Medication adherence among patients with advanced prostate cancer using oral therapies.

Aims: In light of the extended overall survival and improved quality of life provided by advanced prostate cancer (PC) oral therapies, this study aimed to describe treatment adherence to advanced PC oral therapies and evaluate associated patient characteristics and subsequent healthcare resource utilization (HRU). Patients & methods: Patients with advanced PC initiating apalutamide, enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate were identified from administrative data (October 1, 2014-September 30, 2019). Adherence and persistence at six months postinitiation were used to evaluate patient factors and HRU. Results: Aged ≥75 years, Black race, chemotherapy use and higher pharmacy paid amounts were associated with poor adherence/persistence, which translated to higher HRU. Conclusions: Strategies to increase adherence and persistence may improve patient outcomes and associated HRU.

Lay abstract This study included 27,262 patients with advanced prostate cancer who started taking one of three oral cancer medications (apalutamide, enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate) between October 2014 and September 2019. Patients who were black, aged 75 years or older, who had chemotherapy or who had higher prescription costs had the most difficulty following dosing guidelines or staying on treatment. Patients who did not follow dosing guidelines required more healthcare services. In light of the extended survival and improved quality of life that oral cancer medication for advanced prostate cancer provides, helping patients to take the correct medication dose, at the right time, and for the recommended length of time may improve their outcomes and reduce medical costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of enzalutamide for patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Japan.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide in chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients in Japan. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to capture time spent by patients in various health states: stable, progression and death. Abiraterone acetate and docetaxel were set as active comparators. Clinical outcomes were obtained from the PREVAIL, COU-AA-302 and TAX327 trials. Treatment sequence, concomitant drugs and therapies for adverse events were estimated from responses to a survey by 14 Japanese prostate cancer experts. The analytic perspective was public healthcare payer, with a 10-year time horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated from quality-adjusted life-years and Japanese public healthcare costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: According to the survey, the most common treatment sequences were (i) enzalutamide â†’ docetaxel â†’ cabazitaxel (enzalutamide-first sequencing), (ii) abiraterone â†’ enzalutamide â†’ docetaxel (abiraterone-first sequencing) and (iii) docetaxel→ enzalutamide â†’ cabazitaxel (docetaxel-first sequencing). In the base-case analysis, enzalutamide-first sequencing saved 1.74 million Japanese Yen versus abiraterone-first sequencing, with a 0.129 quality-adjusted life-year gain (dominant). Enzalutamide-first sequencing had a cost increase of 4.44 million Japanese Yen over docetaxel-first sequencing, with a 0.371 quality-adjusted life-years gain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enzalutamide-first sequencing versus docetaxel-first sequencing was estimated as 11.94 million Japanese Yen/quality-adjusted life-years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that, compared with abiraterone-first sequencing, enzalutamide-first sequencing had an 87.4% probability of being dominant. CONCLUSIONS: Results modeled herein suggest that the enzalutamide-first sequencing is more cost-effective than the abiraterone-first sequencing, but less cost-effective than docetaxel-first sequencing for chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Principal-agent theory-based cost and reimbursement structures of isavuconazole treatment in German hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Isavuconazole (ISA) is a frequently used antifungal agent for the treatment of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs). However, hospital reimbursement data for ISA is limited. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to analyse the different perspectives of relevant stakeholders and the (dis)incentives for the administration of ISA in Germany. To that aim, the health economic effects of using ISA from a hospital management perspective were analysed. PATIENTS/METHODS: Based on principal-agent theory (PAT), the perspectives of (a) the patient (principal) as well as (b) physicians, (c) pharmacists and iv. hospital managers (all agents) were analysed. For the evaluation of the cost-containment and reimbursement strategies of ISA, the German diagnosis-related group (G-DRG) system was used. RESULTS: Hospitals individually negotiating additional payments for innovative treatment procedures (zusatzentgelte [ZE]) within the G-DRG system is a key element of hospital management for the reduction of total healthcare expenditure. Our analysis demonstrated the beneficial role of ISA in healthcare resource utilisation, primarily due to a shortened overall length of hospital stay. Depending on underlying disease, coded G-DRG and ISA formulation, large differences in total reimbursement and the amount of ZE was shown. The PAT demonstrated disincentives for hospital managers to use innovative drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the PAT, beneficial, detrimental and indifferent perspectives of different stakeholders regarding the usage of ISA were shown. A reduction of bureaucratic hurdles is needed in Germany for the extension of effective and innovative antifungal treatment strategies with ISA.

Reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals in English and Spanish hospitals-The example of isavuconazole.

BACKGROUND: Kron et al (Mycoses, 64, 2021, 86) found cost savings for the use of the innovative pharmaceutical isavuconazole in the inpatient setting in Germany (Bismarck-based healthcare system). Little is known about the reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals in the inpatient setting of Beveridge-based healthcare systems. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the market access process and reimbursement of isavuconazole, exemplary for innovative pharmaceuticals, in England and Spain. PATIENTS/METHODS: Market access processes of both countries were described. Focussing on typical patient clusters for isavuconazole treatment, reimbursement data regarding inpatients with (i) allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation or (ii) acute myeloid leukaemia was considered. Data were publicly available and of high topicality (England 2020/2021, Spain 2018). Discounting and a currency conversion to Euro were applied. RESULTS: This study showed that market access processes of both countries are broadly similar. Further, full reimbursement of isavuconazole as an innovative pharmaceutical may lead to reduction in resource utilisation. Without medication costs, isavuconazole can thus result in cost savings for both patient clusters due to a reduction in length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Expenses for innovative pharmaceuticals may be balanced or even lead to cost savings due to a reduction in length of stay. The latter contributes to a greater patient benefit. For both healthcare system, the analyses highlighted drugs' cost-effectiveness and assessing its added value into reimbursement decisions is highly relevant.

Adherence and out-of-pocket costs among Medicare beneficiaries who are prescribed oral targeted therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are high-cost oral therapies that increasingly are used to treat patients with advanced prostate cancer; these agents carry the potential for significant financial consequences to patients. In the current study, the authors investigated coping and material measures of the financial hardship of these therapies among patients with Medicare Part D coverage. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study on a 20% sample of Medicare Part D enrollees who underwent treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2013 and June 2015. The authors described the variability in adherence rates and out-of-pocket payments among hospital referral regions in the first 6 months of therapy and determined whether adherence and out-of-pocket payments were associated with patient factors and the socioeconomic characteristics of where a patient was treated. RESULTS: There were 4153 patients who filled abiraterone or enzalutamide prescriptions through Medicare Part D in 228 hospital referral regions. The mean adherence rate was 75%. The median monthly out-of-pocket payment for abiraterone and enzalutamide was $706 (range, $0-$3505). After multilevel, multivariable adjustment for patient and regional factors, adherence was found to be lower in patients who were older (69% for patients aged ≥85 years vs 76% for patients aged <70 years; P < .01) and in those with low-income subsidies (69% in those with a subsidy vs 76% in those without a subsidy; P < .01). Both Hispanic ethnicity and living in a hospital referral region with a higher percentage of Hispanic beneficiaries were found to be independently associated with higher out-of-pocket payments for abiraterone and enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial variations in the adherence rate and out-of-pocket payments among Medicare Part D beneficiaries who were prescribed abiraterone and enzalutamide. Sociodemographic patient and regional factors were found to be associated with both adherence and out-of-pocket payments.

Impact of insecticide resistance in Anopheles arabiensis on malaria incidence and prevalence in Sudan and the costs of mitigation.

