RESUMEN
Introduction: CDK4/6 inhibitors are the first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. Despite their clinical benefit, they can increase healthcare expenditure. To date, there is no thorough comparison among the three approved CDK4/6 inhibitors in terms of their cost-effectiveness. Objective: To investigate and compare the cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with letrozole as a first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer with hormonal-receptor-positivity and HER-2-negativity versus one another and versus letrozole monotherapy. Methods: A 10-year within-cycle-corrected Markov's model was employed from the healthcare payer perspective. Costs were obtained from the National Center for Cancer Care and Research (NCCCR) in Qatar. Utilities and transition probabilities were calculated from published landmark trials of PALOMA-2, MONALEESA-2, MONARCH-3, PO25, and other relevant literature. Costs, measured in Qatari Riyal (QAR), and effectiveness, measured in quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), were incremented and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 1.5 Qatari GDP (448,758 QAR). A deterministic sensitivity analysis was implemented to account for uncertainties. Results: Ribociclib was the most effective option, generating 4.420 QALYs, followed by palbociclib (4.406 QALYs), abemaciclib (4.220 QALYs), then letrozole monotherapy (2.093 QALYs). As for cost-effectiveness, ribociclib dominated palbociclib. However, it was not cost-effective compared to abemaciclib (ICER=1,588,545 QAR/QALY). Ribociclib remained dominant over palbociclib with all uncertainties. The base-case conclusion of ribociclib versus abemaciclib remained robust over all uncertainties. Conclusion: From the healthcare payer perspective in Qatar, ribociclib is the most effective CDK4/6 inhibitor. It was dominant over palbociclib in terms of cost-effectiveness; however, it was not cost-effective compared to abemaciclib at current prices.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a chronic and incurable hematologic malignancy that is prevalent among the elderly. Interprofessional patient care showed superiority over physician-only care in multiple settings, including MM. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CP-led clinic and CPs interventions on MM patient care. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Real-world analysis of ambulatory patients with MM showed that clinical pharmacists (CPs) were central to the optimization of therapy and adherence to treatment schedules and supportive medications. PRACTICE INNOVATION: The CP-led MM Clinic was established with a collaborative prescribing agreement (CPA) in 2022 at the National Center for Cancer Care and Research (NCCCR) in Qatar and was the first of its kind in the MENA region. This CPA allowed CPs to issue refills for supportive medications and order required laboratory tests. EVALUATION METHODS: Data collected included the number of CP interventions, refills ordered by CPs, documentation of patient education, and medication reconciliations. The data were retrospectively collected and analyzed comparing ambulatory patients with MM treated before (2021) to those treated after the clinic implementation in 2022. RESULTS: The study population comprised 20 patients. A higher number of CPs interventions were documented post-clinic than pre-clinic (343 vs. 76, P=0.004), with earlier initiation of bisphosphonate post-clinic (25 vs. 206 days, P = 0.008). There were also significant improvements in the introduction of risk appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (43% vs. 6%, P=0.001) as well as vitamin D and calcium supplementation (100% vs. 68%, P=0.02) post-clinic. Twenty-two medication refills for supportive medications and eight pre-chemotherapy laboratory investigations were ordered by CPs. CONCLUSION: The CP-led clinic provided a timely link to care optimization for ambulatory MM patients. This innovative CPA model implemented in the clinic could potentially be applied to different cancer settings to optimize safe and effective patient care.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Palbociclib and ribociclib are indicated in the first-line treatment of hormonal receptor-positive HER-2 negative (HR+/HER2- negative) advanced breast cancer. Although randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) proved their clinical efficacy, there are no observational studies yet to validate the clinical findings in the real-world. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness and safety profiles of palbociclib and ribociclib in Qatar. Materials and methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on HR+/HER-2-negative stage-IV breast cancer patients receiving palbociclib or ribociclib in the state of Qatar. Clinical data were collected from the National Center for Cancer Care and Research (NCCCR) in Qatar using Cerner®. Primary outcomes were progression-free-survival (PFS) and overall-survival (OS) generated by Kaplan-Meier curves. Moreover, safety profiles of both two treatments were evaluated. Results: The data from 108 patients were included in the final analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the palbociclib and ribociclib groups; PFS was 17.85 versus 13.55 months, respectively(p> 0.05). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two medications, 29.82 versus 31.72 months, respectively(p>0.05). Adverse events were similar between the two groups. Neutropenia was the most common side effect in the study population accounting for 59.3% of the patients. Conclusions: Therefore, both treatments have similar efficacy and safety profiles. Further research on a larger-scale population and longer follow-up period is recommeneded.
