Economic assessment of abemaciclib for the adjuvant treatment of luminal HER2- breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish health system.

INTRODUCTION: Abemaciclib is an oral inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6). Data from the clinical trial monarchE (2023) showed improved survival from invasive disease. The aim of the present article was to conduct an economic assessment of adjuvant treatment with abemaciclib in women with luminal, HER2- and node-positive breast cancer. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed with four mutually exclusive health states (disease-free, local recurrence, distal recurrence and death). Analyses were based on the clinical trial monarchE which compared an intervention group (abemaciclib + hormone therapy [HT]) with HT alone. The effectiveness measure used was quality-adjusted life years (QALY), with unit costs and utilities being obtained from existing literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was used to compare the two treatment strategies. RESULTS: Total costs were €98,765 and €17,935 for the abemaciclib plus HT group and the HT alone group, respectively. The health outcome was 10.076QALY for the intervention group and 9.495QALY for the control group, with the ICUR being€139,173/QALY. CONCLUSION: Despite the significant gains of abemaciclib as adjuvant treatment in terms of progression-free survival, this treatment is not cost-effective for the Spanish National Health System at published prices. It may be cost-effective with an appropriate discount on the official price.

Use of docetaxel in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A systematic review and assessment of subgroup analyses.

BACKGROUND: Use of docetaxel in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer presents considerable controversy. There is literature suggesting lack of benefit for low-volume of metastases. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to develop a systematic review and methodological assessment of subset analysis about use of docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer regarding volume of metastatic disease. METHODS: A systematic review in the Pubmed® database was conducted up to 25 September 2020. A reference tracking was also developed. Randomised clinical trials with subgroup analysis according volume of metastatic disease for overall survival were selected. Two methodologies were used. One of them considered statistical interaction of subsets (p(i) < 0.1), pre-specification, biological plausibility and consistency among subset results of similar randomised clinical trials. The second methodology was a two-part validated tool: preliminary questions to discard subset analysis without minimal relevance and a checklist The checklist provides recommendations for applicability of subgroup analysis in clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 31 results were found in systematic reviews in the Pubmed® database. One result was identified in the reference tracking. Of the total of 32 results, four randomised clinical trials were included in the study. About first methodology, statistical interaction among subgroups was obtained in one randomised clinical trial. Subgroup analysis was pre-specified in two randomised clinical trials. Biological plausibility was reasonable. No external consistency among results of subgroup analyses in randomised clinical trials was observed. Preliminary questions of second methodology rejected applicability of subgroup analysis in three randomised clinical trials. A 'null' recommendation for applicability of subset results was obtained in the remaining randomised clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low- and high-burden metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer would benefit from docetaxel therapy. No consistent differences for overall survival were observed in subgroup analyses regarding volume of metastatic disease.

Cost-utility of talazoparib monotherapy treatment for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Spain.

Breast cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies. The aim of the article is to analyse the cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact of talazoparib treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic gBRCA + breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Analyses were based on the EMBRACA clinical trial and the model was constructed according to "partitioned survival analysis". Two scenarios were considered in order to compare talazoparib with the alternatives of capecitabine, vinorelbine and eribulin: 1. Chemotherapy in patients pre-treated with anthracyclines/taxanes and, 2. A second- and subsequent-line treatment option. Treatment types following relapse were recorded in the mentioned clinical trial. The effectiveness measure used was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The average health cost of patients treated at 43 months with talazoparib was 84,360.86€, whilst current treatment costs were 26,683.90€. The effectiveness of talazoparib was 1.93 years of survival (1.09 QALY) relative to 1.58 years (0.83 QALY) in the treatment group. The incremental cost-utility ratio was 252,420.04€/QALY. This represents the additional cost required to earn an additional QALY when changing from regular treatment to talazoparib. Regarding budgetary impact, the number of patients susceptible to receiving treatment with between 94 and 202 talazoparib was estimated, according to scenario and likelihood. The 3-year cost difference was between 6.9 and 9 million euros. The economic evaluation conducted shows an elevated incremental cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact. Taking these results into account, the price of talazoparib would have to be lower than that taken as a reference to reach the cost-utility thresholds.

Economic evaluation and budgetary burden of mepolizumab in severe refractory eosinophilic asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Mepolizumab is indicated as an additional treatment of severe refractory eosinophilic asthma. The observed differences in  population subgroups according to plasma eosinophil count, the  existence of patients with high levels of immunoglobulin E who are  candidates of omalizumab and mepolizumab, as well as mepolizumab's  economic impact, lead to make efficient economic studies for clinical  decision making. The aim was to analyze mepolizumab's cost-efficacy  and budget impact. METHOD: Cost comparison and the use of mepolizumab's budgetary  impact was performed, from the Spanish National Health System's  perspective. Among the assessed alternatives, inhaled systemic  corticosteroids, plus long acting beta agonist (ß2) and/or oral systemic  corticosteroids in patients with non immunoglobulin E-mediated severe  allergic asthma, and said treatment along with omalizumab in patients  with immunoglobulin E mediated eosinophilic allergic asthma were  included. Its efficacy was evaluated through avoided clinically relevant  exacerbations. The direct costs associated with exacerbation were  assessed. RESULTS: Mepolizumab's long run average incremental cost regarding omalizumab's is 797 euros per patient a year. Considering  omalizumab's alternative discounted price, including mepolizumab for  patients with immunoglobulin E mediated eosinophilic allergic asthma  would increase public spending from 2.3 to 4.6 million euros. Given  omalizumab's notified price, the gradual introduction of mepolizumab in  the Spanish National Health System would save 3.6 million euros in  three years. For non immunoglobulin E-mediated severe asthma  patients, the avoided cost/exacerbation by introducing mepolizumab is  15,085 euros, assuming a gradual market penetration of mepolizumab. In patients with ≥ 500 eosinophils/µL, this cost decreases to 7,767  euros per avoided exacerbation with a budgetary impact of 183.2 million  euros in three years with a progressive penetration of mepolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: The cost comparison between mepolizumab and  omalizumab in immunoglobulin E mediated eosinophilic asthma patients  suggests a use of the lower cost drug, promoting price competition.  Additionally, prioritizing its use among non immunoglobulin E-mediated  severe refractory eosinophilic asthma patients and ≥ 500 eosinophils/µL  plasma level patients, would improve its efficiency as well as  reducing its budgetary impact.

Objetivo: Mepolizumab está indicado como tratamiento adicional del asma eosinofílica refractaria grave. Las diferencias observadas en  subgrupos poblacionales según recuento eosinofílico plasmático,  existencia de pacientes con altos niveles de inmunoglobulina E  candidatos a omalizumab y mepolizumab, e impacto económico de  mepolizumab obligan a realizar estudios económicos para tomar  decisiones clínicas eficientes. El objetivo fue realizar un análisis de  coste/eficacia e impacto presupuestario de mepolizumab.Método: Se realizó la comparación de costes e impacto presupuestario del uso de mepolizumab desde la perspectiva del  Sistema Nacional de Salud. Las alternativas valoradas fueron  corticosteroides sistémicos inhalados + agonista ß2 de larga duración  y/o corticosteroides sistémicos orales en pacientes con asma alérgica  grave no mediada por inmunoglobulina E, y este tratamiento junto a  omalizumab en pacientes con asma eosinofílica alérgica mediada por  inmunoglobulina E. La eficacia se evaluó mediante exacerbaciones  clínicamente relevantes evitadas. Se valoraron los costes directos  asociados a exacerbación.Resultados: El coste incremental medio de mepolizumab respecto a omalizumab es de 797 euros por paciente y año. Considerando precio alternativo con descuento de omalizumab, incluir mepolizumab  para pacientes con asma eosinofílica alérgica y mediada por  inmunoglobulina E supondría incrementar el gasto público de 2,3 a 4,6  millones de euros. Teniendo en cuenta el precio notificado de  omalizumab, la introducción gradual de mepolizumab en el Sistema  Nacional de Salud supondría ahorrar 3,6 millones de euros en tres años.  Para pacientes con asma grave no mediada por inmunoglobulina  E, el coste/exacerbación evitada al añadir mepolizumab es de 15.085  euros, con un impacto presupuestario en tres años de 578,4 millones de  euros, asumiendo una penetración progresiva de mepolizumab en el  mercado. En los pacientes con ≥ 500 eosinófilos/µl, este coste  disminuye a 7.767 euros por exacerbación evitada, con un impacto  presupuestario de 183,2 millones de euros en tres años con penetración  progresiva de mepolizumab.Conclusiones: La comparación de costes entre mepolizumab y  omalizumab en pacientes con asma eosinofílica mediada por  inmunoglobulina E señala como razonable utilizar el fármaco de menor  coste, promoviendo competencia de precios. Asimismo, priorizar su uso  en pacientes con asma eosinofílica refractaria grave no mediada por  inmunoglobulina E y niveles plasmáticos ≥ 500 eosinófilos/µl permitiría  mejorar la eficiencia y disminuir el impacto presupuestario.

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant of hematopoietic progenitor cells.

The objective of this article is to analyze the ratio of cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of lenalidomide treatment in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant in Spain. The analyses were based on clinical trials CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02, from the perspective of the National Health System. The alternatives compared were the treatment with lenalidomide against maintenance without treatment (MwT). Efficiency measures used were years of life gained (YGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). According to the CALGB 100104 trial data, the average health costs of patients who were treated with lenalidomide for 120 months was €836,534.31 and without treatment was €528,963.63. The effectiveness of the lenalidomide group was 7.59YGs (5.72 QALY) against 6.58 of MwT (4.61 QALY). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €277,456.72/QALY and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €303,191.05/YGs. From the analysis, the IFM2005-02 trial obtained 5.13 QALY in the lenalidomide group against the 4.98 QALY in the MwT group, with an ICUR of €1,502,780.55/QALY. In terms of budgetary impact, a range between 799 and 1452 patients susceptible to receive treatment with lenalidomide was assumed in Spain. In conclusion, the results show a high ICUR and budgetary impact, which adds uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment.

Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of Treatment with Evolocumab Versus Statins and Ezetimibe for Hypercholesterolemia in Spain.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To analyze the cost-effectiveness ratio and budget impact of treatment with evolocumab (PCSK9 inhibitor) for patients in secondary prevention in the Spanish National Health System. METHODS: A budget impact analysis, decision tree and Markov models were designed under the public health system perspective, based on the only study with morbidity and mortality data (FOURIER). The alternatives compared were evolocumab vs statins, and dual therapy with ezetimibe in 5% of the population. The measure of effectiveness used was the number of cardiovascular events avoided. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The average annual cost of patients receiving evolocumab was 11 134.78€ and 393.83€ for standard treatment (statins plus ezetimibe). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was > 600 000 € per avoided cardiovascular event for both assessed outcomes (first: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization due to unstable angina or coronary revascularization; second: includes the first 3 events). To perform the 10-year Markov model, the average cost of standard treatment was 13 948.45€ vs 471 417.37€ with evolocumab. Treatment with evolocumab for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia would cost between 3 and 6.1 million euros, assuming a difference of 2.5 and 5.1 million euros with the standard treatment (2017). This difference would be between 204.3 and 1364.7 million euros (2021) for those with nonfamiliar hypercholesterolemia (secondary prevention). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with evolocumab is associated with a lower frequency of cardiovascular events, but is inefficient for patients suitable to receive this drug in the Spanish National Health System.

Docetaxel in hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer; GENESIS-SEFH evaluation reporta.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common urogenital malignancy in older men and the second leading cause of death by cancer in men in Europe. Current therapeutic practice considers Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) as first line treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer at high-risk, either locally advanced or metastatic. ADT can be achieved through orchiectomy (surgical castration), luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, or through complete androgen blockade (LHRH agonist combined with an anti-androgen). Docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone is indicated for the treatment of patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. The CHAARTED and STAMPEDE clinical trials studied the effect of bringing forward the use of docetaxel added on to ADT in the context of hormone-sensitive patients. The CHAARTED clinical trial showed a significant increase in a variable with maximum relevance such as Overall Survival (OS), with a difference of 13.6 months between medians. There was also clinical benefit in the secondary variables: median time until castration-resistant disease or until clinical progression. In the STAMPEDE clinical trial, which included 39% of non-metastatic patients, a 10-month difference between medians was demonstrated in OS, and 17 months in the primary co-variable of Progression Free Survival. The most frequent adverse events were: neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, leucopenia, and general disorders such as asthenia, lethargy or fever. According to data from the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE studies, and the incremental cost of € 3 196.98 for adding on docetaxel to standard treatment, the estimated additional cost for each year of life gained is compatible with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between € 2 267.36 and € 3 851.78. In view of the efficacy and safety results, the proposed positioning is: to advance the use of docetaxel added to androgen deprivation therapy to first-line metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, regardless of metastatic volume, in those patients who meet the CHAARTED study criteria.

El cáncer de próstata (CP) es el tumor maligno urogenital más frecuente en hombres de edad avanzada y la segunda causa de muerte por cáncer en hombres en Europa. La práctica terapéutica actual considera como primera línea la terapia de privación de andrógenos (ADT; androgen deprivation therapy) en el cáncer de próstata clínicamente localizado de alto riesgo, localmente avanzado o metástasico. La ADT se realiza mediante orquiectomía (castración quirúrgica), agonistas de la hormona liberadora de hormona luteinizante (LHRH), o bien mediante el bloqueo androgénico completo (agonista LHRH más antiandrógeno). El docetaxel en combinación con prednisona o prednisolona está indicado para el tratamiento de pacientes con cáncer de próstata hormono-refractariometastásico. Los ensayos clínicos CHAARTED y STAMPEDE analizaron el efecto de adelantar el uso de docetaxel añadido a la ADT en el contexto del paciente hormonosensible. En el ensayo CHAARTED se demostró un aumento significativo en la variable de máxima relevancia como es la supervivencia global (SG), con una diferencia de medianas de 13,6 meses. También se obtuvo beneficio clínico en las variables secundarias mediana de tiempo hasta enfermedad resistente a la castración o hasta progresión clínica. En el ensayo STAMPEDE, en el que se incluyeron un 39% de pacientes no metastásicos, se demostró una diferencia de medianas de 10 meses en la SG y de 17 meses en la covariable principal de supervivencia libre de progresión. Los eventos adversos más frecuentes fueron: neutropenia, neutropenia febril, leucopenia y alteraciones generales tales como astenia, letargia o fiebre. Según los datos del estudio CHAARTED y STAMPEDE y el coste incremental de 3.196,98 € de añadir docetaxel a la terapia de referencia, por cada año de vida ganado el coste adicional estimado es compatible con un coste/eficacia incremental (CEI) entre 2.267,36 € y 3.851,78 €. A la vista de los importantes resultados de eficacia y el perfil manejable de seguridad, el posicionamiento propuesto es adelantar el uso de docetaxel añadido a la ADT a la primera línea del cáncer de próstata metastásico hormonosensible, en aquellos pacientes que cumplan los criterios básicos del estudio CHAARTED.