First-line Treatment with Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Women with Hormone-receptor-positive Advanced Breast Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors have emerged as a significant advancement in the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Despite the clinical efficacy of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, there remains a significant gap in understanding their cost-effectiveness, particularly regarding the long-term economic impact and the key drivers of costs, when used in combination with endocrine therapy. This study aims to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies evaluating CDK4/6 inhibitors in treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer and identify key drivers of costs of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies from February 2015 to March 2022 reporting cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors in MBC treatment. Incremental net benefits (INBs) were estimated, and meta-analysis was conducted. This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 120 articles, of which 18 were eligible for systematic review and 16 for meta-analysis. None of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors had positive INB compared to endocrine/aromatase inhibitors therapy alone. The pooled INB was estimated at -$149,266.87 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = -$196,961.54, -$101,572.20).

CONCLUSION

The combination of CDK4/6 inhibitors and letrozole/endocrine therapy for the treatment of postmenopausal patients with advanced HR+/HER2 - MBC was not cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers' perspective.

METHODS

A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the "non-recurrence" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Bevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%.

CONCLUSION

Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.

Is Bevacizumab a Cost-Effective Regimen for Treating Cerebral Radiation Necrosis in the United States?

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab has been demonstrated to have superior efficacy in the treatment of cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN), but its high cost may exacerbate the disease burden. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in comparison to corticosteroids for treating CRN from the US payers' perspective.

METHODS

Decision tree models were constructed to simulate the process of bevacizumab and corticosteroids in CRN short-term and long-term therapy. Critical clinical data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial. Costs and utility values were obtained from the US official websites and published literature. The main outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the models.

RESULTS

In the short-term and long-term models, bevacizumab added 0.11 (0.46 vs 0.35) and 0.16 (0.54 vs 0.38) QALYs compared with corticosteroids therapy, with corresponding incremental costs of $12,351 and $23,253, respectively. The resultant ICERs were $112,987/QALY and $150,245/QALY for short-term and long-term treatment, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that utility value of nonrecurrence status, body weight, and bevacizumab price per cycle were the most influential factors for ICER of both models. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY in the United States, the probabilities of bevacizumab being cost-effective for CRN short and long-term treatment were 63.9% and 49%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical alternative for CRN short-term treatment from the US payers' perspective, whereas long-term therapy draws an opposite conclusion.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of dalpiciclib and abemaciclib combined with an aromatase inhibitor as first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

CDK4/6 inhibitors dalpiciclib and abemaciclib have been approved by the Chinese National Medical Products Administration as first-line treatment for postmenopausal females with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dalpiciclib plus letrozole/anastrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor [NSAI]) compared with abemaciclib plus NSAI as a first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- ABC in China.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model with three health states to evaluate health and economic outcomes of first-line treatment with dalpiciclib plus NSAI and abemaciclib plus NSAI for HR+/HER2- ABC. Efficacy data was obtained from MONARCH3 and DAWNA-2 trials. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Compared with abemaciclib plus NSAI, dalpiciclib plus NSAI resulted in 4.27 additional QALYs, with an ICER of $14827.4/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times gross domestic product per capita in China for 2023 ($37721.5/QALY), the cost-effectiveness probability of dalpiciclib plus NSAI was 77.42%.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of Chinese payers, dalpiciclib plus NSAI appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared with abemaciclib plus NSAI for the first-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- ABC in China.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

MONARCH3, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT02246621 and DAWNA-2, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03966898.

Cost-effectiveness of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan for HER2-low Advanced Breast Cancer in the United States

PURPOSE

Trastuzumab deruxtecan has been shown to be effective for advanced breast cancer with low levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. To optimize the allocation of limited health care resources, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to project the disease course of advanced breast cancer. Clinical efficacy, treatment utilization, safety, and cost data were gathered from the DESTINY-Breast04 (Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Previously Treated HER2-Low Advanced Breast Cancer) trial and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Transition probabilities were obtained from the reported survival probabilities per DESTINY-Breast04 group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the incremental monetary benefit, and the incremental net health benefit were measured. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed to explore the uncertainty of the model.

FINDINGS

Trastuzumab deruxtecan had an ICER of $307,751 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with an incremental net health benefit of -0.317 QALY and an incremental monetary benefit of -$63,313 compared with the physician's choice of alternative chemotherapy agents. Subgroup analysis indicated that trastuzumab deruxtecan had an ICER of $383,776 per QALY gained for the hormone receptor-positive subgroup and an ICER of $194,424 per QALY for the hormone receptor-negative subgroup. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of trastuzumab deruxtecan had the most impact on model outcomes. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve projected that the probability of trastuzumab deruxtecan being cost-effective was 5% in the overall population, 2% in the hormone receptor-positive subgroup, and 56% in the hormone receptor-negative subgroup at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $200,000 per QALY.

IMPLICATIONS

Trastuzumab deruxtecan may be a cost-effective option for hormone receptor-negative patients with advanced breast cancer with low levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.

Cost-effectiveness and Value-based Pricing of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Metastatic Breast Cancer With Low HER2 Expression

BACKGROUND

Recently, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial revealed that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) significantly prolonged overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Considering the extraexpensive price of the new drug, a cost-effectiveness analysis of T-DXd is necessary to perform in the United States. In addition, because T-DXd has not been marketed in China, the pricing is a very important driver for the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd. The range of drug costs for which T-DXd could be considered cost-effective from a Chinese healthcare system perspective was explored.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd versus physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCC). The simulation time horizon for this model was the life-time of patients. Transition probabilities were based on data from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Health utility data were derived from published studies. Outcome measures were costs (in 2022 US$), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty of key model parameters and their joint impact on the base-case results.

RESULTS

The model predicted that T-DXd provided an improvement of 0.84 LYs and 0.58 QALYs compared to PCC, with an ICER of $259,452.05 per QALY in the United States and $87,646.40 per QALY in China. The one-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the price of T-DXd had the greatest impact on ICERs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted that the probabilities of T-DXd being cost-effective compared to PCC were 7.2% and 0% at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per QALY in the United States and $36,475 per QALY (3 times the per capita gross domestic product) in China, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that T-DXd was more effective for patients without visceral disease at baseline, followed by patients with Asian ethnic, patients without prior CDK 4/6 inhibitors therapy, and patients with HER2-1+ (IHC detection) status.

CONCLUSION

T-DXd was unlikely to offer a reasonable value for the money spent compared to PCC for patients with HER2-low MBC in the United States. A value-based price for T-DXd was reduced by 51% in the United States and less than $1950 per cycle in China.

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 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.