Insecticide-based interventions have contributed to ∼78% of the reduction in the malaria burden in sub-Saharan Africa since 2000. Insecticide resistance in malaria vectors could presage a catastrophic rebound in disease incidence and mortality. A major impediment to the implementation of insecticide resistance management strategies is that evidence of the impact of resistance on malaria disease burden is limited. A cluster randomized trial was conducted in Sudan with pyrethroid-resistant and carbamate-susceptible malaria vectors. Clusters were randomly allocated to receive either long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) alone or LLINs in combination with indoor residual spraying (IRS) with a pyrethroid (deltamethrin) insecticide in the first year and a carbamate (bendiocarb) insecticide in the two subsequent years. Malaria incidence was monitored for 3 y through active case detection in cohorts of children aged 1 to <10 y. When deltamethrin was used for IRS, incidence rates in the LLIN + IRS arm and the LLIN-only arm were similar, with the IRS providing no additional protection [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-3.0; P = 0.96)]. When bendiocarb was used for IRS, there was some evidence of additional protection [interaction IRR = 0.55 (95% CI: 0.40-0.76; P < 0.001)]. In conclusion, pyrethroid resistance may have had an impact on pyrethroid-based IRS. The study was not designed to assess whether resistance had an impact on LLINs. These data alone should not be used as the basis for any policy change in vector control interventions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of isavuconazole versus voriconazole for the treatment of patients with possible invasive aspergillosis in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Voriconazole is well established as standard treatment for invasive aspergillosis (IA). In 2017, isavuconazole, a new antifungal from the azole class, with a broader pathogen spectrum, was introduced in Sweden. A model has therefore been developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole and voriconazole in the treatment of possible IA in adults in Sweden. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole versus voriconazole was evaluated using a decision-tree model. Patients with possible IA entered the model, with 6% assumed to actually have mucormycosis. It was also assumed that pathogen information would become available during the course of treatment for only 50% of patients, with differential diagnosis unavailable for the remainder. Patients who were considered unresponsive to first-line treatment were switched to second-line treatment with liposomal amphotericin-B. Data and clinical definitions included in the model were taken from the published randomised clinical trial comparing isavuconazole with voriconazole for the treatment of IA and other filamentous fungi (SECURE) and the single-arm, open-label trial and case-control analysis of isavuconazole for the treatment of mucormycosis (VITAL). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the combined parameter uncertainty, and a deterministic sensitivity analysis and a scenario analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model assumptions. The model followed a Swedish healthcare payer perspective, therefore only considering direct medical costs. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that isavuconazole resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 174,890 Swedish krona (SEK) per additional quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was mainly due to the efficacy of isavuconazole against IA and mucormycosis, as opposed to voriconazole, which is only effective against IA. Sensitivity and scenario analyses of the data showed that the average ICER consistently fell below the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 1,000,000 SEK. The probability of isavuconazole being cost-effective at a WTP of 170,000 SEK per QALY gained was 50% and at a WTP of 500,000 SEK per QALY gained was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests that the treatment of possible IA with isavuconazole is cost-effective compared with treatment with voriconazole from a Swedish healthcare payer perspective.

Isavuconazole to prevent invasive fungal infection in immunocompromised adults: Initial experience at an academic medical centre.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of isavuconazole as antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk immunocompromised patients. PATIENTS/METHODS: Retrospective, single-centre cohort study of patients who received isavuconazole prophylaxis. Outcomes assessed included breakthrough IFI, early discontinuation of isavuconazole for any reason and antifungal prophylaxis prescribed at discharge. The impact on inpatient drug expenditure was evaluated using current isavuconazole and posaconazole drug costs per observed isavuconazole days of therapy (DOT) during the study period. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight courses of isavuconazole prophylaxis were administered to 98 inpatients (2193 DOT). Relapsed/refractory acute myelogenous leukaemia was the indication for prophylaxis in over half (59.4%) of patients. Breakthrough IFI occurred in 8 (5.8%) courses. Suspected drug-related toxicities led to early discontinuation in 6 (4.3%) courses (five hepatotoxicity, one drug rash). At discharge, 24 (17.4%) courses lacked insurance coverage for isavuconazole. The formulary switch to isavuconazole prophylaxis resulted in an estimated mean drug cost savings of $128.25 per DOT relative to estimated posaconazole costs (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Isavuconazole may be an option for antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk immunocompromised adults and has the potential to produce significant inpatient drug cost savings. Further studies are needed to confirm the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole in this role.

Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A Cost-utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy relative to systemic therapy alone for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis. BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breast cancer with liver metastasis are lacking. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postoperative conventional systemic therapy (strategy A) versus conventional therapy alone (strategy B) versus newer targeted therapy alone (strategy C). The implications of using different chemotherapeutic regimens based on estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was also assessed. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS: NHB of strategy A was 10.9 QALMs compared with strategy B when letrozole was used as systemic therapy, whereas it was only 0.3 QALMs when docetaxel + trastuzumab was used as a systemic therapy. The addition of newer biological agents (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic therapy alone). The NHB of strategy A was 31.6 QALMs versus strategy C when palbociclib was included in strategy C; similarly, strategy A had a NHB of 13.8 QALMs versus strategy C when pertuzumab was included in strategy C. Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the main factor influencing NHB of strategy A over strategy C was the cost of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection in patients with breast cancer liver metastasis proved to be cost-effective when compared with systemic therapy alone, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive tumors or when newer agents were used.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fulvestrant versus anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

Although recent studies demonstrated that fulvestrant is superior to anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor (HR)-positive advanced breast cancer, the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant versus anastrozole remained uncertain. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant compared with anastrozole in the first-line setting. A Markov model consisting of three health states (stable, progressive and dead) was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort of patients with HR-positive advanced breast cancer. Costs were calculated from a Chinese societal perspective. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as incremental cost per QALY gained. Model results suggested that fulvestrant provides an additional effectiveness gain of 0.11 QALYs at an incremental cost of $32,654 compared with anastrozole, resulting in an ICER of $296,855/QALY exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of $23,700/QALY. Hence, fulvestrant is not a cost-effective strategy compared with anastrozole as first-line treatment for HR-positive advanced breast cancer.

