Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib versus palbociclib in the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Spain.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib compared to palbociclib, both in combination with letrozole, in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

Patients and methods

Disease progression was simulated with a partitioned survival model developed from the parameterization and extrapolation of survival curves of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC from clinical trials with ribociclib or palbociclib, both in combination with letrozole. The model was structured on the basis of three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death), with a 1-month cycle length and inclusion of subsequent treatments administered for disease progression, over a time horizon of 15 years. Clinical, economic, and quality of life parameters were drawn from clinical trials and the literature. The use of resources and clinical practice in the Spanish setting was validated by a panel of experts. The Spanish NHS perspective was adopted, taking into account exclusively direct health costs from 2017 expressed in Euros. Drug prices used were the reported ex-factory prices. Uncertainty of the parameters and robustness of the results were evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (2,000 iterations).

Results

This cost-effectiveness analysis showed a greater benefit (0.437 and 0.285 life-years gained [LYGs] and quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] gained, respectively) and a slightly higher cost (€439.86) for ribociclib+letrozole compared to palbociclib+letrozole. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were €1,007.69 per LYG and €1,543.62 per QALY gained, respectively. The results of the multiple sensitivity analyses showed limited dispersion of the outcomes, thus corroborating their robustness.

Conclusion

From the NHS perspective, considering the most commonly established willingness-to-pay thresholds in the Spanish setting, ribociclib+letrozole would represent a cost-effective therapeutic option compared to palbociclib+letrozole in the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- ABC in postmenopausal women.

SUBMITTER: Galve-Calvo E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6241542 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib versus palbociclib in the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Spain.

Galve-Calvo Elena E González-Haba Eva E Gostkorzewicz Joana J Martínez Irene I Pérez-Mitru Alejandro A

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR 20181114

<h4>Purpose</h4>The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib compared to palbociclib, both in combination with letrozole, in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Disease progression was simulated with a partitioned survival mo ...[more]

PMID: 30532569

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe global burden of breast cancer (BC) is high, especially in advanced stages. CDK 4/6 inhibitors represent a paradigm shift in the treatment of advanced BC HR+/HER2-, given the clinically and statistically significant gain in overall survival associated with this new class of medications. Nevertheless, as an innovation, the incorporation of these drugs impacts healthcare budgets, requiring cost-effectiveness analyses for decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole compared with palbociclib plus letrozole or letrozole as monotherapy for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- locally advanced or metastatic BC (aBC) from a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective.MethodsA model including progression-free survival (PFS), progressed disease, and death health states was used to simulate lifetime costs and outcomes. PFS and overall survival were derived from the MONALEESA-2 trial (lifetime horizon). Healthcare costs included drug acquisition and monitoring, subsequent therapies, adverse events, and end-of-life costs. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe total cost of treatment with ribociclib plus letrozole was USD 72,091.82 versus USD 92,749.64 for palbociclib plus letrozole. Total QALYs were 3.30 and 3.16, respectively. Base-case analysis showed ribociclib as dominant over palbociclib in first-line treatment of women with HR+/HER2- aBC, associated with cost savings and QALY gains. The total cost of treatment with ribociclib plus letrozole was USD 83,058.73 versus USD 29,215.10 for letrozole. Total QALYs were 3.84 and 2.61, respectively. Compared with letrozole, ribociclib plus letrozole was associated with an incremental cost of USD 53,843.64 and an incremental QALY gain of 1.23, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 43,826.91 per QALY gained.ConclusionsAs demonstrated by the cost-effectiveness dominance over palbociclib, ribociclib results in savings when used as first-line treatment in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- aBC, warranting incorporation in the private healthcare system.

Project description:IntroductionThe MONALEESA-7 trial compared ribociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) with placebo as first-line treatment of advanced luminal/HER2-negative breast cancer (ABC) in premenopausal and perimenopausal women (age <50 years) and showed significant benefits to progression-free survival and overall survival. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib + ET versus ET alone in patients with ABC from the perspective of the Brazilian public national health system.MethodsWe calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using a Markov model with progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death states. We expressed ICER as incremental costs per progression-free life-year (PFLY) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in a 10-year time horizon. We used parametric survival distributions fit to MONALEESA-7 data to generate survival distributions for progression-free and post-progression survival. The largest British preference study in breast cancer served as the basis to estimate health-state utilities. We estimated direct costs (ABC treatment, follow-up, monitoring, and adverse events) using Brazilian-specific values from public sources. An expert consensus panel determined the resource patterns required. We applied annual discounts of 5% to costs and QALYs.ResultsRibociclib + ET resulted in an incremental gain of 1.03 PFLYs and 0.80 QALYs at a cost of $37,319.31. The ICER of ribociclib + ET versus ET was $36,379.41 per PFLY gained and $46,590.79 per QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, results were primarily affected by the annual discount rate, followed by the cost of ribociclib. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, simulations agreed with the base-case.ConclusionRibociclib increased PFLYs and QALYs in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC when added to ET. Because Brazil does not have a formally defined cost-effectiveness threshold, other domains need to be considered for incorporation decisions, such as disease burden and humanistic impact on this young, economically active population. These findings may be useful in discussions for incorporation of ribociclib into the Brazilian public health system.

