Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole in her2-positive, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in Canada

Cost-effectiveness analysis of elacestrant versus standard endocrine therapy for second-/third-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a US payer perspective

Background

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of elacestrant (ELA) and standard-of-care (SOC) as second-/third-line treatment for pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)- positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer (A/MBC) in the US.

Methods

The 3 health states partitioned survival model (PSM) was conducted from the perspective of the US third-party payers. The time horizon for the model lasted 10 years. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the EMERALD trial (NCT03778931). Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. One-way sensitivity analysis as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to observe model stability.

Result

ELA led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8,672,360/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared with SOC in the overall population and $2,900,560/QALY gained compared with fulvestrant (FUL) in the ESR1(estrogen receptor 1) mutation subgroup. The two ICERs of ELA were significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values of $150,000/QALY.

Conclusions

ELA was not cost-effective for the second-/third-line treatment of patients with ER+/HER2-A/MBC compared with SOC in the US.

Cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy with Y-90 resin microspheres for intermediate- and advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Brazil

AimsHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a severe condition with poor prognosis that places a significant burden on patients, caregivers, and healthcare systems. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) is a treatment available to patients with HCC which addresses some of the limitations of alternative treatment options. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken into the use of SIRT using Y-90 resin microspheres for the treatment of unresectable, intermediate- and late-stage HCC in Brazil.Materials and methodsA partitioned-survival model was developed, including a tunnel state for patients downstaged to receive treatments with curative intent. Sorafenib was the selected comparator, a common systemic treatment in Brazil and for which comparative evidence exists. Clinical data were extracted from published sources of pivotal trials, and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years (LYs). The analysis was conducted from the Brazilian private payer perspective and a lifetime horizon was implemented. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsLYs and QALYs were higher for SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres versus sorafenib (0.27 and 0.20 incremental LYs and QALYs, respectively) and costs were slightly higher for SIRT (R$15,864). The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was R$77,602 per QALY. The ICER was mostly influenced by parameters defining the sorafenib overall survival curve and SIRT had a 73% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$135,761 per QALY (three times the per-capita gross domestic product in Brazil). Overall, sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results indicating that SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres is cost-effective compared with sorafenib.LimitationsA rapidly evolving treatment landscape in Brazil and worldwide, and the lack of local data for some variables were the main limitations.ConclusionsSIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres is a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib in Brazil.

Efficacy of tucatinib for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after HER2-targeted therapy: a network meta-analysis

Aim: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in patients receiving therapy for HER2+ unresectable/metastatic breast cancer after ≥1 HER2-directed therapy was conducted to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: Hazard ratios (HRs) and relative differences from fractional polynomials (FPs) for PFS and OS were assessed by Bayesian network meta-analyses. Results: For PFS, surface under the cumulative rankogram (SUCRA) ranked tucatinib plus trastuzumab with capecitabine as highest in both HR and FP analyses, followed by T-DM1 monotherapy and neratinib plus capecitabine. For OS, SUCRA ranked tucatinib plus trastuzumab with capecitabine as highest in both HR and FP analyses, followed by pertuzumab plus trastuzumab with capecitabine and T-DM1 monotherapy, with similar scores. Conclusion: Tucatinib plus trastuzumab with capecitabine, and T-DM1 monotherapy, consistently showed improved PFS and OS versus lapatinib/trastuzumab plus capecitabine and non-targeted treatments.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib and Vemurafenib as First-Line Treatment in Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma in China

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib plus trametinib combination therapy versus vemurafenib as first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a healthcare system perspective in China. Methods: This study employed a partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival and dead) to parameterize the data derived from Combi-v trial and extrapolated to 30 years. Health states’ utilities were measured by EQ-5D-3L, also sourced from the Combi-v trial. Costs including drug acquisition costs, disease management costs and adverse event costs were based on the Chinese Drug Bidding Database and physician survey in China. The primary outcomes of the model were lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, respectively. Result: Dabrafenib plus trametinib is projected to increase a patient’s life expectancy by 0.95 life-years over vemurafenib (3.03 vs. 2.08) and 1.09 QALY gains (2.48 vs. 1.39) with an incremental cost of $3833. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $3511 per QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, at a threshold of $33,357 per QALY (three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China in 2020), the probability of dabrafenib plus trametinib being cost-effective was 90%. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, the results were most sensitive to the dabrafenib plus trametinib drug costs, vemurafenib drug costs and discount rate of cost. Conclusion: Dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy yields more clinical benefits than vemurafenib. Using a threshold of $33,357 per QALY, dabrafenib plus trametinib is very cost-effective as compared with vemurafenib in China.

