Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib as initial treatment for premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer in Singapore.

ABSTRACT:

Background

CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown promising results for treating advanced breast cancer (ABC) and are routinely used in Singapore. In view of their high costs, it is important to assess their relative value compared to existing standards of care in the local setting.

Aims

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to goserelin and a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen as initial therapy for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC in Singapore.

Methods

A partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free on first-line treatment, progression-free on second-line treatment, progressed disease, and death) was developed from a healthcare system perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Key clinical inputs were derived from the MONALEESA-7 trial, and survival curves were extrapolated beyond the trial period. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct medical costs were obtained from local public healthcare institutions. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties.

Results

The base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD197, 667 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the survival parametric distribution, ribociclib price, time horizon, and utility weights used. Even when these were varied, ICERs remained high and not cost-effective in the local context.

Conclusion

At its current price, adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in Singapore for HR+, HER2- ABC. Results from this study are useful to inform future funding decisions for CDK4/6 inhibitors alongside other factors including clinical effectiveness, safety, and budget impact considerations.

SUBMITTER: Loke L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7941436 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe 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 methodsDisease 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).ResultsThis 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.ConclusionFrom 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.

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:BackgroundSystematic reviews have found that luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are effective in treating premenopausal women with early breast cancer.MethodsWe conducted long-term follow-up (median 12 years) of 2706 women in the Zoladex In Premenopausal Patients (ZIPP), which evaluated the LHRH agonist goserelin (3.6 mg injection every 4 weeks) and tamoxifen (20 or 40 mg daily), given for 2 years. Women were randomly assigned to receive each therapy alone, both, or neither, after primary therapy (surgery with or without radiotherapy/chemotherapy). Hazard ratios and absolute risk differences were used to assess the effect of goserelin treatment on event-free survival (breast cancer recurrence, new tumor or death), overall survival, risk of recurrence of breast cancer, and risk of dying from breast cancer, in the presence or absence of tamoxifen.ResultsFifteen years after the initiation of treatment, for every 100 women not given tamoxifen, there were 13.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17.5 to 19.4) fewer events among those who were treated with goserelin compared with those who were not treated with goserelin. However, among women who did take tamoxifen, there were 2.8 fewer events (95% CI = 7.7 fewer to 2.0 more) per 100 women treated with goserelin compared with those not treated with goserelin. The risk of dying from breast cancer was also reduced at 15 years: For every 100 women given goserelin, the number of breast cancer deaths was lower by 2.6 (95% CI = 6.6 fewer to 2.1 more) and 8.5 (95% CI = 2.2 to 13.7) in those who did and did not take tamoxifen, respectively, although in the former group the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionsTwo years of goserelin treatment was as effective as 2 years of tamoxifen treatment 15 years after starting therapy. In women who did not take tamoxifen, there was a large benefit of goserelin treatment on survival and recurrence, and in women who did take tamoxifen, there was a marginal potential benefit on these outcomes when goserelin was added.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a breast cancer screening programme that incorporates genetic testing using breast cancer associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), against the current biennial mammogram-only screening programme to aid in its implementation into the current programme in Singapore.MethodsA Markov model was used to compare the costs and health outcomes of the current screening programme, against a polygenic risk-tailored screening programme, which can advise a long-term screening strategy depending on the individual's polygenic risk. The model took the perspective of the healthcare system, with a time horizon of 40 years, following women from the age of 35 to 74. Epidemiological and cost data were taken from Asian studies, and an annual discount rate of 3% was used. The model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated from the difference in costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Scenarios with varying risk thresholds for each polygenic risk group were examined. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess parameter uncertainty.ResultsThe ICER for a polygenic risk-tailored breast cancer screening programme, compared with the current biennial mammogram-only screening programme, was - 3713.80 SGD/QALY, with incremental costs < 0 and incremental effects > 0. The scenario analysis of different polygenic risk cutoffs showed that the ICERs remain negative, with all ICERs falling within the south-east quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, indicating that tailored screening is more cost effective than mammogram-only screening, with lower costs and higher QALYs to be gained. This suggests that a polygenic risk-tailored breast cancer screening programme is cost effective, entailing lower cost than the current mammogram-only programme, while causing no additional harm to women.ConclusionResults from this cost-effectiveness analysis show that polygenic risk-tailored screening is cost effective with an ICER of - 3713.80 SGD/QALY. Tailored screening remains cost effective even across varying percentile cutoffs for each risk group. While the results look promising for incorporating polygenic risk into the current breast cancer screening programme, further studies should be conducted to address various limitations.

Project description:ImportanceThe neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed.ObjectiveTo examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020.ExposureThere were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1.Main outcomes and measuresLifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415 833 (strategy 3) to $518 859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415 833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered.