Search

Background: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (MONALEESA-7) data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib (RIB) as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) from the United States healthcare payer perspective. In addition, because RIB has not been marketed in China, we identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese healthcare system perspective., Patients and Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding RIB to endocrine therapy over a lifetime. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Costs data were obtained from United States and Chinese official websites, and we determined the potential price for RIB in China based on its price in the United States. The main outcomes of this study were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)., Results: The model projected that mean outcome was better with RIB and endocrine combined (3.83366 QALYs) than with endocrine therapy alone (2.71203 QALYs). In the United States, RIB and endocrine therapy cost an additional $604,960.06, resulting in an ICER of $539,357.95/QALY compared with endocrine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses indicated that, in China, the projected mean outcomes were better for RIB and endocrine therapy (6.37 QALYs) than for endocrine monotherapy (2.71 QALYs). The corresponding incremental costs were $224,731.88943. Thus, the ICER comparing RIB and endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone represented a $61,454.96/QALY gain., Conclusion: Additional use of RIB is estimated to not be cost effective as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC in the United States. A value-based price for the cost of RIB is less than $31.74/200 mg for China., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Approximately 20% of UK women aged 70+ with early breast cancer receive primary endocrine therapy (PET) instead of surgery. PET reduces surgical morbidity but with some survival decrement. To complement and utilize a treatment dependent prognostic model, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of surgery plus adjuvant therapies versus PET for women with varying health and fitness, identifying subgroups for which each treatment is cost-effective., Methods: Survival outcomes from a statistical model, and published data on recurrence, were combined with data from a large, multicenter, prospective cohort study of over 3400 UK women aged 70+ with early breast cancer and median 52-month follow-up, to populate a probabilistic economic model. This model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of surgery plus adjuvant therapies relative to PET for 24 illustrative subgroups: Age {70, 80, 90} × Nodal status {FALSE (F), TRUE (T)} × Comorbidity score {0, 1, 2, 3+}., Results: For a 70-year-old with no lymph node involvement and no comorbidities (70, F, 0), surgery plus adjuvant therapies was cheaper and more effective than PET. For other subgroups, surgery plus adjuvant therapies was more effective but more expensive. Surgery plus adjuvant therapies was not cost-effective for 4 of the 24 subgroups: (90, F, 2), (90, F, 3), (90, T, 2), (90, T, 3)., Conclusion: From a UK perspective, surgery plus adjuvant therapies is clinically effective and cost-effective for most women aged 70+ with early breast cancer. Cost-effectiveness reduces with age and comorbidities, and for women over 90 with multiple comorbidities, there is little cost benefit and a negative impact on quality of life., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adherence to endocrine therapy for breast cancer is often inadequate, in part because of out-of-pocket costs for medication. Numerous states have enacted parity laws to limit patient cost-sharing for oral anticancer drugs. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of these laws on patient copayments for and adherence to oral endocrine therapy for breast cancer., Methods: Administrative health insurance claims data from 2007 to 2014 derived from a US health care database were used to identify female patients aged 18 to 64 years with invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast who initiated endocrine therapy and were enrolled in fully insured health plans in states that either enacted parity legislation between 2008 and 2013 or had not yet enacted such legislation by 2015. Differences-in-differences analysis was used to compare copayments for and adherence to endocrine therapy during the 1-year period before and after each year of legislation enactment., Results: In total, 6900 individuals who received 7778 unique drug therapy courses were identified. Parity legislation was associated with significant decreases in the 25th percentile of copayments for anastrozole of $4.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$4.52 to -$4.26; P < .001) and for exemestane of $3.08 (95% CI, -$4.80 to -$1.35; P < .001). The median copayment for exemestane decreased by $10.25 (95% CI, -$12.61 to -$7.89; P < .001). A higher median monthly copayment was significantly associated with a greater risk of medication nonadherence (adjusted risk ratio, 1.006 per dollar increase; P < .001)., Conclusions: Parity laws had a modest effect on lowering the cost of anastrozole and exemestane, but more focused efforts to limit out-of-pocket costs for endocrine therapy may have a greater impact on medication adherence., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Objective: The goal of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 500 mg for the treatment of first progression or recurrence of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients compared with generic nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and letrozole) in the United Kingdom., Methods: A cost-utility model based on a time-in-state approach was used. Clinical effectiveness estimates used in the model were derived from a network meta-analysis for overall survival and serious adverse events. Overall survival was extrapolated by using a Weibull distribution, and progression-free survival (PFS) estimates were derived from a simultaneous network meta-analysis and extrapolation of PFS curves by using the log-normal distribution. Data on resource use, costs, and utilities were based on various sources, including expert opinion and published data. To explore uncertainty, 1-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted. The study was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, and costs are reported in 2010/2011 British pounds., Results: The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for fulvestrant 500 mg versus letrozole was £34,528, with incremental costs of £14,383 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.417. Extended dominance occurred for anastrozole because the ICER for anastrozole versus letrozole was higher than the ICER for fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole. Based on the probability sensitivity analyses, the probability that fulvestrant 500 mg was the most cost-effective treatment option was 3%, 20%, and 53% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000, £30,000, and £40,000 per QALY, respectively. According to the 1-way sensitivity analyses, the PFS estimates were the key drivers of the model results., Conclusions: Although fulvestrant 500 mg was found not to be a cost-effective option at a standard UK threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY, it may be relevant to apply a higher threshold due to the poor prognosis of patients with advanced breast cancer and the limited number of hormonal treatment options available for this stage of treatment. Certain subgroups may also benefit from fulvestrant as a treatment option; however, limited data are currently available to identify these subgroups., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of degarelix vs luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue (triptorelin) plus short-term antiandrogen treatment for advanced prostate cancer., Methods: We developed a decision analytic model based on a clinical trial and literature review. The two interventions evaluated were: (i) monthly injection of degarelix and (ii) 3-monthly triptorelin therapy plus short-term flutamide, cyproterone or bicalutamide treatment. The model consisted of a decision tree monitoring a hypothetical cohort of patients aged 70 years from the start of hormonal treatment to the end of the first month, and a Markov model monitoring patients from the end of month 1 for a time horizon of 10 years (i.e. when 96% of patients are assumed to have died). The base-case analysis assumed patients present with asymptomatic metastatic prostate cancer. Costs and outcomes were collected over the model time horizon. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses (one-way and multi-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the uncertainties around the assumptions., Results: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for degarelix vs triptorelin plus antiandrogen was £59,000 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to the rate of significant adverse events in the triptorelin plus antiandrogen group. The model was also sensitive to the assumed survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer and the price of degarelix. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that there was a low probability (9.6%) of degarelix being the most cost-effective treatment option when a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained is assumed., Conclusion: Degarelix is unlikely to be cost-effective compared to triptorelin plus short-term antiandrogen in the management of advanced prostate cancer with respect to the usual thresholds of cost-effectiveness used in the UK: £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained (used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence)., (© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Objectives: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists represent one of the main cost factors in the management of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We compared the cost-effectiveness of the five different 3-month formulations of LHRH agonists currently available for advanced prostate cancer in Italy, because these differ both in their capacity to suppress testosterone and in their acquisition costs., Methods: A probabilistic, patient-level simulation model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (INHS), of leuprorelin 11.25 mg and 22.5 mg, triptorelin 11.25 mg, buserelin 9.9 mg, and goserelin 10.8 mg. The model incorporated testosterone-dependent progression-free and cancer-specific survival functions, LHRH agonist effectiveness data, and national costs and tariffs. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to compute total and progression-free survival functions based on clinical data from 129 patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated in an Italian center. Bayesian random effects models were employed to summarize evidence from published literature on testosterone suppression obtained with the available LHRH agonists., Results: Estimated total survival was ≈5 years, with a maximum difference between treatment options of ≈2 months. There was a mean difference of almost €2,500 in lifetime total costs between the least costly option (leuprorelin 22.5 mg) and the most expensive (goserelin). In the incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, leuprorelin 22.5 mg dominated all alternatives except buserelin, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio versus leuprorelin 22.5 mg of ≈€12,000 per life-month gained., Conclusions: Based on modelling with meta-analysis of comparative survival data, leuprorelin 22.5 mg was the most cost-effective treatment of the available depot formulation LHRH agonists., (Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The chemotherapy of the metastatic breast cancer is characterized by the diversity of the treatment protocols and the utilisation of new expensive molecules posing the double problem of outcomes for the patients and financial effects for the hospitals. This survey describes the different chemotherapy treatments prescribed in the metastatic breast cancer and the direct costs supported by the hospitals according to the patient survival time. A cohort of 371 patients treated for a metastatic breast cancer was followed in three hospitals of the Rhone-Alpes region between 2001 and 2006. The detail of their different antineoplasic treatments, as well as the purchase cost of the drugs and their cost of hospital administration, the cost of the other hospital stays are presented in relation with the survival. The median survival time (35,8 months; CI 95%: [31.7-39.1]) since the first metastasis does not differ significantly according to the hospital. Ninety-three different chemotherapy protocols are observed combining from one to five molecules. Thirty-two different molecules are identified. In first line treatment, there is a significant difference in the use of the new molecules according to hospital (Chi(2) test; P < 10(-3)). The average cost of a chemotherapy treatment is 3,919 euro (+/- 8,069 euro), the higher cost is observed for trastuzumab (23,443 euro). The average time period before the beginning of a new chemotherapy line is 212 days (+/- 237 days) and the mean cost of hospital stay during this period is 3,903 euro (+/- 4,097 euro). If no impact of the chemotherapy treatment strategy is observed on the survival time of the patient, it is the opposite for the hospital treatment cost. These results are asking for a better control system of the authorization procedure of new molecules marketing and the harmonization of the practices.

