotherapy based on clinical data from the ASCENT phase 3 randomized trial. Cost and utility data were obtained from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to observe model stability. A Markov model was constructed to validate the results.

RESULTS

In China, SG yielded an additional 0.35 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of Chinese Renminbi ¥2257842. The ICER was ¥6375856 ($924037)/QALY. In the US, SG yielded the same additional QALY at an extra cost of $175393 and the ICER was $494479/QALY. Similar results were obtained from the Markov model. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that SG price had the greatest impact on the ICER. PSA showed the probability of SG to be cost-effective when compared with chemotherapy was zero at the current willing-to-pay threshold of ¥217341/QALY and $150000/QALY in China and the US, respectively. The probability of cost-effectiveness of SG would approximate 50% if its price was reduced to ¥10.44/mg in China and $3.65/mg in the US.

CONCLUSION

SG is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment of mTNBC at the current price both in China and the US.

Health-related quality of life with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in the PEARL study

BACKGROUND

The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively.

RESULTS

Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov).

EUDRACT STUDY NUMBER

2013-003170-27.

Efficacy and safety of CDK4/6 and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors as second-line treatment in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We compared the efficacy and safety of combinations of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors as second-line treatment in postmenopausal women with HR⁺, HER2^- metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases for phase II/III randomized trials evaluating CDK4/6 and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors plus fulvestrant. We compared the results with a network meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed following the GRADE approach. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival, overall response rate, overall survival and G3-4 adverse drug events (ADEs).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were identified in the network meta-analysis. PFS was significantly improved by treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and ribociclib plus fulvestrant compared to pictilisib plus fulvestrant. The ORR following treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, ribociclib plus fulvestrant, palbociclib plus fulvestrant, buparlisib plus fulvestrant, and alpelisib plus fulvestrant significantly differed from that observed following treatment with placebo plus fulvestrant. In terms of OS, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, ribociclib plus fulvestrant, and buparlisib plus fulvestrant had a significant difference. The risks of ADEs were similar among three CDK4/6 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

As second-line treatment, three CDK4/6 inhibitors showed superior clinical efficacy compared to other PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors with comparable safety profiles.

Real-world clinical outcome and toxicity data and economic aspects in patients with advanced breast cancer treated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy: the experience of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group

Background

We evaluated real-world clinical outcomes and toxicity data and assessed treatment-related costs in patients with advanced breast cancer who received treatment with cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDKi).

Patients and methods

We conducted a prospective–retrospective analysis of patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer who received a CDKi, in combination with endocrine therapy, at any line of treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Cost analysis was conducted from a public third-payer (National Organization for Healthcare Services Provision (EOPYY)) perspective, assessing only costs related to direct medical care, including drug therapy costs and adverse drug reaction (ADR)-related costs.

Results

From July 2015 to October 2019, 365 women received endocrine therapy combined with CDKi; median age was 61 years, postmenopausal 290 (80.6%) patients. CDKi were administered as first-line treatment in 149 (40.9%) patients, second-line treatment in 96 (26.4%) and third-line treatment and beyond in 119 (32.7%) patients. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia and fatigue. Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 86 (23.6%) patients, whereas 8 (2.2%) patients permanently discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The median PFS for patients who received CDKi as first-line, second-line and third-line treatment and beyond was 18.7, 12 and 7.4 months, respectively. The median overall survival since the initiation of CDKi treatment was 29.9 months (95% CI: 23.0–not yet reached (NR)). The mean pharmaceutical therapy cost estimated per cycle was 2 724.12 € for each patient, whereas the main driver of the ADR-related costs was haematological adverse events.

Conclusions

Treatment with CDKi was well tolerated, with a low drug discontinuation rate. Patients who received CDKi as first-line treatment had improved PFS and OS compared with second-line treatment and beyond. The main component of direct medical costs assessed in the cost analysis comprises CDKi pharmaceutical therapy costs.

Trial registration number

NCT04133207

Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Ribociclib to Endocrine Therapy for Patients With HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer Among Premenopausal or Perimenopausal Women

Purpose

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy for pre/perimenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer from the US payer perspective.

Methods

A partitioned survival analysis model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of ribociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone based on clinical data from the MONALEESA-7 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs were estimated and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainties of model inputs. Additional scenario analyses were performed.

