Jiahao Li1, Tiantian Zhang1,2,3, Peiyao Lu1, Jianfu Zhao4, Lin Chen5, Jie Jiang1,2,6. 1. College of Pharmacy, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China. 2. International Cooperative Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Modernization & Innovative Drug Development of Chinese Ministry of Education (MOE), Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China. 3. Guangzhou Huabo Biopharmaceutical Research Institute, 510010, China. 4. Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China. 5. Drug Clinical Trial Institution, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China. 6. Dongguan Institute of Jinan University, Dongguan 523808, China.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (ANP) in the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials & methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of ANP versus nab-paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of metastatic TNBC. Lifetime costs, life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) were estimated. Results: ANP provided an additional 0.16 QALYs (0.24 LYs) compared with nab-paclitaxel in intention-to-treat population. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $786,131 per QALY gained. However, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to $361,218 per QALY gained in the PD-L1 positive subgroup analysis. Conclusion: From the perspective of a US-payer, ANP is estimated not to be cost-effective in the first-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.
Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (ANP) in the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials & methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of ANP versus nab-paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of metastatic TNBC. Lifetime costs, life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) were estimated. Results: ANP provided an additional 0.16 QALYs (0.24 LYs) compared with nab-paclitaxel in intention-to-treat population. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $786,131 per QALY gained. However, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to $361,218 per QALY gained in the PD-L1 positive subgroup analysis. Conclusion: From the perspective of a US-payer, ANP is estimated not to be cost-effective in the first-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Markov; PD-L1 positive; atezolizumab; cost–effectiveness; first-line treatment; immunotherapy; nab-paclitaxel; triple-negative breast cancer