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

Cost-effectiveness of the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard endocrine therapy in first-line treatment of women with advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer in Mexico

PURPOSE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding a CDK4/6 inhibitor to standard endocrine therapy in the first-line setting for advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer in postmenopausal and premenopausal women, from the perspective of the Mexican public healthcare system.

METHODS

We used a partitioned survival model to simulate relevant health outcomes in a synthetic cohort of patients with breast cancer derived from the PALOMA-2, MONALEESA-2, MONARCH-3 trials for postmenopausal patients, and from the MONALEESA-7 study for premenopausal patients. Effectiveness was measured in life years gained. Cost-effectiveness is reported through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

RESULTS

In postmenopausal patients, palbociclib led to an increase of 1.51 life years, ribociclib of 1.58 years, and abemaciclib of 1.75 years, compared to letrozole alone. The ICER was 36,648 USD, 32,422 USD, and 26,888 USD, respectively. In premenopausal patients, ribociclib led to an increase of 1.82 life years when added to goserelin and endocrine therapy, with an ICER of 44,579 USD. In the cost minimization analysis, for postmenopausal patients, ribociclib was the treatment with the highest costs due to follow-up requirements.

CONCLUSION

Palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib demonstrated a significant increase in effectiveness in postmenopausal patients, and ribociclib in premenopausal patients, when added to standard endocrine therapy for patients with advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer. At the national stablished willingness to pay, only the addition of abemaciclib to standard endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women would be considered cost-effective. However, differences on results between therapies for postmenopausal patients were not statistically significant.

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 ribociclib versus palbociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: analysis based on final OS results of MONALEESA-2 and PALOMA-2

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Combination of a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor and an aromatase inhibitor is the standard of care first-line (1L) treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Updated clinical data have become available from the MONALEESA-2 and PALOMA-2 trials for ribociclib and palbociclib, respectively. This analysis with updated data assessed the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib versus palbociclib, both in combination with letrozole, in the setting of 1L therapy of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC, from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service perspective.

METHODS

A three state (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model with a 1-month cycle was developed. Clinical data were derived from MONALEESA-2 (NCT01958021) and PALOMA-2 (NCT01740427). The treatment effect was modeled using hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival and overall survival derived through a matched-adjusted indirect comparison. Trial data and published literature were used to derive utility values. Cost inputs included drug acquisition, disease monitoring, subsequent therapies, and adverse events. Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3.5%, over a 40-year lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Ribociclib dominated palbociclib, and was both overall cost saving (-£3,273) and more effective (+1.251 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Ribociclib total drug costs were £17,156 lower than palbociclib. At a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of ribociclib being cost-effective was almost 100%. Ribociclib remained cost-effective when varying HRs, utilities, drug cost, and health state costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Ribociclib is both cost-saving and cost-effective compared with palbociclib for the 1L treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC in the UK.

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.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib and Palbociclib in the Second-Line Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Post-Menopausal Indian Women

BACKGROUND

In this study, we evaluate the cost and outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and conventional chemotherapy as the second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in India.

METHODS

Using a Markov model, the clinical effectiveness of managing HR+, HER2- MBC in postmenopausal women with either a CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) and fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and chemotherapy (single-agent paclitaxel or capecitabine) was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were estimated from two different points of view: scenario I, as per the prevailing market prices of the drugs; and scenario II, as per the reimbursement rates set up by the publicly financed national health insurance scheme. Incremental cost per QALY gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and was assessed for cost effectiveness using a threshold of 1-time the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in India from a societal perspective.

RESULTS

In scenario I, an MBC patient was found to incur a lifetime cost of Indian Rupees (₹) 2.54 million ($34,644), ₹2.53 million ($34,496), ₹512,598 ($6,984), ₹326,026 ($4,442) and ₹237,115 ($3,230) for the ribociclib and palbociclib combination arms, fulvestrant monotherapy, single-agent paclitaxel and the single-agent capecitabine treatment arms, respectively. The lifetime cost for CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant monotherapy, paclitaxel, and capecitabine arms was estimated to be ₹1.94 million ($26,459), ₹1.92 million ($26,220), ₹315,387 ($4,296), ₹187,392 ($2,553) and ₹153,263 ($2,088), respectively, in scenario II. The mean QALYs lived per MBC patient with CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant, paclitaxel and capecitabine were estimated to be 1.4, 1.0, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. None of the treatment arms are cost effective at current prices and reimbursement rates at a threshold of 1-time the per capita GDP of India. However, a 78% reduction in the current market price or a 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate of fulvestrant in the government-funded insurance program will make it a cost-effective treatment option for HR+, HER2- MBC patients in India.

CONCLUSION

CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MBC patients. A 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate for fulvestrant monotherapy will make it a cost-effective treatment option in the Indian context.

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.

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.

CDK4/6 inhibitors: A potential therapeutic approach for triple negative breast cancer

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells lack expression of the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2). Thus, TNBC does not respond to hormone-based therapy. TNBC is also an aggressive subtype associated with poorer prognoses compared to other breast cancers. Conventional chemotherapeutics are used to manage TNBC although systemic relapse is common with limited benefits being reported as well as adverse events being documented. Here, we discuss current therapies for TNBC in the neo- and adjuvant settings, as well as recent advancements in the targeting of PD-L1-positive tumors and inclusion of PARP inhibitors for TNBC patients with BRCA mutations. The recent development of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors in ER-positive breast cancers has demonstrated significant improvements in progression free survival in patients. Here, we review preclinical data of CDK 4/6 inhibitors and describe current clinical trials assessing these in TNBC disease.

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.