Palbociclib as a first-line treatment in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer not cost-effective with current pricing: a health economic analysis of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK).

Endocrine therapy continues to be the optimal systemic treatment for metastatic ER(+)HER2(-) breast cancer. The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib combined with letrozole has recently been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival. Here we examined the cost-effectiveness of this regimen for the Swiss healthcare system. A Markov cohort simulation based on the PALOMA-1 trial (Finn et al. in Lancet Oncol 16:25-35, 2015) was used as the clinical course. Input parameters were based on summary trial data. Costs were assessed from the Swiss healthcare system perspective. Adding palbociclib to letrozole (PALLET) compared to letrozole monotherapy was estimated to cost an additional CHF342,440 and gain 1.14 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CHF301,227/QALY gained. In univariate sensitivity analyses, no tested variation in key parameters resulted in an ICER below a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY. PALLET had a 0 % probability of being cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Lowering PALLET's price by 75 % resulted in an ICER of CHF73,995/QALY and a 73 % probability of being cost-effective. At current prices, PALLET would cost the Swiss healthcare system an additional CHF155 million/year. Palbociclib plus letrozole cannot be considered cost-effective for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer in the Swiss healthcare system.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and other incretin-related drugs have attracted attention as antidiabetic agents, but they are expensive. The Japanese government has adopted a policy of reducing healthcare costs, and medical institutions must provide medical care while considering economic efficiency. This study was a comparative survey of the usage, treatment effectiveness, and cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. The subjects were patients prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and alogliptin) at Gifu Municipal Hospital between February 2010 and August 2011. HbA1c: Japan Diabetes Society values (%) and concomitant antidiabetic agents were surveyed for 12 weeks after the start of DPP-4 inhibitors. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the cost required for a 0.1% decrease in HbA1c for 12 weeks was the lowest with vildagliptin (2,478 yen; decrease in HbA1c: 0.75% +/- 0.85%). In a cost analysis with a virtual cohort of 1000 patients, the number of patients who achieved the treatment target (HbA1c 6.5%) was estimated with respect to a virtual cohort created based on the HbA1c level (7.59 +/- 1.13%) at baseline of 307 patients, in cases assuming the use of each DPP-4 inhibitor. In addition, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was obtained with sitagliptin 50 mg as the reference. The number of patients achieving the treatment target was the highest with vildagliptin 100 mg (413 of 1000 patients), and the estimated ICER of 28,359 yen was the lowest. Robustness was also confirmed with a sensitivity analysis. These results suggest that vildagliptin provides a superior cost-benefit.

Reviewing the cost-effectiveness of endocrine early breast cancer therapies: influence of differences in modeling methods on outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review is primarily to identify published cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses of endocrine therapies for the treatment of early breast cancer. A secondary objective is to identify whether differences in seven modeling characteristics are related to differences in outcome of these cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed full economic evaluations of endocrine treatments of early breast cancer published in the English language between 2000 and December 2010. Information from these publications was abstracted regarding outcome, quality, and modeling methods. RESULTS: We identified 20 economic evaluations comprising 5 different endocrine therapeutic strategies, which are all assessed more then once. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the reported outcomes varied widely for identical therapies. For anastrazole compared to tamoxifen, incremental life-years gained even ranged from 0.16 to 0.550 with an ICER ranging from €3,958 to €75,331. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained ranged from 0.092 to 0.378 with a cost per QALY gained varying from €3,696 to €120,265. These large differences in outcome were related to different modeling methods, with differences in time horizon and use of a carryover effect as most prominent causes. CONCLUSION: Despite similar comparators and logical differences due to transferability issues, the outcomes of the included studies varied widely. To increase comparability and transparency of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, standardization of modeling methods for different therapeutic groups/diseases and the availability of a detailed and complete description of the model used in the evaluation is advocated. Recommendations for standardization in modeling treatment strategies in early breast cancer are presented.