Productivity loss/gain in cost-effectiveness analyses for vaccines: a systematic review

Introduction: The kinds of costs included in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for vaccines, such as direct medical costs and indirect costs, may affect their outcomes. While some guidelines recommend inclusion of costs associated with productivity losses/gains, very little guidance is provided about the productivity elements to include and their calculation approach.Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review of CEAs for vaccines and vaccine programs published between 1 January 2010 and 19 November 2019 that included productivity costs using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The kind of productivity elements included their calculation approach, and the impact of their inclusion on cost-effectiveness are summarized. Among 88 studies identified, productivity elements included were reported for 71 studies (81%) with absenteeism being the most commonly included element. Only 24 studies (27%) reported the approach used to calculate productivity costs (human capital vs. friction approach). Most studies (81%) reported a more favorable cost-effectiveness with the inclusion of productivity losses/gains.Expert opinion: Inclusion of productivity losses/gains for CEAs for vaccines has resulted in more favorable cost-effectiveness based on the studies reviewed. However, clearer guidance on the productivity elements to include by disease area and more transparency on the calculation method used may be needed.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and associated metastases: an overview of systematic reviews

Introduction: Treatment of human epithelial growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer has rapidly evolved over the past decades with the addition of trastuzumab, lapatinib, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). These treatments have dramatically impacted the survival of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients. Nonetheless, these agents are associated with high price tags, begging the question, 'Are treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and associated metastases cost-effective'?Areas covered: We examine evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and associated metastases through a review of systematic reviews on the topic. Additionally, we discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations for future directions in the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of targeted directed agents for HER2-positive mBC.Expert opinion: Heterogeneous evidence from cost-effectiveness studies on the use of targeted directed agents for HER2-positive mBC across the world caution against cross-country comparisons of the value of such treatments. It also militates in favor of the production and use of cost-effectiveness analyses for local rather than global decision-making, thus ensuring that economic evaluations reflect the needs of local decision-makers and populations for which they are devised.

Methodology and results of real-world cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma using registry data

OBJECTIVE

To predict the real-world (RW) cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients after one to three prior therapies.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model that included three health states (progression-free, progressed disease and death) was built. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and time to discontinuation (TTD) data for the Rd arm were derived using the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies in the Czech Republic; the relative treatment effects of KRd versus Rd were estimated from the phase 3, randomised, ASPIRE trial, and were used to predict PFS, OS and TTD for KRd. The model was developed from the payer perspective and included drug costs, administration costs, monitoring costs, palliative care costs and adverse-event related costs collected from Czech sources.

RESULTS

The base case incremental cost effectiveness ratio for KRd compared with Rd was €73,156 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients on KRd incurred costs of €117,534 over their lifetime compared with €53,165 for patients on Rd. The QALYs gained were 2.63 and 1.75 for patients on KRd and Rd, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining the strengths of randomised controlled trials and observational databases in cost-effectiveness models can generate policy-relevant results to allow well-informed decision-making. The current model showed that KRd is likely to be cost-effective versus Rd in the RW and, therefore, the reimbursement of KRd represents an efficient allocation of resources within the healthcare system.

Medical innovation, education, and labor market outcomes of cancer patients

Innovations in cancer treatment have lowered mortality, but little is known about their economic benefits. We assess the effect of two decades of improvement in cancer treatment options on the labor market outcomes of breast and prostate cancer patients. In addition, we compare this effect across cancer patients with different levels of educational attainment. We estimate the effect of medical innovation on cancer patients' labor market outcomes employing tax return and cancer registry data from Canada and measuring medical innovation by using the number of approved drugs and a quality-adjusted patent index. We find that innovations in cancer treatment during the 1990s and 2000s reduced the negative employment effects of cancer by 63% to 70%, corresponding to a reduction in the economic costs of prostate and breast cancer diagnoses by 13,500 and 5800 dollars per year, respectively. The benefits of medical innovation are limited to cancer patients with postsecondary education.