Results

In the base-case, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was more effective than endocrine therapy with an additional 1.39 QALYs but also more costly with an ICER of $282,996/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that overall survival associated with the treatments and the cost of ribociclib had the greatest impact on the ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only beyond a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $272,867, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy would surpass endocrine therapy alone as a cost-effective option.

Conclusions

From the US payer perspective, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for pre/perimenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer is not cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $100,000 or $150,000 per QALY in comparison of endocrine therapy alone.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs of patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer treated with ribociclib versus other CDK4/6 inhibitors

AIMS

To assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs among women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- aBC) treated with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors.

METHODS

Women with HR+/HER2- aBC, initiating CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment were identified using IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (Q1/2000-Q3/2018). Based on the first CDK4/6 inhibitor patients received (index therapy), three cohorts were identified: abemaciclib, palbociclib, and ribociclib. The baseline period (six months preceding treatment initiation) was used to describe patient characteristics. All-cause HRU and direct total healthcare costs (medical and pharmacy) from treatment initiation until the earliest of the end of index therapy, continuous health plan enrollment, or data availability, were compared for the ribociclib cohort versus the abemaciclib and palbociclib cohorts, separately, using weighted regression analyses balanced on baseline covariates.

RESULTS

Average age at treatment initiation was ∼60 years and the majority of patients were postmenopausal (abemaciclib: 92%; palbociclib: 92%; ribociclib: 79%). Average follow-up duration was 3.9, 8.8, and 5.9 months for the abemaciclib, palbociclib, and ribociclib cohorts, respectively. After reweighting, HRU was not statistically different between the ribociclib and abemaciclib cohorts, however, the ribociclib cohort incurred significantly lower total healthcare costs (-$5,452; 95% CI: -$8,726; -$1,139, p = .01). Medical costs (driven by outpatient costs) and pharmacy costs (driven by CDK4/6 inhibitor costs) were significantly lower for the ribociclib cohort. Among the reweighted ribociclib and palbociclib cohorts, HRU and total healthcare costs were not statistically different, although the ribociclib cohort had lower outpatient costs per-patient-per-month (-$1,245, 95% CI: -$2,349; -$37, p = .04).

LIMITATIONS

Due to the retrospective, observational design, treatment cohorts were not randomly assigned.

CONCLUSIONS

During CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, ribociclib patients tended to incur lower medical and pharmacy costs than abemaciclib patients. Among ribociclib and palbociclib patients, HRU and healthcare costs were similar.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ribociclib for Hormone Receptor-Positive HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Ribociclib has provided significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, given the high cost of ribociclib, its value must be evaluated based on cost-effectiveness. Thus, we aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib for postmenopausal patients with HR-positive and HER2-negative ABC.

METHODS

A comprehensive Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant as first-line treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC. Variables were estimated based on data from the randomized Phase III MONALEESA-3 trial. Ten-year values were estimated for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of a United States payer. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to confirm the model's robustness.

RESULTS

Ribociclib plus fulvestrant increased the treatment cost by $382,172 and provided 0.47 QALYs, relative to fulvestrant alone, which corresponded to an ICER of $813,132 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that ribociclib was unlikely to be cost-effective even under the most favorable assumptions. When the cost of ribociclib was <$1,384, there was a >50% chance of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Subgroup analyses also confirmed that ribociclib was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

At current drug prices in the United States, ribociclib is unlikely to be cost-effective for treating postmenopausal patients with HR-positive HER2-negative ABC. Despite the clinical benefits of ribociclib, its cost would need to decrease to provide more favorable economic outcomes.

Ribociclib plus fulvestrant in the treatment of breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Endocrine therapy (ET) is a standard first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with ET in patients with ABC. Recent reports indicate that the addition of the CDK4/6i ribociclib to ET, including fulvestrant, significantly improves PFS and overall survival (OS).

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus fulvestrant in HR+/HER2- ABC and its role in clinical practice. Various post-progression strategies are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

In MONALEESA-3, ribociclib +fulvestrant significantly improved PFS and OS in postmenopausal patients who received no prior chemotherapy and ≤1 prior line of ET for ABC and benefited many patient subgroups, including those with visceral metastases and ET resistance. The safety of this combination is manageable and consistent with the known safety profile of ribociclib, with myelosuppression being a common and expected toxicity; other relevant toxicities requiring monitoring that occur at a low rate include hepatobiliary toxicity, pneumonitis, and QTc prolongation. There is an important role for CDK4/6i + ET, including ribociclib + fulvestrant, in clinical practice. The optimal position of CDK4/6i in first or subsequent lines of treatment and the optimal post-CDK4/6i progression strategies are not yet elucidated.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib as initial treatment for premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer in Singapore

BACKGROUND

CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown promising results for treating advanced breast cancer (ABC) and are routinely used in Singapore. In view of their high costs, it is important to assess their relative value compared to existing standards of care in the local setting.

