Olaparib as first line in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian carcinoma: Is it cost-effective in Spain?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib after being funded by the Spanish National Health Service (SNHS) as first-line monotherapy maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) and BRCA mutations in Spain. METHODS: A semi-Markov model with one-month cycles was adapted to the Spanish healthcare setting, using the perspective of the SNHS, and a time horizon of 50 years. Two scenarios were compared: receiving olaparib vs. no maintenance treatment. The model comprised four health states and included the clinical results of the SOLO1 study, along with the direct healthcare costs associated with the use of first-line and subsequent treatment resources (2020 €). A discount rate of 3% was applied for future cost and quality-of-life outcomes. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was also carried out and a cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was considered. RESULTS: The introduction of olaparib as a first-line maintenance treatment for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations implied a cost of €131,614.98 compared to €102,369.54 without olaparib (difference: €29,245.44), with an improvement of 2.00 QALYs (5.56 and 3.57, respectively). Therefore, olaparib is cost-effective for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €14,653.2/QALY. The results from the PSA showed that 92.1% of the simulations fell below the €25,000/QALY threshold. The model showed that olaparib could improve the overall survival by 2 years, vs. no maintenance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib as first-line maintenance treatment is cost-effective in advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations in Spain.

Is olaparib cost effective in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one favorable gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM?

Aim: To compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib versus control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM from the US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties. Results: The base-case result indicated that, for patients with specific gene mutations, olaparib gained 1.26 QALYs and USD$157,732 total cost. Compared with control treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olaparib was USD$248,248/QALY. The price of olaparib was the most influential parameter. Conclusion: Olaparib is not cost effective in comparison with control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with specific gene mutations.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib maintenance therapy when used with and without restriction by BRCA1/2 mutation status for platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.

Objectives: To determine whether olaparib maintenance therapy, used with and without restriction by BRCA1/2 mutation status, is cost-effective at the population level for platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer in Singapore.Methods: A partitioned survival model compared three management strategies: 1) treat all patients with olaparib; 2) test for germline BRCA1/2 mutation, followed by targeted olaparib use in mutation carriers only; 3) observe all patients. Mature overall survival (OS) data from Study 19 and a 15-year time horizon were used and direct medical costs were applied. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties.Results: Treating all patients with olaparib was the most costly and effective strategy, followed by targeted olaparib use, and observation of all patients. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for all-olaparib and targeted use strategies were SGD133,394 (USD100,926) and SGD115,736 (USD87,566) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, respectively, compared to observation. ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of olaparib, time horizon and discount rate for outcomes. When these parameters were varied, ICERs remained above SGD92,000 (USD69,607)/QALY.Conclusions: At the current price, olaparib is not cost-effective when used with or without restriction by BRCA1/2 mutation status in Singapore, despite taking into account potential OS improvement over a long time horizon.

Patient cost sharing during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: More patients with ovarian cancer are being treated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors because regulatory agencies have granted these drugs new approvals for a variety of treatment indications. However, poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are expensive. When administered as a maintenance therapy, these drugs may be administered for months or years. How much of this cost patients experience as out-of-pocket spending is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the out-of-pocket spending that patients experience during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment and to characterize which healthcare services account for that spending. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed with a sample of patients with ovarian cancer treated between 2014 and 2017 with olaparib, niraparib, or rucaparib. Patients were identified using MarketScan, a health insurance claims database. All insurance claims during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment were collected. The primary outcome variable was the patients' out-of-pocket spending (copayment, coinsurance, and deductibles) during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment for the medication itself. Other outcomes of interest included out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services, the types and frequency of other healthcare services used, health plan spending, the estimated proportion of patients' household income used each month for healthcare, and patients' out-of-pocket spending immediately before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: We identified 503 patients with ovarian cancer with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years); 83% of those had out-of-pocket spendings during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. The median treatment duration was 124 days (interquartile range, 66-240 days). The mean out-of-pocket spending for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors was $305 (standard deviation, $2275) per month. On average, this accounted for 44.8% (standard deviation, 34.8%) of the patients' overall monthly out-of-pocket spending. The mean out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services was $165 (standard deviation, $769) per month. Health plans spent, on average, $12,661 (standard deviation, $15,668) per month for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and $7108 (standard deviation, $15,254) per month for all other healthcare services. The cost sharing for office visits, laboratory tests, and imaging studies represented the majority of non-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment out-of-pocket spending. The average amount patients paid for all healthcare services per month during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $470 (standard deviation, $2407), which was estimated to be 8.7% of the patients' monthly household income. The mean out-of-pocket spending in the 12 months before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $3110 (standard deviation, $6987). CONCLUSION: Patients can face high out-of-pocket costs for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, although the sum of cost sharing for other healthcare services used during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment is often higher. The spending on healthcare costs consumes a large proportion of these patients' household income. Patients with ovarian cancer experience high out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, both before and during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Importance: There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS). Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186 777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17 000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629 347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557 865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.

Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation has been shown to be effective. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance olaparib for MPC from the US payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model was adopted to project the disease course of MPC. Efficacy and toxicity data were gathered from the Pancreas Cancer Olaparib Ongoing (POLO) trial. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in each POLO group. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net-health benefit, and incremental monetary benefit were measured. Subgroup analysis, one-way analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the model uncertainties. RESULTS: Maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $191,596 per additional progression-free survival (PFS) quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with a high cost of $132,287 and 0.691 PFS QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Subgroup analysis indicated that maintenance olaparib achieved at least a 16.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and the cost of olaparib. When overall survival was considered, maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $265,290 per additional QALY gained, with a high cost of $128,266 and 0.483 QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance olaparib is potentially cost-effective compared with placebo for patients with a germline BRCA mutation and MPC. Economic outcomes could be improved by tailoring treatment based on individual patient factors.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance treatment for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib monotherapy in the first-line maintenance setting vs. surveillance in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A three-state (progression free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model over a 50-year lifetime horizon was developed. Piecewise models were applied to data from the phase III trial SOLO1 to extrapolate survival outcomes. Health state utilities and adverse event disutilities were obtained from literature and SOLO1. Treatment costs, adverse event costs, and medical costs associated with health states were obtained from publicly available databases, SOLO1, and real-world data. Time on treatment was estimated using the data from SOLO1. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY) gained were estimated. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, olaparib was associated with an additional 3.63 LYs and 2.93 QALYs, and an incremental total cost of $152,545 vs. surveillance. Incremental cost per LY gained and per QALY gained for olaparib were $42,032 and $51,986, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below $100,000 across a range of inputs and scenarios. In the PSA, the probability of olaparib being cost-effective at a $100,000 per QALY threshold was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to surveillance, olaparib increases both the LYs and QALYs of women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and with a germline or somatic BRCA mutation. Olaparib offers a cost-effective maintenance option for these women from a US third-party payer perspective.

Movement of Poly-ADP Ribose (PARP) Inhibition into Frontline Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Palbociclib for HR-Positive/HER2 Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Commentary.

Despite the achieved advancement in pharmacological cancer treatments, the majority of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) will experience disease progression. Research into alternative therapies with improved efficacy and reduced side effects has led to the development of a new class of oral anticancer medications, the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors, which include palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that the effectiveness of oral anticancer medications is sub-optimal, being influenced by low adherence, sociodemographic factors, and adverse effect profiles. In addition, there is a disconnect between the high price tags of CDK 4/6 inhibitors and their observed effectiveness, raising questions about their value. Currently, the existing knowledge base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newer oral anticancer medications in understudied populations with possible health disparities is scant. This commentary discusses what is known about palbociclib's clinical effectiveness, safety, and adherence and suggests the need for further studies of real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to help establish the value of newer oncologic drugs, such as palbociclib. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this article. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-Effectiveness and Net Monetary Benefit of Olaparib Maintenance Therapy Versus No Maintenance Therapy After First-line Platinum-based Chemotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Advanced BRCA1/2-mutated Ovarian Cancer in the Italian National Health Service.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of olaparib maintenance therapy compared with no maintenance therapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: We developed a lifetime Markov model in which a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer was assigned to receive either olaparib maintenance therapy or active surveillance (Italian standard of care) after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to compare cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of the 2 strategies. Data on clinical outcomes were obtained from related clinical trial literature and extrapolated using parametric survival analyses. Data on costs were derived from Italian official sources and relevant real-world studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were computed and compared against an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of €16,372 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. We used deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to assess how uncertainty affects results; we also performed scenario analyses to compare results under different pricing settings. FINDINGS: In the base-case scenario, during a 50-year time horizon, the total costs for patients treated with olaparib therapy and active surveillance were €124,359 and €97,043, respectively, and QALYs gained were 7.29 and 4.88, respectively, with an ICER of €9,515 per life-year gained, an ICUR of €11,345 per QALY gained, and an INMB of €12,104. In scenario analyses, considering maximum selling prices for all other drugs, ICUR decreased to €11,311 per QALY and €7,498 per QALY when a 10% and 20% discount, respectively, was applied to the olaparib official price, and the INMB increased to €12,186 and €21,366, respectively. DSA found that the model results were most sensitive to the proportion of patients with relapsing disease in response to platinum-based chemotherapy, time receiving olaparib first-line maintenance treatment, and subsequent treatments price. According to PSAresults, olaparib was associated with a probability of being cost-effective at a €16,372 per QALY WTP threshold ranging from 70% to 100% in the scenarios examined. IMPLICATIONS: Our analysis indicates that olaparib maintenance therapy may deliver a significant health benefit with a contained upfront cost during a 50-year time horizon, from the Italian NHS perspective, providing value in a setting with curative intent.