Prioritizing pharmacogenetic research: a value of information analysis of CYP2D6 testing to guide breast cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how value of information (VOI) analysis can be used to establish research priorities regarding the use of pharmacogenetic tests using CYP2D6 testing to select adjuvant hormonal therapy in early stage breast cancer as a case study. METHODS: The following four treatment pathways are compared in a Markov model: tamoxifen treatment; CYP2D6 test and treat homozygous and heterozygous wild type patients (wt/wt; wt/*4) with tamoxifen and *4/*4 patients with anastrozole (HetTam); CYP2D6 test and treat homozygous wild type patients with tamoxifen and others with anastrozole (HomTam); and anastrozole treatment. Pharmacogenetic testing efficacy is estimated by synthesizing randomized controlled trial data comparing tamoxifen to anastrozole with observational data linking CYP2D6 genotype to tamoxifen outcomes. RESULTS: In order of increasing effectiveness the comparators are tamoxifen, HetTam, HomTam, anastrozole. Health outcomes for test and treatment strategies are highly uncertain. Differences in comparator costs depend on assumptions made regarding anastrozole patent expiry. The expected value of a decision taken with perfect information is £69 to £106 million (pound sterling) for the United Kingdom depending on patent expiry assumptions and the acceptable cost-effectiveness threshold. The most valuable research (VOI £53-£82 million) elucidates the relationship between CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen effectiveness. It is uncertain whether values of other research designs would exceed their costs. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective analysis of one of the large adjuvant aromatase inhibitor trials is warranted to better understand any association between CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen outcomes. VOI approaches may be helpful for prioritising evidence needs and structuring coverage with evidence development agreements for pharmacogenetics.

Extended high dose letrozole regimen versus short low dose letrozole regimen as an adjuvant to gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF-ET.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extended high dose letrozole regimen/HPuFSH-gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHant) protocol with short low dose letrozole regimen/HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF-ET. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 136 women who responded poorly to GnRH agonist long protocol in their first IVF cycle were randomized into two equal groups using computer generated list and were treated in the second IVF cycle by either extended letrozole regimen (5 mg/day during the first 5 days of cycle and 2.5 mg/day during the subsequent 3 days) combined with HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol or short letrozole regimen (2.5 mg/day from cycle day 3-7) combined with HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between both groups with regard to number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rate (5.39 ± 2.08 vs. 5.20 ± 1.88 and 22.06% vs. 16.18%, respectively).The total gonadotropins dose and medications cost per cycle were significantly lower in extended letrozole group (44.87 ± 9.16 vs. 59.97 ± 14.91 ampoules and 616.52 ± 94.97 vs. 746.84 ± 149.21 US Dollars ($), respectively).The cost-effectiveness ratio was 2794 $ in extended letrozole group and 4616 $ in short letrozole group. CONCLUSION: Extended letrozole regimen/HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol was more cost-effective than short letrozole regimen/HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF-ET.

Budget impact analysis of darolutamide for treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide, a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), has been shown to increase metastasis-free survival among men with nmCRPC compared with placebo. This treatment has a novel chemical structure that may also have safety, tolerability, and efficacy advantages for men with nmCRPC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the projected budget impact of including darolutamide on a U.S. payer formulary as a treatment option for men with nmCRPC. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to evaluate darolutamide for nmCRPC for a hypothetical 1-million-member plan over a 5-year period. Costs (drug acquisition, drug administration, and treatment-related adverse events [AEs]) were estimated for 2 scenarios: with and without darolutamide treatment for nmCRPC. The budget impact of darolutamide was calculated as the difference in costs for these 2 scenarios. An analysis for high-risk nmCRPC also was conducted. The model included treatments recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (e.g., apalutamide and enzalutamide) and potential comparators that are used but are not specifically indicated for nmCRPC. All treatments were assumed to be administered in combination with a weighted average androgen deprivation therapy comparator (consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonists, LHRH antagonists, and first-generation antiandrogens). Market share estimates were derived from interviews with physicians treating men with nmCRPC. The model includes grade 3-4 AEs, and the rates were obtained from clinical trial data. Costs were taken from publicly available sources and varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: For a plan with 1 million lives, there were approximately 90 incident cases of nmCRPC (46 high risk) each year, with 332 (109 high risk) treatment-eligible cases by year 5. Darolutamide's market share increased from 3.6% in year 1 to 18% in year 5. Given the utilization of other agents, introducing darolutamide along with other targeted therapies was predicted to increase the total budget by $158,640 ($0.0132 per member per month [PMPM]) in year 1, which decreased over time to a cost savings of $149,240 ($0.0124 PMPM) by year 5. The scenario with darolutamide showed reduced AE costs each year. Similar results were observed for the high-risk nmCRPC population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding darolutamide to a U.S. payer formulary for the treatment of nmCRPC can result in a manageable increase in the budget that is partly offset by AE costs in the first 4 years, followed by a cost savings by year 5. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by RTI Health Solutions under the direction of Bayer U.S. and was funded by Bayer U.S., which was involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Miles and Purser (and/or their institutions) are employees of RTI Health Solutions and received research funding from Bayer U.S. to develop the budget impact model. Appukkuttan and Farej are employees of Bayer U.S. Wen was an employee of Bayer U.S. at the time of the study. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Virtual Learning Event, April 20-24, 2020.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole versus tamoxifen in adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer - a health-economic analysis based on the 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial and the German health system.

