Effectiveness and healthcare costs of eribulin versus capecitabine among metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world effectiveness and costs of eribulin to those of capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. METHODS: This study extracted data from the Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan to identify MBC patients, and then eribulin and capecitabine users were matched at a 1:1 ratio by age, residential region, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and molecular subtype of BC cell. The overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 24,550 MBC patients were identified, and 298 patients were enrolled in each group after matching. The median OS was 11.8 months for eribulin (95%CI: 11.5-13.5 months) and 15.2 months for capecitabine (95%CI: 15.3-17.9 months; HR = 1.7, p < 0.0001). The median TTD was 4.0 months for eribulin and 6.6 months for capecitabine (HR = 1.6; p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between the two groups in patients with >4 prior chemotherapy agents (OS: HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.5; TTD: HR 1.2, 95%CI 0.9-1.7). The total healthcare costs per patient during the treatment period were NT$580,523.8 for eribulin versus NT$497,223.8 for capecitabine (p < 0.0001), and total medication costs were NT$438,335.8 and NT$348,438.4 (p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although eribulin showed an attenuated effect in the real-world setting in Taiwan, it may serve as an alternative for capecitabine in a heavy pretreated population. The total healthcare and medication costs were found to be higher with eribulin treatment.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab-containing treatment sequences for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients have expanded markedly since trastuzumab approval in 1998. Several other regimens are now available, including pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel, T-DM1, capecitabine plus lapatinib, and trastuzumab plus lapatinib. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC according to the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration (TNHIA). METHODS: Costs (U.S. Dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years) of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC patients were examined using a Markov model over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities, disease progression, and probability of adverse events and survival were derived from clinical trial data. Costs and health utilities were estimated from TNHIA, Taipei Medical University Hospital, and the literature. Deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis examined parameter uncertainty and accounted for drug wastage in dosage and cost calculations. RESULTS: Sequence 3 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib) was the most cost-effective sequence followed by sequence 1 (1st line: pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: capecitabine plus lapatinib), and sequence 4 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus capecitabine), respectively. The model was sensitive to costs and transition probabilities, but not particularly sensitive to the wastage assumption. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the TNHIA, trastuzumab plus docetaxel as 1st line followed by T-DM1 and trastuzumab plus lapatinib as 2nd and 3rd line represents the most cost-effective strategy among the four sequences considered for treating HER-2-positive mBC patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of utidelone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer in China.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of utidelone plus capecitabine therapy compared to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in the Chinese context and provide a reference for the marketing of utidelone in China. Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the NCT02253459 clinical trial to simulate the clinical course of patients with metastatic breast cancer who had received taxanes and anthracycline therapy. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were then analyzed to evaluate the benefits. Two-parametric Weibull distribution was conducted to fit PFS and OS curves by using R. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the model designed. Results: The addition of utidelone increased the cost and QALYs by $13,370.25 and 0.1961, respectively, resulting in an increased ICER of $68,180.78 per QALY. The most sensitive influential parameter on ICER was the price of utidelone. At the threshold of willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $24,380 (3 per capita GDP of China), the cost of utidelone per 30 mg of less than $18.5, $33.7, and greater than $48.8 resulted in a 100%, 50%, and 0% possibility of cost-effectiveness, respectively. The addition of utidelone was not cost-effective when it was $115.4 per 30 mg-the price of its analog paclitaxel. In consideration of varied economics levels across China, cost-effectiveness could be achieved with the price of utidelone ranging from $5.2 to $35.9. Limitations: The survival curves extended beyond the follow-up time horizon, of which data were generated not from the real analyses but from our established two-parameter Weibull survival model. Conclusion: It is recommended that the price of utidelone would be less than $18.5 per 30 mg in order to obtain cost-effectiveness for metastatic breast cancer patients resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in China.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Capecitabine and Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Unregulated drug prices increase cancer therapy costs. After induction chemotherapy, patients with metastatic colon cancer can receive maintenance capecitabine and bevacizumab therapy based on improved progression-free survival, but whether this treatment's cost justifies its benefits has not been evaluated in the United States. Objective: This study sought to determine the influence of capecitabine and bevacizumab drug prices on cost-effectiveness from a Medicare payer's perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: The incremental cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance therapy was determined with a Markov model using a quality-of-life penalty based on outcomes data from the CAIRO phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT), which included 558 adults in the Netherlands with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer who had stable disease or better following induction chemotherapy. The outcomes were modeled using Markov chains to account for patients who had treatment complications or cancer progression. Transition probabilities between patient states were determined, and each state's costs were determined using US Medicare data on payments for capecitabine and bevacizumab treatment. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses identified factors affecting cost-effectiveness. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years gained were adjusted using CAIRO3 RCT quality-of-life data to determine quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The primary end point was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, representing incremental costs per QALY gained using a capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance regimen compared with observation alone. Results: Markov model estimated survival and complication outcomes closely matched those reported in the CAIRO3 RCT, which included 558 adults (n = 197 women, n = 361 men; median age, 64 and 63 years for patients in the observation and maintenance therapy groups, respectively) in the Netherlands with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer who had stable disease or better following induction chemotherapy. Incremental costs for a 3-week maintenance chemotherapy cycle were $6601 per patient. After 29 model iterations corresponding to 60 months of follow-up, mean per-patient costs were $105 239 for maintenance therapy and $21.10 for observation. Mean QALYs accrued were 1.34 for maintenance therapy and 1.20 for observation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored maintenance treatment, at an incremental cost of $725 601 per QALY. The unadjusted ratio was $438 394 per life-year. Sensitivity analyses revealed that cost-effectiveness varied with changes in drug costs. To achieve an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $59 039 (median US household income) per unadjusted life-year would require capecitabine and bevacizumab drug costs to be reduced from $6173 (current cost) to $452 per 3-week chemotherapy cycle. Conclusions and Relevance: Antineoplastic therapy is expensive for payers and society. The price of capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance therapy would need to be reduced by 93% to make it cost-effective, a finding useful for policy decision making and payment negotiations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is no single standard chemotherapy regimen for elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). A phase III trial has confirmed that both capecitabine monotherapy and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin are well tolerated for elderly patients with AGC, but their economic influence in China is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this cost-effectiveness analysis was to estimate the effects of capecitabine monotherapy and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with AGC on health and economic outcomes in China. METHODS: We created a Markov model based on data from a Korean clinical phase III trial to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of elderly patients in the capecitabine monotherapy (X) group and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) group. The costs were obtained from published reports and the local health system. The utilities were assumed on the basis of the published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (Monte Carlo simulations) were performed. RESULTS: In the cost-effectiveness analysis, X had a lower total cost ($45,731.68) and cost-effectiveness ratio ($65,918.93/QALY). The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the most influential parameter was the risk of requiring second-line chemotherapy in XELOX group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted that the X regimen was cost-effective 100% of the time, given a willingness-to-pay threshold of $26,598. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the XELOX regimen is less cost-effective compared to the X regimen for elderly patients with AGC in China from a Chinese healthcare perspective.

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

Cost minimization analysis of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil-based treatment for gastric cancer patients in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, Xeloda; capecitabine) and FOLFOX4 (5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are the common chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (aGC) in Hong Kong. This study aimed to compare the costs of these therapies for aGC patients from both the healthcare and societal perspectives. It should be noted that, while FOLFOX4 is routinely administered in an outpatient setting in North America and Europe, inpatient setting is adopted in Hong Kong instead, incurring hospitalization cost as a result. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients were identified from the electronic records in two public tertiary hospitals, with 45 and 13 receiving EOX and FOLFOX4 regimens, respectively. Healthcare cost was direct medical costs including drugs, clinic follow-up, hospitalization, diagnostic laboratories, and radiographs. Societal cost refers to indirect costs such as patient time and travel costs. Cost items were further classified as "expected" or "unexpected". All cost data was expressed in US dollars. RESULTS: Patients in the EOX and FOLFOX4 arm received an average of 5.3 and 7.8 cycles of treatment, respectively. The capecitabine-based regimen group had a higher expected medication cost per cycle when compared to the 5-FU-based treatment group (US$290.3 vs US$66.9, p < .001), but lower expected hospitalization costs (US$76.9 vs US$1,269.2, p < .001). The total healthcare cost and total societal cost per patient was reduced by 67.2% (US$5,691.9 vs US$17,357.4, p < .001) and 25.3% (US$3,090.5 vs US$4,135.1, p = .001), respectively, in the capecitabine-based regimen group. Sensitivity analyses based on full cycle regimen costs and net capecitabine or 5-FU/leucovorin costs still showed EOX to be less costly than FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: The capecitabine-based regimen, EOX, was found to generate significant cost saving from both the healthcare and societal perspectives in regions in which FOLFOX4 is given in an inpatient setting.

Cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment after first-line induction treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIM: Capecitabine and bevacizumab (CAP-B) maintenance therapy has shown to be more effective compared with observation in metastatic colorectal cancer patients achieving stable disease or better after six cycles of first-line capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab treatment in terms of progression-free survival. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CAP-B maintenance treatment. METHODS: Decision analysis with Markov modelling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CAP-B maintenance compared with observation was performed based on CAIRO3 study results (n = 558). An additional analysis was performed in patients with complete or partial response. The primary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) defined as the additional cost per life year (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, calculated from EQ-5D questionnaires and literature and LYs gained. Univariable sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the influence of input parameters on the ICER, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis represents uncertainty in model parameters. RESULTS: CAP-B maintenance compared with observation resulted in 0.21 QALYs (0.18LYs) gained at a mean cost increase of €36,845, yielding an ICER of €175,452 per QALY (€204,694 per LY). Varying the difference in health-related quality of life between CAP-B maintenance and observation influenced the ICER most. For patients achieving complete or partial response on capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab induction treatment, an ICER of €149,300 per QALY was calculated. CONCLUSION: CAP-B maintenance results in improved health outcomes measured in QALYs and LYs compared with observation, but also in a relevant increase in costs. Despite the fact that there is no consensus on cost-effectiveness thresholds in cancer treatment, CAP-B maintenance may not be considered cost-effective.

[Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of the SOX and COX Regimens in Patients with Unresectable Advanced and Recurrent Colorectal Cancer Using a Clinical Decision Analysis Approach].

Phase III clinical trials have comfirmed that the S-1 plus oxaliplatin(SOX)is inferior to the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (COX)regimen in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.On the basis of these findings, we compared, using a clinical decision analysis-based approach, the cost-effectiveness of the SOX and COX regimens.Herein, we simulated the expected effects and costs of the SOX and COX regimens using the markov model.Clinical data were obtained from Hong's 2012 report.The cost data comprised the costs for pharmacist labor, material, inspection, and treatment for adverse event, as well as the total cost of care at the advanced stage.The result showed that the expected cost of the SOX and COX regimen was 1,538,330 yen, and 1,429,596 yen, respectively, with an expected survival rate of 29.18 months, and 28.63 months, respectively.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the SOX regimen was 197,698 yen/month; thus, the SOX regimen was found to be more cost-effective that the COX regimen.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2): positive advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The EMILIA trial demonstrated that trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) significantly increased the median profession-free and overall survival relative to combination therapy with lapatinib plus capecitabine (LC) in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC) previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane. We performed an economic analysis of T-DM1 as a second-line therapy compared to LC and monotherapy with capecitabine (C) from both perspectives of the US payer and society. METHODS: We developed four possible Markov models for ABC to compare the projected life-time costs and outcomes of T-DM1, LC, and C. Model transition probabilities were estimated from the EMILIA and EGF100151 clinical trials. Direct costs of the therapies, major adverse events, laboratory tests, and disease progression, indirect costs (productivity losses due to morbidity and mortality), and health utilities were obtained from published sources. The models used 3 % discount rate and reported in 2015 US dollars. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and model averaging were used to account for model parametric and structural uncertainty. RESULTS: When incorporating both model parametric and structural uncertainty, the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) comparing T-DM1 to LC and T-DM1 to C were $183,828 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $126,001/QALY from the societal perspective, respectively. From the payer's perspective, the ICERs were $220,385/QALY (T-DM1 vs. LC) and $168,355/QALY (T-DM1 vs. C). CONCLUSIONS: From both perspectives of the US payer and society, T-DM1 is not cost-effective when comparing to the LC combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. T-DM1 might have a better chance to be cost-effective compared to capecitabine monotherapy from the US societal perspective.

Outcome Assessments and Cost Avoidance of an Oral Chemotherapy Management Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of oral chemotherapy drugs increases the challenges for drug and patient management. An oral chemotherapy management clinic was developed to provide patients with oral chemotherapy management, concurrent medication (CM) education, and symptom management services. This evaluation aims to measure the need and effectiveness of this practice model due to scarce published data. METHODS: This is a case series report of all patients referred to the oral chemotherapy management clinic. Data collected included patient demographics, depression scores, CMs, and types of intervention, including detection and management outcomes collected at baseline, 3-day, 7-day, and 3-month follow-ups. Persistence rate was monitored. Secondary analysis assessed potential cost avoidance. RESULTS: A total of 86 evaluated patients (32 men and 54 women, mean age of 63.4 years) did not show a high risk for medication nonadherence. The 3 most common cancer diagnoses were rectal, pancreatic, and breast, with capecitabine most prescribed. Patients had an average of 13.7 CMs. A total of 125 interventions (detection and management of adverse drug event detection, compliance, drug interactions, medication error, and symptom management) occurred in 201 visits, with more than 75% of interventions occurring within the first 14 days. A persistence rate was observed in 78% of 41 evaluable patients. The total estimated annual cost avoidance per 1.0 full time employee (FTE) was $125,761.93. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation demonstrated the need for additional support for patients receiving oral chemotherapy within standard of care medical service. A comprehensive oral chemotherapy management referral service can optimize patient care delivery via early interventions for adverse drug events, drug interactions, and medication errors up to 3 months after initiation of treatment.

Population-Based Cost-Minimization Analysis of CAPOX Versus Modified FOLFOX6 in the Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) has efficacy similar to 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. CAPOX is partly administered orally and associated with a 3-week rather than a 2-week treatment cycle. A population-based cost-minimization analysis was conducted from the health care payer and societal perspectives to evaluate the potential cost savings of replacing mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX. METHODS: We applied treatment and toxicity data from phase III trials of CAPOX and FOLFOX-based regimens to the adjuvant colon cancer population in British Columbia, Canada. In this cost-minimization analysis we compared the total costs associated with chemotherapy medications, drug administration and delivery, hospital and clinic visits, treatment-related toxicities, and central venous access devices. Costs to patients in terms of lost time and travel were also considered. It was assumed that patients would receive either 8 cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of mFOLFOX6. RESULTS: From the payer perspective, the use of CAPOX resulted in cost savings of $5339 CAD per patient compared with the use of mFOLFOX6. From a societal perspective, CAPOX was also associated with savings of $6080 CAD per patient. The greatest cost savings with CAPOX were attributed to fewer visits for chemotherapy treatment and decreased central venous access device usage. CAPOX was also associated with reduced loss of time and decreased travel for patients because of the requirement of fewer clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Replacement of mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer might be associated with potential cost savings from the payer and societal perspectives.

ErbB2+ metastatic breast cancer treatment after progression on trastuzumab: a cost-effectiveness analysis for a developing country.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer (BC) and metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are significant causes of deaths amongst women worldwide, including developing countries. The cost of treatment in the latter is even more of an issue than in higher income countries. ErbB2 overexpression is a marker of poor prognosis and the goal for targeted therapy. This study was aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness in Colombia of ErbB2+ MBC treatment after progression on trastuzumab. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed for evaluating such treatment in a hypothetical cohort of ErbB2+MBC patients who progressed after a first scheme involving trastuzumab. The alternatives compared were lapatinib+capecitabine (L+C), and trastuzumab+a chemotherapy agent (capecitabine, vinorelbine or a taxane). Markov models were used for calculating progression-free time and the associated costs. Effectiveness estimators for such therapy were identified from primary studies; all direct medical costs based on national fees-guidelines were included. Sensitivity was analyzed and acceptability curves estimated. A 3 % discount rate and third-payer perspective were used within a 5-year horizon. RESULTS: L+C dominated its comparators. Its cost-effectiveness ratio was COP $49,725,045 per progression-free year. The factors most influencing the results were the alternatives' hazard ratios and the cost of trastuzumab. CONCLUSION: Lapatinib was cost-effective compared to its alternatives for treating MBC after progression on trastuzumab using a Colombian decision analytic model.

ErbB2+ metastatic breast cancer treatment after progression on trastuzumab: a cost-effectiveness analysis for a developing country / Tratamientos para cáncer de seno metastásico ErbB2+ en progresión Post-Trastuzumab: Análisis de costo-efectividad para un país en vía de desarrollo

Objective Breast cancer (BC) and metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are significant causes of deaths amongst women worldwide, including developing countries. The cost of treatment in the latter is even more of an issue than in higher income countries. ErbB2 overexpression is a marker of poor prognosis and the goal for targeted therapy. This study was aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness in Colombia of ErbB2+ MBC treatment after progression on trastuzumab. Methods A decision analytic model was constructed for evaluating such treatment in a hypothetical cohort of ErbB2+MBC patients who progressed after a first scheme involving trastuzumab. The alternatives compared were lapatinib+capecitabine (L+C), and trastuzumab+a chemotherapy agent (capecitabine, vinorelbine or a taxane). Markov models were used for calculating progression-free time and the associated costs. Effectiveness estimators for such therapy were identified from primary studies; all direct medical costs based on national fees-guidelines were included. Sensitivity was analyzed and acceptability curves estimated. A 3 % discount rate and third-payer perspective were used within a 5-year horizon. Results L+C dominated its comparators. Its cost-effectiveness ratio was COP $49,725,045 per progression-free year. The factors most influencing the results were the alternatives' hazard ratios and the cost of trastuzumab. Conclusion Lapatinib was cost-effective compared to its alternatives for treating MBC after progression on trastuzumab using a Colombian decision analytic model.

Objetivo El cáncer de seno (CS) y cáncer de seno metastásico (CSM) son importantes causas de muerte entre las mujeres a nivel mundial y en países en vía de desarrollo. En estos últimos los costos de los tratamientos son aún más preocupantes que en países de alto ingreso. La sobreexpresión de ErbB2 es marcador de pobre pronóstico y objetivo de terapias dirigidas. Se evaluó la costo-efectividad de los tratamientos de CSM ErbB2+ en progresión post-trastuzumab en Colombia. Métodos Se desarrolló un modelo analístico de decisiones para evaluar los tratamientos en una cohorte hipotética de CSM ErbB2+ que progresaron después de un primer esquema con trastuzumab. Las alternativas comparadas fueron: lapatinib+capecitabina (L+C), y trastuzumab más un agente quimioterápico (capecitabina, vinorelbinao un taxano). Se usaron modelos de Markov para calcular el tiempo libre de progresión y los costos asociados. Estimaciones de efectividad fueron identificadas de estudios primarios. Se incluyeron todos los costos médicos directos basados en los manuales tarifarios nacionales. Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad y curvas de aceptabilidad. Se descontaron costos y resultados a una tasa anual de 3 %, la perspectiva de análisis fue del tercer pagador y el horizonte de 5 años. Resultados L+C domina a sus comparadores con un razón de costo-efectividad de COP $49 725 045 por año libre de progresión. Los factores que más influencian los resultados son los hazard ratios de las alternativas y el costo de trastuzumab. Conclusión Lapatinib es costo-efectivo comparado con sus alternativas para el tratamiento del CSM después de la progresión con trastuzumab en el escenario colombiano.