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease. METHODS: Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non­platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations. RESULTS: Non­platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non­platinum-based regimens. CONCLUSION: High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care.

Cost-effectiveness of BRCA1/2 mutation profiling to target olaparib use in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Aim: Olaparib monotherapy improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BRCA1/2 mutation profiling to target olaparib use. Methods: A Markov cohort model was generated to compare the 5-year cost-effectiveness of BRCA1/2 mutation profiling to target olaparib use. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of BRCA1/2 mutation profiling plus olaparib monotherapy was JPY14,677,259/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (US$131,047/QALY), compared with standard chemotherapy alone. Conclusion:BRCA1/2 mutation profiling to target olaparib use is not a cost-effective strategy for metastatic breast cancer. The strategy provides minimal incremental benefit at a high incremental cost per QALY. Hence, further cost reductions in the cost of both BRCA1/2 mutation profiling and olaparib are required.

Quantification of Economic Impact of Drug Wastage in Oral Oncology Medications: Comparison of 3 Methods Using Palbociclib and Ribociclib in Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discarding unused drugs after dose changes or discontinuation can significantly affect pharmacy budgets. This is especially concerning for expensive oncology agents. However, few economic studies account for drug wastage, providing an inaccurate estimate of a drug's actual economic cost, cost-effectiveness, and value. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare the economic impact of drug wastage between ribociclib and palbociclib-clinically similar oral medications for metastatic breast cancer-using 3 approaches (Markov model, pharmacy acquisition cost model, and a retrospective claims analysis) and (b) compare the modeling results with a published estimate of drug wastage for palbociclib from a claims analysis. METHODS: A Markov model and a pharmacy acquisitions cost model were developed to evaluate the economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib over a 1-year time period. Data inputs were pharmacy costs (RED BOOK wholesale acquisition cost) and proportion of patients experiencing dose reductions from either ribociclib randomized clinical trials (MONALEESA-2, -3, or -7) or real-world observational data (Symphony Health retrospective claims analysis). The latter constituted the third approach for quantifying drug wastage. The economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib in postmenopausal women with previously untreated HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer was assessed. Drug wastage was defined as drug doses that could not be used by a patient following a dose reduction. The cost of drug wastage was defined as the cost associated with an unused drug resulting from a dose reduction. The predicted results from the 2 models were compared with a previously published claims analysis that estimated the effect of treatment costs and drug wastage for palbociclib based on the observed dosing patterns from the Symphony Health Solutions database. RESULTS: In the Markov model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib users experienced drug wastage of $112,382 total, or $1,124 per treated patient, per year due to dose changes. In the pharmacy acquisition cost model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib usage was associated with an increased cost of $7,196 per patient per year (based on a mid-cycle dose reduction) comprising dosing-based cost differences and drug wastage cost for palbociclib of $3,727. The previously published claims analysis found that palbociclib users experiencing a dose reduction had drug wastage costs of $5,471 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In both models, dose reductions for ribociclib patients resulted in no wastage, since unused tablets could be administered in subsequent cycles, while dose reductions for palbociclib resulted in drug wastage and increased costs. The results from both models were consistent with previously published results from the claims analysis, demonstrating drug wastage costs for palbociclib. DISCLOSURES: This study received financial support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which has products approved for treatment of breast cancer. Tang was employed by Novartis during this study; Zacker and Dalal are employed by Novartis and own company stock. Biskupiak, Brixner, and Oderda received payment from Novartis for this study. Brixner serves as a consultant for Millcreek Outcomes Group and also declares consulting fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Becton Dickinson, and Xcenda, unrelated to this study.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adding Palbociclib as a Second-Line Endocrine Therapy for HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer From the US and Chinese Perspectives.

PURPOSE: As a second-line endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer, palbociclib has demonstrated significant efficacy in prolonging progression-free survival when added to a regimen containing fulvestrant. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of palbociclib from the perspectives of the United States and China. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs, overall life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to predict the uncertainty of the model developed. The time horizon was 10 years, and the perspective was that of the payer. FINDINGS: Within a 10-year time horizon, the palbociclib-containing strategy provided an additional 0.568 QALY, with an ICER of 88,854 USD/QALY, in the United States. When palbociclib cost 30%, 20%, and 10% of the current price, the ICERs were 185,526, 42,193, and 98,860 USD/QALY, respectively. In China, the ICER was 182,779 USD/QALY. When palbociclib cost 30%, 20%, and 10% of the current price, the ICERs were 79,558, 64,812, and 50,066 USD/QALY, respectively. In order to meet 50% probability of cost-effectiveness, the estimated price would have to be 32.52 USD/100 mg at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 58,480 USD/QALY (3 × per-capita domestic product of Beijing, China). IMPLICATIONS: Adding palbociclib to a regimen of fulvestrant is unlikely to be cost-effective as a second-line endocrine therapy for HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with at the current price in the United States and China. For widely meeting the treatment demands of patients, it may be a better option to decrease the price or provide more patients with a financial assistance program for palbociclib both in the United States and in China.

