scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Ribociclib to Endocrine Therapy for Patients With HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer Among Premenopausal or Perimenopausal Women

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunae Jeong ◽  
Changjun Wang ◽  
Leslie Wilson ◽  
Lixian Zhong
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

PurposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy for pre/perimenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer from the US payer perspective.MethodsA partitioned survival analysis model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of ribociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone based on clinical data from the MONALEESA-7 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs were estimated and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainties of model inputs. Additional scenario analyses were performed.ResultsIn the base-case, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was more effective than endocrine therapy with an additional 1.39 QALYs but also more costly with an ICER of $282,996/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that overall survival associated with the treatments and the cost of ribociclib had the greatest impact on the ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only beyond a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $272,867, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy would surpass endocrine therapy alone as a cost-effective option.ConclusionsFrom the US payer perspective, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for pre/perimenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer is not cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $100,000 or $150,000 per QALY in comparison of endocrine therapy alone.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ribociclib plus Letrozole versus Palbociclib plus Letrozole in the United Kingdom

10.36469/9725 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaurav Suri ◽  
David Chandiwana ◽  
Adam Lee ◽  
Rohit Mistry
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Menopausal Women ◽  
Post Menopausal ◽  
The Cost

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.

scholarly journals Denosumab for Elderly Men with Osteoporosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the US Payer Perspective

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Silverman ◽  
Irene Agodoa ◽  
Morgan Kruse ◽  
Anju Parthan ◽  
Eric Orwoll
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Drug Efficacy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Persistence Rates ◽  
The Us ◽  
Generic Alendronate ◽  
The Cost

Purpose. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus other osteoporotic treatments in older men with osteoporosis from a US payer perspective.Methods. A lifetime cohort Markov model previously developed for postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) was used. Men in the model were 78 years old, with a BMDT-score of −2.12 and a vertebral fracture prevalence of 23%. During each 6-month Markov cycle, patients could have experienced a hip, vertebral or nonhip, nonvertebral (NHNV) osteoporotic fracture, remained in a nonfracture state, remained in a postfracture state, or died. Background fracture risks, mortality rates, persistence rates, health utilities, and medical and drug costs were derived from published sources. Previous PMO studies were used for drug efficacy in reducing fracture risk. Lifetime expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for denosumab, generic alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, teriparatide, and zoledronate.Results. Denosumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $16,888 compared to generic alendronate and dominated all other treatments. Results were most sensitive to changes in costs of denosumab and the relative risk of hip fracture.Conclusion. Despite a higher annual treatment cost compared to other medications, denosumab is cost-effective compared to other osteoporotic treatments in older osteoporotic US men.

Cost-effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus erlotinib plus gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 353-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Gabriela Chiorean ◽  
Scott Whiting ◽  
Gary Binder ◽  
George Dranitsaris ◽  
Victoria Manax
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recent Phase ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

353 Background: In a recent phase III trial nab-paclitaxel (albumin-bound paclitaxel) + gemcitabine (nab-P/G) demonstrated a 1.8 month, or 27%, improvement in median overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.72, P < 0.001) vs gemcitabine (G) in first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). nab-P/G had higher 1 year OS (35% vs 22%) and improved PFS by 1.8 months (HR = 0.69, P < 0.01). nab-P/G is the first taxane based therapy to show a significant OS improvement in a phase III mPC trial. Erlotinib + gemcitabine (E/G) has also demonstrated activity in mPC, with a 0.3 month OS benefit vs G (HR = 0.82, P = 0.04), a 1 year OS of 23% vs 17%, and 0.2 months PFS benefit (HR = 0.77, P = 0.004) vs G. A cost-effectiveness analysis measuring the cost per life year (LY) gained for nab-P/G and E/G was conducted from the US payer perspective. Methods: Costs and clinical outcomes were evaluated fromnab-P/G vs G and E/G vs G trials of mPC. Health care resource use and the management of grade III/IV adverse events (AE) were collected from a large multisite US oncology clinic, expert opinion, and literature (2012 US dollars). Drug cost per cycle was multiplied by the median cycles delivered from the trials for nab-P/G and E/G. Results: Duration of therapy was 4 months for nab-P/G vs 3.9 months for E/G. Total cost for nab-P/G was $24,984 vs $23,044 for E/G, including drug, administration and AE management. AE costs were similar between the two therapies (Table). Differences of > 5% were noted in neutropenia (rates: nab-P/G = 33%; E/G = 24%), neuropathy (nab-P/G = 17%; E/G = 1%), and rash (nab-P/G = 0%; E/G = 6%). The net survival advantage for nab-P/G vs E/G was 1.5 incremental life months gained. Nab-P/G was cost-effective relative to E/G, at a cost of $15,522 per incremental life year gained. Conclusions: nab-P/G is a cost-effective alternative to E/G in mPC, bringing more months of OS at < $16,000 cost per incremental life year gained. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals A Global Economic Model to Assess the Cost Effectiveness of New Treatments for Advanced Breast Cancer in Canada