Improved Quality of Life With Anti-TNF Therapy Compared With Continued Corticosteroid Utilization in Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids (CS) and anti-TNF drugs are used to treat Crohn's disease (CD). In this study, we assessed the net health benefit of initiating anti-TNF therapy relative to additional CS use in CD using a novel combination of a retrospective cohort study and a simulation model.

METHODS

Using Medicaid data from 2001 to 2005 and Medicare data from 2006 to 2013, beneficiaries were identified with CD and CS use who subsequently received either an anti-TNF or reached a cumulative dose of >3000 mg CS during the year. By using overall and latent class-specific remission-time equivalent (RTE) estimates derived from discrete-choice experiments, mean 12-month cumulative RTEs were calculated after propensity score adjustment for baseline characteristics. A Markov model was constructed using transition probabilities derived from the retrospective cohort to perform additional sensitivity analyses of RTE estimates, analytic assumptions, and transition probabilities. Cumulative RTEs were calculated via Monte Carlo simulation in this model.

RESULTS

In the retrospective cohort, 1563 new anti-TNF initiators and 1563 propensity score-matched prolonged CS users were identified. Anti-TNF use was associated with greater mean RTEs at the end of 1 year (5.34 vs 4.54, incremental benefit: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53-1.07). This benefit persisted in all latent classes. In the Markov model, anti-TNF therapy was the preferred strategy, and the results were robust in multiple sensitivity analysis and latent class analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In both a retrospective cohort study and a simulation model, anti-TNF use was associated with improved quality of life, measured as RTEs, when compared with continued CS utilization for CD.

An updated systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of therapies for metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

The goal of this systematic review is to provide an update to the review by Pouwels et al. by conducting a systematic review and an assessment of the reporting quality of the economic analyses conducted since 2014.

METHODS

This systematic review identified published articles focused on metastatic breast cancer treatment using the Medline/PubMed and Scopus databases and the following search criteria: (((cost effectiveness[MeSH Terms]) OR (cost effectiveness) OR (cost-effectiveness) OR (cost utility) OR (cost-utility) OR (economic evaluation)) AND (("metastatic breast cancer") OR ("advanced breast cancer"))). The reporting quality of the included articles was evaluated using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 256 identified articles, 67 of the articles were published after October 2014 when the prior systematic review stopped its assessment (Pouwels et al. in Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:485-498, 2017). From the 67 articles, we narrowed down to include 17 original health economic analyses specific to metastatic or advanced breast cancer. These articles were diverse with respect to methods employed and interventions included.

CONCLUSION

Although each of the articles contributed their own analytic strengths and limitations, the overall quality of the studies was moderate. The review demonstrated that the vast majority of the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the typically employed willingness to pay thresholds used in each country of analysis. Only three of the reviewed articles studied chemotherapies rather than treatments targeting either HER2 or hormone receptors, demonstrating a gap in the literature.

Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Endocrine Therapies in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND

Exemestane (EXE), exemestane + everolimus (EXE + EVE), toremifene (TOR), and fulvestrant (FUL) are second-line endocrine therapies for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive (HR +)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2 -) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in Japan. Although the efficacy of these therapies has been shown in recent studies, cost-effectiveness has not yet been determined in Japan.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of second-line endocrine therapies for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR + and HER2 - mBC.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the therapies over a 15-year time horizon from a public healthcare payer's perspective. The efficacy and utility parameters were determined via a systematic search of the literature. Direct medical care costs were used. A discount rate of 2% was applied for costs and outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed for non-visceral metastasis. A series of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and threshold analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Base-case analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 3 million and 6 million Japanese yen (JPY)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TOR and FUL 500 mg relative to EXE, respectively. FUL 250 mg and EXE + EVE were dominated. The overall survival (OS) highly influenced the ICER. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY, the probability of TOR being cost-effective was the highest. Subgroup analysis in non-visceral metastasis revealed 0.4 and 10% reduction in ICER from the base-case results of FUL5 500 mg versus EXE and TOR versus EXE, respectively, while threshold analysis indicated EVE and FUL prices should be reduced 73 and 30%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

As a second-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR +/HER2 - mBC, TOR may be cost-effective relative to other alternatives and seems to be the most favorable choice, based on a WTP threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY. FUL 250 mg is expected to be as costly and effective as EXE. The cost-effectiveness of EXE + EVE and FUL 500 mg could be improved by a large price reduction. However, the results are highly sensitive to the hazard ratio of OS. Policy makers should carefully interpret and utilize these findings.

Palbociclib in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer: A cost-utility analysis

INTRODUCTION

The addition of palbociclib to letrozole improves progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assesses the cost-utility of palbociclib from the Canadian healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A probabilistic discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed and parameterised with data from the PALOMA 1 and 2 trials and other sources. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-month (QALM) gained for palbociclib was calculated. A time horizon of 15 years was used in the base case with costs and effectiveness discounted at 5% annually. Time-to- progression and time-to-death were derived from a Weibull and exponential distribution. Expected costs were based on Ontario fees and other sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to letrozole, the addition of palbociclib provided an additional 14.7 QALM at an incremental cost of $161,508. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10,999/QALM gained. Assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $4167/QALM, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 0%. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP of $11,000/QALM gained, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 50%.

CONCLUSION

The addition of palbociclib to letrozole is unlikely to be cost-effective for the treatment of ABC from a Canadian healthcare perspective with its current price. While ABC patients derive a meaningful clinical benefit from palbociclib, considerations should be given to increase the WTP threshold and reduce the drug pricing, to render this strategy more affordable.

Reviewing the quality, health benefit and value for money of chemotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer

Purpose

To provide an overview of model characteristics and outcomes of model-based economic evaluations concerning chemotherapy and targeted therapy (TT) for metastatic breast cancer (MBC); to assess the quality of the studies; to analyse the association between model characteristics and study quality and outcomes.

Methods

PubMED and NHS EED were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: English or Dutch language, model-based economic evaluation, chemotherapy or TT as intervention, population diagnosed with MBC, published between 2000 and 2014, reporting life years (LY) or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. General characteristics, model characteristics and outcomes of the studies were extracted. Quality of the studies was assessed through a checklist.

Results

24 studies were included, considering 50 comparisons (20 concerning chemotherapy and 30 TT). Seven comparisons were represented in multiple studies. A health state-transition model including the following health states: stable/progression-free disease, progression and death was used in 18 studies. Studies fulfilled on average 14 out of the 26 items of the quality checklist, mostly due to a lack of transparency in reporting. Thirty-one per cent of the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. TT led to higher iQALY gained, and industry-sponsored studies reported more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes.

Conclusions

The development of a disease-specific reference model would improve the transparency and quality of model-based cost-effectiveness assessments for MBC treatments. Incremental health benefits increased over time, but were outweighed by the increased treatment costs. Consequently, increased health benefits led to lower value for money.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4374-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Palbociclib as a first-line treatment in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer not cost-effective with current pricing: a health economic analysis of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK)

Endocrine therapy continues to be the optimal systemic treatment for metastatic ER(+)HER2(-) breast cancer. The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib combined with letrozole has recently been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival. Here we examined the cost-effectiveness of this regimen for the Swiss healthcare system. A Markov cohort simulation based on the PALOMA-1 trial (Finn et al. in Lancet Oncol 16:25-35, 2015) was used as the clinical course. Input parameters were based on summary trial data. Costs were assessed from the Swiss healthcare system perspective. Adding palbociclib to letrozole (PALLET) compared to letrozole monotherapy was estimated to cost an additional CHF342,440 and gain 1.14 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CHF301,227/QALY gained. In univariate sensitivity analyses, no tested variation in key parameters resulted in an ICER below a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY. PALLET had a 0 % probability of being cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Lowering PALLET's price by 75 % resulted in an ICER of CHF73,995/QALY and a 73 % probability of being cost-effective. At current prices, PALLET would cost the Swiss healthcare system an additional CHF155 million/year. Palbociclib plus letrozole cannot be considered cost-effective for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer in the Swiss healthcare system.