Budget impact of niraparib as maintenance treatment in recurrent ovarian cancer following platinum-based chemotherapy.

Aim: To estimate financial implications of adopting niraparib as maintenance treatment in recurrent ovarian cancer. Materials & methods: A model was developed to estimate the budget impact of treating patients with niraparib compared with alternative maintenance treatment options (olaparib, rucaparib, bevacizumab or 'watch and wait') over 3 years. Results: For a hypothetical plan with 1 million lives representative of US/Medicare-only populations, projected cost savings with niraparib were US$78,721/$293,723, $276,671/$1,009,729 and $353,585/$1,289,712 at years 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed prices of niraparib, rucaparib and olaparib to have the most significant impact on the budget. Conclusion: Factoring in all treatment-related costs, the use of niraparib could result in significant cost savings compared with other maintenance treatment options.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Three CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB), and abemaciclib, when combined with letrozole (LET), have been approved as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic HR+, HER2- breast cancer. However, an economic evaluation of these newer therapies is currently lacking. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PAL or RIB for the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer in the United States. METHODS: A Markov simulation model was constructed using data from published clinical trials evaluating PAL and RIB. Three simulated treatment strategies included PAL + LET, RIB + LET, or LET alone. The main outcome measures were simulated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Simulated median OS was 38.9 months for PAL + LET and 33.0 months for LET alone. Simulated median OS for RIB + LET was 43.3 months. Compared to LET alone, PAL + LET provided an additional 0.48 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $634,000 per QALY gained; RIB + LET provided an additional 0.86 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $440,000 per QALY gained. At current prices, neither PAL nor RIB was cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. To reach such a cost-effectiveness threshold, PAL and RIB prices must decrease by approximately 70%. CONCLUSION: Despite significant gains in progression-free survival over letrozole alone, the addition of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer is not cost-effective in the United States given current drug prices.

Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS), olaparib and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: A decision-analytic model estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for niraparib versus RS, olaparib, and rucaparib from a US payer perspective. The model considered recurrent OC patients with or without germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut), who were responsive to their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Model health states were: progression-free disease, progressed disease and dead. Mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using parametric survival distributions based on ENGOT-OV16/NOVA (niraparib phase III trial), ARIEL3 (rucaparib phase III trial) and Study 19 (olaparib phase II trial). Mean overall survival (OS) benefit was estimated as double the mean PFS benefit based on the relationship between PFS and OS observed in Study 19. Costs included: drug, chemotherapy, monitoring, adverse events, and terminal care. EQ-5D utilities were estimated from trial data. RESULTS: Compared to RS, niraparib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$68,287/QALY and US$108,287/QALY for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. Compared to olaparib and rucaparib, niraparib decreased costs and increased QALYs, with a cost saving of US$8799 and US$22,236 versus olaparib and US$198,708 and US$73,561 versus rucaparib for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib was estimated to be less costly and more effective compared to olaparib and rucaparib, and the ICER fell within an acceptable range compared to RS. Therefore, niraparib may be considered a cost-effective maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent OC.

Why upfront use of CDK inhibitors for the treatment of advanced breast cancer may be wasteful, and how we can increase their value.

Three Cyclin Dependent Kinase 4/6 (CDK) inhibitors have been approved by the United Stated Food and Drug Administration for front line treatment of advanced hormone receptor positive breast cancer based on improvements in progression free survival against endocrine monotherapy. Two clinical trials have so far reported results on overall survival but both are negative. CDK inhibitors are usually tolerated well but they do add to inconvenience and cost - for example, grade III-IV neutropenia occur at a frequency of over 60% requiring frequent blood work at least during the initial months of treatment. These drugs cost over $ 13,500 for a 4-week cycle in the United States, and are responsible for billions of dollars annually in drug cost alone. Importantly, many women with metastatic breast cancer do well for a long time with endocrine therapy alone and CDK inhibitors do not have a predictive marker. Selective use of these agents in later lines may improve substantially the convenience and cost without compromise in overall outcome. However, with results demonstrating impressive improvements in PFS published in major medical journals coupled with patients' natural desire for "best available" options, the trend among oncologists is to prescribe these drugs as the default front-line treatment. In this commentary I caution readers against over interpretation of results from the CDK inhibitor trials, describe adverse consequences of routine front-line use, and explain why selective use in later line may yield a higher value.