First-line Treatment with Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Women with Hormone-receptor-positive Advanced Breast Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background Adding atezolizumab to carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel improved progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. However, estimating the economy of atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel is urgent on account of the high cost of atezolizumab. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus carboplatin/nab- paclitaxel for untreated advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer from the United States payer perspective. Setting This study was based on randomized clinical trial data from the IMpower130 (NCT02367781) published in Lancet Oncology (May 2019). Method A Markov model was constructed to estimate the health expenditure on atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treatment. Drug costs were collected from Red Book Wholesale Acquisition Cost, and health state utility values were obtained from the literature. Uncertainty was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measure The main outcomes were cost, life years, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results Over a 10-year horizon, atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel treatment was associated with an expected 1.76 life years and 0.99 quality-adjusted life years compared to the 1.21 life years and 0.67 quality-adjusted life years for carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel alone. Compared to carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel produced an incremental cost of $105,617. The resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $333,199 per quality-adjusted life year, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $180,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The price of atezolizumab and utility values were the parameters that greatly impacted the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel exhibited 98.6% probability of being a cost-effective treatment option compared to atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel at a willingness-to-pay of $180,000 per quality-adjusted life year. However, reducing atezolizumab acquisition cost by 43.4% could make atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel more cost-effective than carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel. Conclusion Adding atezolizumab to carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel was not cost-effective for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in the base-case scenario. Decreasing atezolizumab acquisition cost might enhance the cost-effectiveness.