Drug-induced liver injury as assessed by the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method following mild COVID-19 in a patient under anastrozole therapy-A case report.

BACKGROUND: Anastrozole is a selective aromatase inhibitor used for the treatment of postmenopausal hormone-sensitive breast cancer. The major side effects include osteoporosis, hypercholesterolemia, and musculoskeletal events, such as arthralgia and myalgia. Other adverse events are rare, including symptoms of acne, masculinization, and drug-induced liver injury, with the latter reported in a few cases only. CASE: Here, we report on a patient under anastrozole therapy who developed drug-induced liver injury as assessed by the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method 5 weeks after a mild SARS-CoV-2 infection, which is, to the best of our knowledge, the first report of its kind involving anastrozole. Discontinuation of anastrozole resulted in a marked improvement of the alanine aminotransaminase, and aspartate aminotransaminase as well as normalized lactate dehydrogenase serum levels already seen after 26 days. Surprisingly, however, the cholestatic serum markers gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase and alkaline phosphatase showed a further rise, and took another 4 weeks to drop significantly. CONCLUSION: The presentation of this case is meant to alert physicians to a potential drug-induced liver injury following mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients under anastrozole medication.

Anastrozole for the prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women: cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK and the USA.

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of anastrozole for breast cancer prevention has been demonstrated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anastrozole for the prevention of breast cancer in women with a high risk of breast cancer and to determine whether anastrozole for the primary prevention of breast cancer can improve the quality of life of women and save health-care resources. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to assess the costs and effects of anastrozole prevention versus no prevention among women with a high risk of breast cancer. The key parameters of probability were derived from the IBIS-II trial, and the cost and health outcome data were derived from published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for the two strategies,One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost per QALY of anastrozole prevention was £125,705.38/QALY in the first 5 years compared with no prevention in the UK, above the threshold of WTP (£3,000/QALY),and in the 12-year period, the ICER was £8,313.45/QALY, less than WTP. For the US third-party payer, ICER was $134,232.13/QALY in the first 5 years and $8,843.30/QALY in the 12 years, both less than the WTP threshold ($150,000/QALY). CONCLUSION: In the UK and US, anastrozole may be a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women. Moreover, the longer the cycle of the model, the higher the acceptability. The results of this study may provide a scientific reference for decision-making for clinicians, patients, and national medical and health care government departments.

CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

(1) Background: This study aimed to conduct a NMA and CEA combined study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different CDK4/6 inhibitors (Abem, Palbo, and Ribo) plus NSAI with placebo plus NSAI in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC from the perspective of payers in China. (2) Methods: Studies which evaluated CDK4/6 inhibitors plus NSAI for HR+/HER2- ABC were searched. A Bayesian NMA was carried out and the main outcomes were the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The costs and efficacy of first-line therapies for HR+/HER2- ABC were evaluated using the Markov model. The main outcomes in the CEA were incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs), incremental monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). The robustness of the model was assessed by one-way, three-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Then, we further simulated the impact of different prices of CDK4/6 inhibitors on the results. (3) Results: Seven studies involving 5347 patients were included in the NMA. The three first-line CDK4/6 inhibitors plus NSAI groups provided significant PFS and OS superiority to NSAI alone. Abem + NSAI represented a significant statistical advantage onPFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.90, p = 0.009) and indicated a trend of being the best OS benefit compared to the placebo + NSAI group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72-1.08). The Abem + NSAI, Palbo + NSAI, and Ribo + NSAI groups resulted in additional costs of $12,602, $20,391, and $81,258, with additional effects of 0.38, 0.31, and 0.30 QALYs, respectively, leading to an ICUR of $33,163/QALY, $65,777/QALY, and $270,860/QALY. Additional pairwise comparisons showed that Abem + NSAI was the only cost-effective option in three CDK4/6 inhibitors plus NSAI groups at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $38,029/QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the proportion of receiving subsequent CDK4/6 inhibitors and the cost of Abem significantly influenced the results of Abem + NSAI compared with placebo + NSAI. (4) Conclusion: From the perspective of Chinese payers, Abem + NSAI was a cost-effective treatment option compared with placebo + NSAI at the WTP of $38,029/QALY, since only the ICUR of $33,163/QALY of Abem + NSAI was lower than the WTP of $38,029/QALY in China (2022). The Palbo + NSAI and Ribo + NSAI groups were not cost-effective unless drug prices were adjusted to 50% or 10% of current prices ($320.67 per cycle or $264.60 per cycle). (5) Others: We have prospectively registered the study with the PROSPERO, and the PROSPERO registration number is CRD42023399342.

First-line fulvestrant plus anastrozole for hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: In a recent randomized, open-label trial (S0226), the addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole therapy decreased the risk of progression and death in patients with hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line setting is unknown. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to assess the costs and clinical outcomes of fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole as a first-line therapy in a cohort of patients with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. The transition probabilities were estimated from the fitted survival curves in the S0226 trial. Health care costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole from US payer's perspective. RESULTS: Fulvestrant plus anastrozole led to an improvement of 0.11 QALYs compared with treatment with anastrozole alone. However, incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line therapy produced significantly higher health care costs ($72,496 vs. $38,959 for all eligible patients, and $73,728 vs. $37,239 for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy), resulting in ICERs of $300,564 and $194,450/QALY, respectively. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that when the cost of fulvestrant decreased to $1.5/mg for all eligible patients or $3.5/mg for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy, at the perfect health in progression-free status, the ICER became $141,320 and $145,543 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Substituting fulvestrant as a first-line therapy for hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer is not cost-effective compared with anastrozole based on the willing-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Assessment and management of bone health in women with early breast cancer receiving endocrine treatment in the DATA study.

The phase III DATA study investigates the efficacy of adjuvant anastrozole (6 vs. 3 year) in postmenopausal women with breast cancer previously treated with 2-3 years of tamoxifen. This planned side-study assessed patterns of care regarding detection and treatment of osteopenia/osteoporosis, and trends in bone mineral density (BMD) during and after therapy. We registered all BMD measurements and bisphosphonate-use. Time to osteopenia/osteoporosis was analysed by Kaplan Meier methodology. For the trend in T-scores we used linear mixed models with random patients effects. Of 1860 eligible DATA patients, 910 (48.9%) had a baseline BMD measurement. Among patients with a normal baseline BMD (n = 417), osteopenia was observed in 53.5% and 55.4% in the 6- and 3-year group respectively (p = 0.18), during follow-up. Only two patients (3-year group) developed osteoporosis. Of the patients with osteopenia at baseline (n = 408), 24.4% and 20.4% developed osteoporosis respectively (p = 0.89). Three years after randomisation 18.3% and 18.2% used bisphosphonates in the 6- and 3-year groups respectively and 6 years after randomisation this was 23.7% and 20.9% respectively (p = 0.90) of which the majority used oral bisphosphonates. The yearly mean BMD-change during anastrozole in the lumbar spine showed a T-score decline of 0.075. After bisphosphonate addition the decline became less prominent (0.047 (p < 0.001)) and after anastrozole cessation, while continuing bisphosphonates, the mean BMD yearly increased (0.047 (p < 0.001)). In conclusion, extended anastrozole therapy was not associated with a higher incidence of osteoporosis. Anastrozole-use was associated with a BMD decrease; however, the decline was modest and partially reversible after anastrozole cessation.

Assessment of bone metabolism and biomechanical properties of the femur, following treatment with anastrozole and letrozole in an experimental model of menopause.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of anastrozole and letrozole supplementation following surgically induced menopause on bone metabolism and biomechanical properties. A total of 45 Wistar rats underwent ovariectomy and were then randomly allocated to receive no treatment, anastrozole or letrozole. At 2 and 4 months following the initiation of the present study, the serum levels of osteoprotegerin (OPG) and receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) were determined, and the animals were sacrificed at the end of the 4-month period to assess the biomechanical properties of the femoral bones. The applied force and the deflection of the central section were recorded during the test. Taking advantage of these quantities, the fracture force, the stiffness of the bone and the energy absorbed until fracture were determined. At 2 months following the initiation of the experimental protocol, the mean OPG levels were significantly increased in the control group compared with the anastrozole-treated group (P<0.01). Similarly, RANKL levels were significantly increased in the control rats compared with the anastrozole-treated animals (P<0.001) and animals that received letrozole (P<0.05). Notably, these trends were not observed at the end of the experiment (4 months). A biomechanical study of the femoral bones revealed significantly decreased stiffness among animals that received anastrozole (P<0.05) and letrozole (P<0.01) compared with their control counterparts. The results of the present study indicate that treatment with anastrozole and letrozole significantly increases the levels of OPG and RANKL in bone, an effect that appears to be directly associated with the biomechanical properties of bones.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole in her2-positive, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with lapatinib plus letrozole for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (hr+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (her2+) metastatic breast cancer (mbc) has not been assessed from the Canadian health care system and societal perspectives. METHODS: A partitioned survival analysis model with 3 health states (alive, pre-progression; alive, post-progression; dead) was developed to estimate direct and indirect costs and quality-adjusted life years (qalys) with lapatinib-letrozole, letrozole, anastrozole, or trastuzumab-anastrozole as first-line treatment. Clinical inputs for lapatinib-letrozole and letrozole were taken from the EGF30008 trial (NCT00073528). Clinical inputs for anastrozole and trastuzumab-anastrozole were taken from a network meta-analysis of published studies. Drug costs were obtained from the manufacturer's price list, the Quebec list of medications, and imsBrogan. Other costs were taken from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan's Schedule of Benefits and Fees and published studies. A 10-year time horizon was used. Costs and qalys were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of changes in model parameters. RESULTS: Quality-adjusted life years gained with lapatinib-letrozole were 0.236 compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole, 0.440 compared with letrozole, and 0.568 compared with anastrozole. Assuming a health care system perspective, incremental costs were $5,805, $67,029, and $67,472 respectively. Given a cost per qaly threshold of $100,000, the probability that lapatinib-letrozole is preferred was 21% compared with letrozole, 36% compared with anastrozole, and 68% compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole. Results from the societal perspective were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with hr+/her2+ mbc receiving first-line treatment, lapatinib-letrozole may not be cost-effective compared with letrozole or anastrozole, but may be cost-effective compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole.

Cost-effectiveness analysis review of exemestane in the treatment of primary and advanced breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Exemestane was approved in 2005 for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to assess whether it is cost-effective in comparison to available alternatives. MATERIAL AND METHODS: To evaluate the efficacy of exemestane, a systematic review was conducted by searching electronic databases. The outcomes of interest were "clinical benefit", "overall response" and "disease-free survival rate". To evaluate the cost of treatments, costs of both domestic generic and imported brand medicines were taken into account, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each comparison. RESULTS: Regarding primary breast cancer, based upon available evidence, exemestane could not be considered as a cost-effective medicine either in generic or brand form compared with placebo (ICER: 119,100 and 215,525), with tamoxifen after 2-3 years of therapy (ICER: 35,150 and 82,400) and with sequential treatment by tamoxifen and exemestane (dominated because of lower effectiveness and higher cost). In metastatic breast cancer, exemestane was not considered a cost-effective treatment compared with both anastrozole and megestrol acetate (dominated) and was highly cost-effective compared with tamoxifen (ICERs: 2,208 and 4,326 dollars per one more patient with an overall response for generic and brand medicines) although even in this case it was not cost-effective in terms of the 1-year survival rates (dominated). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding current evidence and related costs in terms of Iranian pharmaceutical market prices, exemestane could not be considered a cost-effective treatment in primary and advanced breast cancer compared with available alternatives. However, more evidence is still needed for more certain decisions.