AIMS

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to goserelin and a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen as initial therapy for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC in Singapore.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free on first-line treatment, progression-free on second-line treatment, progressed disease, and death) was developed from a healthcare system perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Key clinical inputs were derived from the MONALEESA-7 trial, and survival curves were extrapolated beyond the trial period. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct medical costs were obtained from local public healthcare institutions. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD197, 667 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the survival parametric distribution, ribociclib price, time horizon, and utility weights used. Even when these were varied, ICERs remained high and not cost-effective in the local context.

CONCLUSION

At its current price, adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in Singapore for HR+, HER2- ABC. Results from this study are useful to inform future funding decisions for CDK4/6 inhibitors alongside other factors including clinical effectiveness, safety, and budget impact considerations.

Cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer

Background:

The effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on advanced TNBC from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

A Markov model was adopted to project the disease course of newly diagnosed advanced TNBC. The clinical data were gathered from the IMpassion130 trial. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed for exploring the model uncertainties.

Results:

Our results demonstrated that atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel augmented versus nab-paclitaxel therapy cost $104,278 and $149,465 and yielded an additional 0.371 and 0.762 of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in in all patients with unknown PD-L1 status and subpopulation with PD-L1-positive, respectively, which led to an ICER of $281,448 and $196,073 per QALY gained. In all patients with unknown PD-L1 status, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment guiding by PD-L1 expression testing resulted in an ICER of $183,508 per QALY gained. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel could maintain a trend of positive incremental net health benefits and >50% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY in more than half of subgroups with PD-L1-positive. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel versus nab-paclitaxel treatment.

Conclusion:

The atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy based on nab-paclitaxel for the patients with PD-L1-positive advanced TNBC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ramucirumab treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations of at least 400 ng/ml

Objective: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab versus placebo for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations (AFP) of at least 400 ng/ml in the United States.Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). With TreeAge software, the disease process was modeled as three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death. Costs were extracted from the REACH-2 trial, and utility was derived from published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare ramucirumab with placebo. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to examine the robustness of the results.Results: In the base case analysis, ramucirumab therapy had a cost of $55,508.41 and generated 0.54 QALYs, while placebo therapy had a cost of $761.09 and generated 0.47 QALYs, leading to an additional $54,747.32 in costs and 0.07 QALYs. The ICER was $782,104.57 per QALY, which was much higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. According to sensitivity analyses, the utility of PD in the two groups was the dominant parameter influencing the ICER.Conclusion: Although ramucirumab was associated with prolonged survival for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment with an AFP of at least 400 ng/ml, it is not a cost-effective treatment from a United States payer perspective.

Economic evaluations of oral medications for breast cancer treatment in the U.S.: a systematic review with a focus on cost-effectiveness threshold

Introduction: With the advent of targeted therapy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently approved several oral anticancer medications (OAMs) for breast cancer (BC). Despite the improved effectiveness of those OAMs, the high financial burden is an issue. Evidence from cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can provide valuable information for decision-makers when deciding whether to use these high-priced medications. Many CEAs on OAMs have been conducted using various analytical approaches and cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs). However, there is no comprehensive systematic review of CEAs across all OAMs.Area covered: PubMed and Cochrane library were used to select for CEAs of OAM for BC in the U.S. published by May 2019. Among the 25 included studies, studies published between 1993 and 2011 analyzed either early BC (n = 11) or advanced/metastatic BC (n = 5), those between 2012-2019 analyzed advanced/metastatic BC (n = 9). Studies including targeted therapies were published after 2009. The CETs tended to increase over time and were higher in the studies for advanced/metastatic BC (median = $125,000) than those for early BC (median = $50,000).Expert commentary: The target population and medications of interest have changed and the methods of articles have evolved. The range of CETs tends to differ by study setting with an increase over time.

CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced breast cancer, what is beyond?

Resistant to hormonal treatment considered the main clinical challenge in the management of advanced breast cancer (ABC). The use of CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6I) may change the treatment landscape. In this mandated review, we will focus on the applicable role of CDK4/6I in the management of HR+/HER2- ABC, mechanisms of resistance, and promising future implementation.