Project description:Introduction: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABE + FUL) vs. palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL), ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB + FUL) and fulvestrant monotherapy (FUL) as second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US. Methods: The 3 health states partitioned survival (PS) model was used over the lifetime. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the MONARCH 2 trial, MONALEESA-3 trial, and PALOMA-3 trial. Parametric survival models were used for four treatments to explore the long-term effect. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. Sensitivity analyses including one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were performed to observe model stability. Results: In the PS model, compared with PAL + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.44 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $100,696 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $229,039/QALY. Compared with RIB + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.03 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $518 for an ICUR of $19,314/QALY. Compared with FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.68 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $260,584 for ICUR of $381,450/QALY. From the PS model, the ICUR was $270,576 /QALY (ABE + FUL vs. PAL + FUL), dominated (ABE + FUL vs. RIB + FUL) and $404,493/QALY (ABE + FUL vs. FUL) in scenario analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL, RIB + FUL and FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0% and the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL and RIB + FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0.2, 0.6, and 7.3%. Conclusions: The findings from the present analysis suggest that ABE + FUL might be cost-effective compared with RIB + FUL and not cost-effective compared with PAL + FUL and FUL for second-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US.

Project description:(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.

Project description:BackgroundThe phase III MONALEESA-3 trial included first- (1L) and second-line (2L) patients and demonstrated a significant overall survival (OS) benefit for ribociclib + fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) in the final protocol-specified and exploratory (longer follow-up) OS analyses. At the time of these analyses, the full OS benefit of 1L ribociclib was not completely characterized because the median OS (mOS) was not reached. As CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy (ET) is now a preferred option for 1L HR+/HER2- ABC, we report an exploratory analysis (median follow-up, 70.8 months; 14.5 months longer than the prior analysis) to fully elucidate the OS benefit in the MONALEESA-3 1L population.MethodsPostmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC were randomized 2:1 to 1L/2L fulvestrant + ribociclib or placebo. OS in 1L patients (de novo disease or relapse > 12 months from completion of [neo]adjuvant ET) was assessed by Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier methods. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS) were analyzed. MONALEESA-3 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02422615).ResultsAt data cutoff (January 12, 2022; median follow-up time, 70.8 months), mOS was 67.6 versus 51.8 months with 1L ribociclib versus placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.90); 16.5% and 8.6% of ribociclib and placebo patients, respectively, were still receiving treatment. PFS2 (HR 0.64) and CFS (HR 0.62) favored ribociclib versus placebo. Among those who discontinued treatment, 16.7% and 35.0% on ribociclib or placebo, respectively, received a subsequent CDK4/6i. No new safety signals were observed.ConclusionsThis analysis of MONALEESA-3 reports the longest mOS thus far (67.6 months) for 1L patients in a phase III ABC trial. These results in a 1L population show that the OS benefit of ribociclib was maintained through extended follow-up, further supporting its use in HR+/HER2- ABC.

Project description:BackgroundCyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6) therapy plus endocrine therapy (ET) is an effective treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2- MBC); however, resistance is common and poorly understood. A comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic analysis of pretreatment and post-treatment tumors from patients receiving palbociclib plus ET was performed to delineate molecular mechanisms of drug resistance.MethodsTissue was collected from 89 patients with HR+/HER2- MBC, including those with recurrent and/or metastatic disease, receiving palbociclib plus an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant at Samsung Medical Center and Seoul National University Hospital from 2017 to 2020. Tumor biopsy and blood samples obtained at pretreatment, on-treatment (6 weeks and/or 12 weeks), and post-progression underwent RNA sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the clinical and genomic variables associated with progression-free survival.ResultsNovel markers associated with poor prognosis, including genomic scar features caused by homologous repair deficiency (HRD), estrogen response signatures, and four prognostic clusters with distinct molecular features were identified. Tumors with TP53 mutations co-occurring with a unique HRD-high cluster responded poorly to palbociclib plus ET. Comparisons of paired pre- and post-treatment samples revealed that tumors became enriched in APOBEC mutation signatures, and many switched to aggressive molecular subtypes with estrogen-independent characteristics. We identified frequent genomic alterations upon disease progression in RB1, ESR1, PTEN, and KMT2C.ConclusionsWe identified novel molecular features associated with poor prognosis and molecular mechanisms that could be targeted to overcome resistance to CKD4/6 plus ET.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03401359. The trial was posted on 18 January 2018 and registered prospectively.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib versus palbociclib in the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Spain.

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib versus palbociclib in the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Spain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets