Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Abemaciclib and Ribociclib in High-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Indian Perspective.

PURPOSE: Incorporating adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib along with endocrine therapy has been shown to improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, along with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors from an Indian perspective. METHODS: A Markov chain model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib and ribociclib with letrozole compared with letrozole alone for HR+/HER2- EBC from a payer perspective in India. Key measures included lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), life-years (LY), and total costs. This study explores two scenarios for effectiveness: a best-case (BC) scenario, where the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitors in improving iDFS lasts a lifetime, and a worst-case (WC) scenario, where benefits disappear after 5 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to account for simulation uncertainty. RESULTS: In the BC scenario, abemaciclib added 2.17 QALY and 4.96 LY, incurring ₹2,317,957.7 ($27,756.65 in US dollars [USD]) in additional costs. However, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for abemaciclib exceeded India's willingness-to-pay threshold in the BC and WC scenarios. In the BC scenario, ribociclib added 0.98 QALY and 2.58 LY with added costs of ₹1,711,504.32 ($20,494.6 USD). The ICER for ribociclib also surpassed India's threshold in both scenarios. PSA showed that neither drug was cost-effective at the current market prices in either BC/WC scenario. The cost of abemaciclib and ribociclib needs to be reduced by at least 78.61% and 87.19%, respectively, to be cost-effective in the BC scenario. CONCLUSION: The combination of adjuvant abemaciclib or ribociclib with letrozole is not cost-effective for HR+/HER2- EBC in India in either the BC or WC scenario.

Olanzapine cost-effectiveness in vomiting and nausea from highly emetogenic chemotherapy in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of addition of olanzapine to a prophylactic antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, dexamethasone and ondansetron among children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. METHODS: Health states were estimated using individual patient-level outcome data from a randomised trial. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated from the patient perspective for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. One-way sensitivity analysis was done by varying the cost of olanzapine, cost of hospitalisation and utility values by ±25%. RESULTS: The olanzapine arm had an increment of 0.0018 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) over the control arm. The mean total expenditure in the olanzapine arm was greater by US$0.51, US$0.43, US$6.73, US$11.05 and US$12.35 in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR($/QALY) was US$282.60 in India, US$241.42 in Bangladesh, US$3755.93 in Indonesia, US$6161.83 in the UK and US$6887.41 in the USA. The NMB was US$9.86, US$10.12, US$14.08, US$44.74 and US$98.79 for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR estimates of the base case and sensitivity analysis were below the willingness-to-pay threshold in all scenarios. CONCLUSION: The addition of olanzapine as a fourth agent for antiemetic prophylaxis is cost-effective despite an increase in overall expenditure. Olanzapine should be uniformly considered for children receiving HEC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen for children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy: Individual patient data analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In this study, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for children receiving HEC in India, United Kingdom, and the United States. PROCEDURE: We utilized individual patient-level outcome data from a pediatric randomized trial, which demonstrated the superiority of an aprepitant-based anti-emetic prophylaxis over standard ondansetron and dexamethasone for HEC. Health state for each day of follow-up was analyzed and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB) for each country were estimated. Sensitivity analyses by varying cost of aprepitant, hospitalization, and health state utility values by ±25% were conducted. RESULTS: Use of the aprepitant-based regimen resulted in gain of 0.0019 QALY per chemotherapy cycle along with cost savings of $22.25, $1335.52, and $6612.10 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The cost savings per QALY was estimated to be $12,355.84 for India, $734,282.90 for the United Kingdom, and $3,567,564.11 for the United States. The cost savings for 50% gain in the percentage of days without grade 3 vomiting was $124.18 for India, $7451.63 for the United Kingdom, and $36,892.76 for the United States. The NMB for gain in QALY was $33.62, $1418.60, and $6727.01 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The estimates remained cost-effective across all scenarios of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen is cost-effective for children receiving HEC. It results in overall cost savings and reduced healthcare-resource utilization.