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. A151
Author(s):  
C Beauchemin ◽  
N Letarte ◽  
K Mathurin ◽  
L Yelle ◽  
J Lachaine
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Economic Model ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
New Treatments ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0258605
Author(s):  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Chongqing Tan ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
The Cost

Background The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective. Methods A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model. Results Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest. Conclusion From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Ipilimumab Plus Anti-PD-1 Therapy Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma Resistant to Anti-PD-(L)1 Monotherapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Peng ◽  
Xiaohui Zeng ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Melanoma ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Information ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

ObjectiveThe use of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 has recently been shown to significantly improve the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in this population from the US payer perspective.Materials and MethodsA Markov model was created based on a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic melanoma who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1. Cost information was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and literature-based costs. The utility value was derived from the published literature. The results of the model was the total cost, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was addressed through sensitivity analysis. In addition, we also conducted subgroup analysis.ResultsIpilimumab plus anti-PD-1 provided an improvement of 1.39 QALYs and 2.48 LYs, at a ICER of $73,163 per QALY. The HR of OS was the variable that had the greatest impact on ICER. Compared to ipilimumab, the probability of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 being cost-effective was 94% at the WTP of $150,000/QALY. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the ICER in the majority of the subgroups was less than $150,000/QALY.ConclusionsIpilimumab plus anti-PD-1 was likely to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 at a WTP threshold of 150,000/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness for metastatic colorectal cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15003-e15003
Author(s):  
Linli Yao ◽  
Jiaqi Han ◽  
Longjiang She ◽  
Dong Ding ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Third ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost

e15003 Background: As standard third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer, regorafenib and fruquintinib, compared with placebo, increase median overall survival by 2.5 months and 2.7 months, respectively. Given the incremental clinical benefit, we aim to estimate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib in the third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese payer perspective. Methods: A mathematical Markov model was established to project the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib from the CONCUR and FRESCO clinical trials. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were analyzed with extracted data from the trials. Willingness to pay (WTP) of $26508 was used. Drug costs were estimated from the perspectives of the health care system in the People’s Republic of China. One way sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. Results: Fruquintinib, compared with regorafenib, provided an additional 0.028 QALYs (0.274 QALYs versus 0.246 QALYs) at less cost ($33536 versus $35607). Conclusions: Fruquintinib is more cost-effective than regorafenib as the third-line management for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when WTP is $26508.

Cost-Effectiveness of Posaconazole vs Fluconazole in the Prevention of Invasive Fungal Infections among Patients with Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GVHD) in the US.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 3336-3336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy K. O’Sullivan ◽  
Milton C. Weinstein ◽  
Ankur Pandya ◽  
David Thompson ◽  
Amelia Langston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Graft Versus Host Disease ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Graft Versus Host ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Long Term Mortality

Abstract Trial data suggest that posaconazole is similar to fluconazole in preventing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) among allogeneic progenitor cell transplant recipients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We estimated the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole in this population in the US. A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the average per patient treatment costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained, and incremental cost per life-year gained of prophylaxis (2006 US$). The model extrapolates the trial results to a lifetime horizon to include long-term mortality due to GVHD. In the model, patients are assumed to receive posaconazole or fluconazole; efficacy data were obtained from the clinical trial. Long-term mortality and prophylaxis drug and IFI treatment costs were estimated from secondary sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Posaconazole is associated with fewer IFIs (0.05 vs. 0.09), increased life years (7.87 vs. 7.66), and higher IFI-related costs (prophylaxis and IFI treatment) ($8,750 vs. $5,530) per patient relative to fluconazole. Costs for treatment of IFIs comprised 95% of the total cost for fluconazole and 35% for posaconazole. The incremental cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole is estimated to be $15,700 per life-year saved. Results are most sensitive to changes in the cost of treating an IFI and the efficacy of prophylaxis. Results from the probabilistic analysis indicate that there is an 88% probability that posaconazole is cost-effective at a $50,000 per life year saved threshold. We conclude that posaconazole is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of IFIs in patients with GVHD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document