Cost effectiveness of letrozole versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ early-stage breast cancer

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole in post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer from a UK payer perspective.

METHODS

A cohort-based partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole in post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer over a lifetime horizon. The analysis was carried out from a National Health Services and Personal Social Services perspective, and results are presented in incremental costs per quality adjusted life years. Clinical data from three randomized controlled trials (MONALEESA-2, PALOMA-1 and PALOMA-2 studies) were used, and supplemented with available real world evidence. Costs categories comprised of drug acquisition, medical management, and treatment of adverse events. Healthcare resource utilization data were identified from literature and unit costs sourced from secondary sources. Utility values were derived from MONALEESA-2 study and were supported with values identified from literature. Both deterministic and probabilistic analyses were carried out to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, treatment with ribociclib plus letrozole increased mean progression free survival (PFS) by 4.1 months and overall survival by 5.0 months compared to palbociclib plus letrozole. Further, treatment with ribociclib plus letrozole resulted in cost-savings of £8464 and incremental QALYs of 0.261, demonstrating that treatment with ribociclib plus letrozole is dominant to treatment with palbociclib plus letrozole. The probabilistic analysis also yielded mean cost-savings of £7914 and mean QALY gain of 0.273. At willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY, treatment with ribociclib plus letrozole had a 92% probability of being cost-effective compared to palbociclib and letrozole.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the analysis demonstrate that ribociclib plus letrozole treatment is both cost-saving and a cost-effective option amongst the available cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors for the treatment of post-menopausal women with advanced breast cancer. The biggest driver of the cost savings were the lower acquisition costs of ribociclib.

Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transparent reporting of validation efforts of health economic models give stakeholders better insight into the credibility of model outcomes. In this study we reviewed recently published studies on seasonal influenza and early breast cancer in order to gain insight into the reporting of model validation efforts in the overall health economic literature.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in Pubmed and Embase to retrieve health economic modelling studies published between 2008 and 2014. Reporting on model validation was evaluated by checking for the word validation, and by using AdViSHE (Assessment of the Validation Status of Health Economic decision models), a tool containing a structured list of relevant items for validation. Additionally, we contacted corresponding authors to ask whether more validation efforts were performed other than those reported in the manuscripts.

RESULTS

A total of 53 studies on seasonal influenza and 41 studies on early breast cancer were included in our review. The word validation was used in 16 studies (30 %) on seasonal influenza and 23 studies (56 %) on early breast cancer; however, in a minority of studies, this referred to a model validation technique. Fifty-seven percent of seasonal influenza studies and 71 % of early breast cancer studies reported one or more validation techniques. Cross-validation of study outcomes was found most often. A limited number of studies reported on model validation efforts, although good examples were identified. Author comments indicated that more validation techniques were performed than those reported in the manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although validation is deemed important by many researchers, this is not reflected in the reporting habits of health economic modelling studies. Systematic reporting of validation efforts would be desirable to further enhance decision makers' confidence in health economic models and their outcomes.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.