A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

Objective Considering the increasing number of treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is important to develop high-quality methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs. This study aims to develop a global economic model that could be used as a benchmark for the economic evaluation of new therapies for MBC. Methods The Global Pharmacoeconomics of Metastatic Breast Cancer (GPMBC) model is a Markov model that was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of new treatments for MBC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Specific parameters included in the model are cost of drug treatment, survival outcomes, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Global parameters are patient characteristics, health states utilities, disutilities, and costs associated with treatment-related AEs, as well as costs associated with drug administration, medical follow-up, and end-of-life care. The GPMBC model was tested and validated in a specific context, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole compared with other widely used first-line therapies for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) MBC. Results When tested, the GPMBC model led to incremental cost-utility ratios of CA$131 811 per QALY, CA$56 211 per QALY, and CA$102 477 per QALY for the comparison of lapatinib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone, trastuzumab plus anastrozole, and anastrozole alone, respectively. Results of the model testing were quite similar to those obtained by Delea et al., who also assessed the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in HR+/HER2 + MBC in Canada, thus suggesting that the GPMBC model can replicate results of well-conducted economic evaluations. Conclusions The GPMBC model can be very valuable as it allows a quick and valid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any new treatments for MBC in a Canadian context.

Cost effectiveness of dabrafenib as a first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus dacarbazine and vemurafenib as first-line treatments in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a Canadian healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival analysis model with three mutually exclusive health states (pre-progression, post-progression, and dead) was used. The proportion of patients in each state was calculated using survival distributions for progression-free and overall survival derived from pivotal trials of dabrafenib and vemurafenib. For each treatment, expected progression-free, post-progression, overall, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were calculated. Costs were based on list prices, a clinician survey, and published sources. A 5-year time horizon was used in the base case. Costs (in 2012 Canadian dollars [CA$]) and QALYs were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Dabrafenib was estimated to yield 0.2055 more QALYs at higher cost than dacarbazine. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CA$363,136/QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, at a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, there was an 8.2% probability that dabrafenib is cost effective versus dacarbazine. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, cost effectiveness was sensitive to survival distributions, utilities, and time horizon, with the hazard ratio for overall survival for dabrafenib versus dacarbazine being the most sensitive parameter. Assuming a class effect for efficacy of BRAF inhibitors, dabrafenib was dominant versus vemurafenib (less costly, equally effective), reflecting its assumed lower daily cost. Assuming no class effect, dabrafenib yielded 0.0486 more QALYs than vemurafenib.

CONCLUSIONS

At a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, dabrafenib is unlikely to be cost effective compared with dacarbazine. It is not possible to make reliable conclusions regarding the relative cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus vemurafenib based on available information.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

In the phase iii palette trial of pazopanib compared with placebo in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (sts) who had received prior chemotherapy, pazopanib treatment was associated with improved progression-free survival (pfs). We used an economic model and data from palette and other sources to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in patients with advanced sts who had already received chemotherapy.

METHODS

We developed a multistate model to estimate expected pfs, overall survival (os), lifetime sts treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) for patients receiving pazopanib or placebo as second-line therapy for advanced sts. Cost-effectiveness was calculated alternatively from the health care system and societal perspectives for the province of Quebec. Estimated pfs, os, incidence of adverse events, and utilities values for pazopanib and placebo were derived from the palette trial. Costs were obtained from published sources.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, pazopanib is estimated to increase qalys by 0.128. The incremental cost of pazopanib compared with placebo is CA$20,840 from the health care system perspective and CA$15,821 from the societal perspective. The cost per qaly gained with pazopanib in that comparison is CA$163,336 from the health care system perspective and CA$124,001 from the societal perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, pazopanib might be cost-effective from the Canadian health care system and societal perspectives depending on the threshold value used by reimbursement authorities to assess novel cancer therapies. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for advanced sts, pazopanib might nevertheless be an appropriate alternative to currently used treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma in the United kingdom

In the phase III PALETTE trial, pazopanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (mSTS) who had received prior chemotherapy. We used a multistate model to estimate expected PFS, overall survival (OS), lifetime STS treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients receiving pazopanib, placebo, trabectedin, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line mSTS therapies. The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib was expressed as the incremental costs per QALY gained. Estimates of PFS/OS, adverse events, and utilities for pazopanib and placebo were from the PALETTE trial. Estimates of relative effectiveness of the other comparators were from an unadjusted indirect comparison versus pazopanib. Costs were from published sources. Pazopanib is estimated to increase QALYs by 0.128 and costs by £7,976 versus placebo; cost per QALY gained with pazopanib versus placebo is estimated to be £62,000. Compared with the other chemotherapies, pazopanib provides similar QALYs at a lower cost. Pazopanib may not be cost-effective versus placebo but may be cost-effective versus the most commonly used active treatments, although this conclusion is uncertain. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for mSTS, pazopanib may be an appropriate alternative to some currently used medications in the United Kingdom.