Background: To determine cost-effective (CE) strategies comparing adjuvant upfront aromatase inhibitor (AI) with sequential tamoxifen (TAM) AI in postmenopausal (PM) women with breast cancer (BC)., Design: A Markov model was constructed to calculate cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains for upfront AI and TAM-AI in a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old PM women with BC. Costs, utilities and probabilities were derived from the literature. The hazard ratios (HRs) of AI strategies were applied to a baseline cancer recurrence risk (RR) to determine CE strategies at the $50,000/QALY gain threshold. A direct payer perspective is utilized, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3%., Results: Two-way sensitivity analyses are presented to determine CE strategies across a wide range of HRs and in different clinical scenarios including varying RRs (low, average, high and very high). TAM-AI is the preferred CE strategy at low and average RR, while upfront AI is CE at very high RR. The CE strategy in patients with high RR was dependent on the scenario examined., Conclusions: This model may help health care providers select CE-adjuvant AI strategies in PM women with BC, until further direct evidence is available from randomized clinical trials.

Reimbursements for Medicare Part B physician-administered medications have been cut and will be further reduced in the years to come. Physician groups have supported the prescription benefit within the Medicare reform package. However, physician and patient advocacy groups alike are concerned about how other portions of the legislation will change the administration of Medicare Part B-covered drugs in the office setting. This article explores the payment changes built into the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, what the proponents and opposition have been saying, and how these changes will impact the practice of urology and patients with prostate cancer.

Background: Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are effective alternatives to tamoxifen in patients with advanced breast cancer. However, their acquisition costs might burden fixed-budget health care systems., Objective: This study is a decision analysis of the clinical and economic consequences of alternative first-line hormone therapies for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in a real-life Italian health care setting., Methods: A Markov model was developed to describe disease evolution according to data from previously published, randomized clinical trials. The costs incurred by a local community hospital in the Italian National Health Service were considered (year-2003 values). Clinical data were taken from previously published trials. A 3% discount rate was applied to both resources and life-years gained., Results: Based on model estimates, mean survival times with the third-generation aromatase inhibitors anastrozole and letrozole were 30.72 and 30.64 months, respectively, as opposed to 27.28 months with tamoxifen. Mean survival times after adjustment for quality of life were 18.84 and 18.78 months with anastrozole and letrozole, respectively, and 16.14 months with tamoxifen. Baseline analysis produced incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year gained of 10,795 Euro (95% CI, 7737 Euro-12,899 Euro) and 16,886 Euro (95% CI, 9117 Euro-15,465 Euro) for anastrozole and letrozole, respectively, compared with tamoxifen. The observed difference between the 2 cost-utility ratios may have been mainly due to the higher acquisition costs of letrozole compared with anastrozole. Despite similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, anastrozole and letrozole might increase the budget for advanced breast cancer care by 12% and 18%, respectively, based on the year-2003 Italian market prices of the 2 drugs., Conclusions: In this cost-effectiveness analysis using previously published clinical data and year-2003 cost data from a community hospital in the Italian National Health Service, anastrozole and letrozole were both cost-effective alternatives to tamoxifen for first-line therapy of postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Women with large uterine leiomyomas traditionally have had just one choice for therapy--abdominal hysterectomy. Recently, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy has been introduced as an option to shrink tumors before surgery. When administered preoperatively, usually for 2 months, GnRH therapy has been shown to reduce tumor size enough to permit an endoscopic myomectomy or a vaginal hysterectomy. It has also been shown to reduce blood loss associated with the tumors and increase hemoglobin levels. When assessed for its economic impact, preoperative GnRH therapy reduces both direct and indirect costs associated with a hysterectomy.