Elena Galve-Calvo1, Eva González-Haba2, Joana Gostkorzewicz3, Irene Martínez4, Alejandro Pérez-Mitru4. 1. Medical Oncology Service, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain. 2. Pharmacy Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. 3. Novartis Farmacéutica, S.A., Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Madrid, Spain. 4. Oblikue Consulting, Barcelona, Spain, alejandro.perez@oblikue.com.
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
CDK4/6 inhibitors; breast cancer; economic evaluation; payers’ perspective
Authors: James E Signorovitch; Vanja Sikirica; M Haim Erder; Jipan Xie; Mei Lu; Paul S Hodgkins; Keith A Betts; Eric Q Wu Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Alexander R Macalalad; Yanni Hao; Peggy L Lin; James E Signorovitch; Eric Q Wu; Erika Ohashi; Zhou Zhou; Caroline Kelley Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Amye J Tevaarwerk; Robert J Gray; Bryan P Schneider; Mary Lou Smith; Lynne I Wagner; John H Fetting; Nancy Davidson; Lori J Goldstein; Kathy D Miller; Joseph A Sparano Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Maura N Dickler; William T Barry; Constance T Cirrincione; Matthew J Ellis; Mary Ellen Moynahan; Federico Innocenti; Arti Hurria; Hope S Rugo; Diana E Lake; Olwen Hahn; Bryan P Schneider; Debasish Tripathy; Lisa A Carey; Eric P Winer; Clifford A Hudis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter M Ravdin; Kathleen A Cronin; Nadia Howlader; Christine D Berg; Rowan T Chlebowski; Eric J Feuer; Brenda K Edwards; Donald A Berry Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: J Gavilá; S Lopez-Tarruella; C Saura; M Muñoz; M Oliveira; L De la Cruz-Merino; S Morales; I Alvarez; J A Virizuela; M Martin Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: F Cardoso; A Costa; E Senkus; M Aapro; F André; C H Barrios; J Bergh; G Bhattacharyya; L Biganzoli; M J Cardoso; L Carey; D Corneliussen-James; G Curigliano; V Dieras; N El Saghir; A Eniu; L Fallowfield; D Fenech; P Francis; K Gelmon; A Gennari; N Harbeck; C Hudis; B Kaufman; I Krop; M Mayer; H Meijer; S Mertz; S Ohno; O Pagani; E Papadopoulos; F Peccatori; F Penault-Llorca; M J Piccart; J Y Pierga; H Rugo; L Shockney; G Sledge; S Swain; C Thomssen; A Tutt; D Vorobiof; B Xu; L Norton; E Winer Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Anna Maria Buehler; Gabriela Castilho; Pierre-Alexandre Dionne; Stephen Stefani Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 8.168