Economic Evaluation of Anastrozole Versus Tamoxifen for Early Stage Breast Cancer in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: In Singapore, breast cancer is the leading female malignancy and its incidence has increased threefold over the past decades. For treatment of postmenopausal, hormone receptor positive early stage breast cancer, tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors such as anastrozole are prescribed either as first-line therapy or sequentially. Currently, anastrozole is patented with a higher drug cost compared with tamoxifen. Hence, the aim of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of anastrozole versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer. METHODS: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed by using results from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial. Direct medical costs were estimated by billing data obtained via financial electronic databases. Utility scores were elicited from 20 experienced oncology nurses using the visual analogue scale. Cost per quality-adjusted life-years was calculated by using the societal perspective. A discount rate of 3% for both charges (expressed in 2010 Singapore dollars) and benefits was used. RESULTS: At an additional cost of S $17,597, anastrozole treatment resulted in a gain of 0.085 life-year survival and 0.154 quality-adjusted life-year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of anastrozole was S $207,402 per life-year gained and S $114,061 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with tamoxifen. CONCLUSION: This is the first economic evaluation that used 10-year results from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial and utility elicited from the local population. If the World Health Organization's recommendation of 1 to 3 gross domestic product range is an acceptable threshold, anastrozole is deemed cost-effective compared with tamoxifen in the treatment of early stage breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of anastrozole, in comparison with tamoxifen, in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer in Brazil / Custo-efetividade do anastrozol em comparação com tamoxifeno no tratamento adjuvante do câncer de mama precoce no Brasil

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer, a leading type of cancer in many developing countries, is the most frequent non-cutaneous tumor in Brazil. Hormone therapy is the standard of care in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage, hormone-receptor-positive disease, and both tamoxifen and third-generation aromatase inhibitors are options in postmenopausal women. The comparative cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies is of considerable interest in societies facing limited resources. METHODS: In an attempt to compare cost-effectiveness of upfront treatment with tamoxifen or anastrozole, the medical and economic results in a hypothetical cohort of 64-year-old postmenopausal women, was analyzed considering the Brazilian healthcare system in 2005, the primary perspective of the private sector, and a lifetime horizon. Data from the ATAC Trial, Markov modeling, a modified Delphi panel, and microcosting (in Brazilian R$) were used to estimate costs and effectiveness of the two upfront strategies. RESULTS: The model estimated a gain of 0.55 discounted life-years for patients receiving anastrozole, relative to those treated with tamoxifen. With an incremental cost of R$ 15,141.15, the model estimated that the cost-effectiveness of anastrozole, in relation to tamoxifen, was R$ 27,326.80. Monte Carlo simulations showed that approximately 50 percent of the cases fell below the threshold of R$ 29,229.00 per life-year gained, which is recommended by the World Health Organization for Brazil. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that upfront anastrozole is a cost-effective option compared with tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer.

OBJETIVO: O câncer de mama, o mais comum em vários países desenvolvidos, é o tumor não cutâneo mais frequente no Brasil. A terapia hormonal é o tratamento adjuvante padrão para os estágios precoces, em doença com receptor hormonal positivo, e o tamoxifeno e os inibidores da aromatase de terceira geração são opções para mulheres na pós-menopausa. A comparação do custo-efetividade dos diferentes tratamentos é de grande interesse nas sociedades com limitações de recursos. MÉTODOS: Para comparar a custo-efetividade dos tratamentos com tamoxifeno ou anastrozol, foram analisados os resultados médicos e econômicos em uma coorte hipotética de mulheres com 64 anos de idade, considerando o sistema de saúde Brasileiro em 2005, sob a perspectiva do setor privado e o horizonte de tempo de uma vida. Usamos dados do Estudo ATAC, um modelo de Markov, um painel de Delphi modificado, e micro-costing (em reais R$) para estimar os custos e a efetividade das duas estratégias. RESULTADOS: O modelo estimou um ganho de 0.55 anos de vida descontados para pacientes recebendo anastrozol em relação àquelas tratadas com tamoxifeno. Com um custo marginal de R$ 15.141,15, o modelo estimou que o custoefetividade do anastrozol em relação ao tamoxifeno era de R$ 27.326,80. As simulações de Monte Carlo mostraram que aproximadamente 50 por cento dos casos estavam abaixo do limite de R$ 29.229,00 por ano-vida ganho, que é o recomendado pela Organização Mundial da Saúde para o Brasil. CONCLUSÃO: Nós concluímos que o anastrozol é uma opção custo-efetivo comparado ao tamoxifeno no tratamento adjuvante de câncer de mama precoce em mulheres na pós-menopausa com receptor de hormônio positivo.