BACKGROUND: In the 'Arimidex', Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial, the aromatase inhibitor (AI) anastrozole had a significantly better efficacy and safety profile than tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (EBC) in postmenopausal patients. To compare the combined long-term clinical and economic benefits, we carried out a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of anastrozole versus tamoxifen based on the data of the 100month analysis of the ATAC trial from the perspective of the German public health insurance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model with a 25-year time horizon was developed using the 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial as well as data obtained from published literature and expert opinion. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatment of EBC with anastrozole achieved an additional 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient compared with tamoxifen, at an additional cost of D 6819 per patient. Thus, the incremental cost effectiveness of anastrozole versus tamoxifen at 25 years was D 21,069 ($30,717) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first CEA of an AI that is based on extended follow-up data, taking into account the carryover effect of anastrozole, which maintains the efficacy benefits beyond therapy completion after 5 years. Adjuvant treatment with anastrozole for postmenopausal women with HR+ EBC is a cost-effective alternative to tamoxifen.

Results of the Zometa cost-utility model for the german healthcare system based on the results of the ABCSG-12 study.

BACKGROUND: The ABCSG-12 trial investigated the efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)analogs in combination with tamoxifen or anastrozole + or - zoledronic acid (4 mg, q6m for 3 years) in 1,803 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. After 48 months of follow-up, there was a 36% improvement in the disease-free survival (DFS) (recurrence-free survival 35%) using zoledronic acid. Based on these data, the costutility of zoledronic acid was calculated for the German healthcare system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Costs of surveillance, adverse effects, recurrence, contralateral breast cancer, metastasis, and end-of-life care were determined based on the Einheitlicher Bewertungsmabetastab (EBM 2009) and the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system. Utilities were surveyed with a questionnaire (n = 95). Estimation of the cost-utility was made by calculating the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), using a Markov model. RESULTS: Including zoledronic acid as adjuvant therapy for 3 years resulted in total costs of euro 2,262. The use of zoledronic acid is dominant when clinical efficacy and quality of life are taken into consideration (- euro 45.83/QALY) (95% confidence interval (CI) - euro 1,838 to E 2,375; 0.02-0.41 QALY). The sensitivity analyses present with a probability of 90% that the cost per QALY gained are

Efficacy of letrozole in ovulation induction compared to that of clomiphene citrate in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of letrozole with clomiphene citrate for ovulation induction in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). STUDY DESIGN: In this clinical trial, 107 infertile patients with PCOS received either 100 mg clomiphene citrate (n = 57) or 5 mg letrozole (n = 50) daily since day 3-7 of their menstrual cycle. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was administered at a dose of 10,000 IU when at least 1 mature follicle was detected. A single intrauterine insemination was performed 34 hours later. Then the size, number and growth rate of follicles, ovulation rate, endometrial thickness and pregnancy rate were measured in both groups. RESULTS: The number and the size of mature follicles were similar between the 2 groups. The pregnancy rate in letrozole group was higher than that in the clomiphene group (20% vs. 14%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.286). In letrozole group, 86% of patients developed mature follicles, all showing ovulation, whereas 72% of patients in clomiphene citrate group developed mature follicles (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Letrozole might be an acceptable alternative to clomiphene citrate to induce ovulation and pregnancy in PCOS patients.