Ribociclib-Induced Cutaneous Adverse Events in Metastatic HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer: Incidence, Multidisciplinary Management, and Prognostic Implication.

BACKGROUND: Ribociclib is approved for hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treatment, in combination with endocrine therapy. Hematological, hepatic, and cardiac adverse events (AEs) emerged from pivotal trials, but little is known about cutaneous adverse events (CAEs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report data from a retrospective cohort study of all patients with HR+/HER2- ABC treated with ribociclib at Humanitas Cancer Center between June 2017 and December 2022. We recorded clinical-pathological data, the incidence, and treatment of ribociclib-related CAEs. These were evaluated according to the NCI-CTCAE v5.0 classification. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test was used to analyze differences between groups. RESULTS: Thirteen of 91 patients (14.3%) experienced treatment-related CAEs (mean time to the occurrence: 3.9 months). The most frequent CAEs were eczematous dermatitis (53.8%) and maculo-papular reaction (15.4%). Itch was reported by all 13 patients. The grade was G3 in 8 cases, G2 in 4, and G1 in 1. An integrated approach based on ribociclib dose modulation and dermatological interventions (oral antihistamine, moisturized cream, topical, and/or systemic steroids) could prevent ribociclib discontinuation in most patients. At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS was 13 months (range, 1-66) with a better PFS curves for patients experiencing CAEs (P = .04). CONCLUSION: We mapped frequency and types of ribociclib-induced CAEs. An interdisciplinary management of CAEs incorporated into routine care may reduce the rate of drug discontinuation thus potentially contributing to better long-term outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

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 ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus placebo plus endocrine therapy in HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer with endocrine therapy plus or minus palbociclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ribociclib, a new orally available selective CDK4/6 inhibitor. While gains in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from ribociclib are important for clinical and treatment outcomes, trade-offs in adverse events (AEs) and additional costs necessitate cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assist consideration by third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To (a) develop a Markov model and (b) determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone as treatment for premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. METHODS: A lifetime 3-state Markov model ("stable," "progressed," and "dead" health states) was developed using a U.S. payer perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated based on OS and PFS outcomes from the randomized controlled phase 3 trial MONALEESA-7. These Kaplan-Meier curves were extended to lifetime by estimating best-fit distributions using loglogistic distribution for ribociclib curves and Weibull distribution for placebo curves. Costs were obtained from national data sources using 2019 U.S. dollars (USD) and discounted by 3%. Utilities were obtained via published breast cancer literature and were included for each health state and for time spent with each AE. Results were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as USD per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Treatments were assumed to be cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Base-case, 1-way sensitivity tornado diagrams and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated changes in the ICER and were driven by the cost of ribociclib and the utility of remaining in the stable health state. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was cost-effective at an ICER of $124,513 per QALY when compared with endocrine therapy alone at a WTP threshold of $150,000. The ribociclib plus endocrine therapy arm had an effectiveness of 5.28 QALYs and a total cost of $385,112, while placebo plus endocrine therapy provided only 2.46 QALYs at a lower total cost of $67.246. The model was sensitive to the cost of ribociclib and the utility of time spent in the stable health state. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that endocrine therapy alone was cost-effective until a WTP of $125,000 and was cost-effective 72% of the time at the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy is more cost-effective than endocrine therapy alone. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic benefits of ribociclib for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as they make value-based formulary decisions. Further CEAs should be considered as direct treatment comparison trials between CDK4/6 inhibitors are completed in the future. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib as initial treatment for premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown promising results for treating advanced breast cancer (ABC) and are routinely used in Singapore. In view of their high costs, it is important to assess their relative value compared to existing standards of care in the local setting. AIMS: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to goserelin and a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen as initial therapy for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free on first-line treatment, progression-free on second-line treatment, progressed disease, and death) was developed from a healthcare system perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Key clinical inputs were derived from the MONALEESA-7 trial, and survival curves were extrapolated beyond the trial period. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct medical costs were obtained from local public healthcare institutions. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties. RESULTS: The base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD197, 667 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the survival parametric distribution, ribociclib price, time horizon, and utility weights used. Even when these were varied, ICERs remained high and not cost-effective in the local context. CONCLUSION: At its current price, adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in Singapore for HR+, HER2- ABC. Results from this study are useful to inform future funding decisions for CDK4/6 inhibitors alongside other factors including clinical effectiveness, safety, and budget impact considerations.

An integrated assessment of the ADME properties of the CDK4/6 Inhibitor ribociclib utilizing preclinical in vitro, in vivo, and human ADME data.

Ribociclib (LEE011, Kisqali ®) is a highly selective small molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6), which has been approved for the treatment of advanced or metastatic breast cancer. A human ADME study was conducted in healthy male volunteers following a single oral dose of 600 mg [14 C]-ribociclib. Mass balance, blood and plasma radioactivity, and plasma ribociclib concentrations were measured. Metabolite profiling and identification was conducted in plasma, urine, and feces. An assessment integrating the human ADME results with relevant in vitro and in vivo non-clinical data was conducted to provide an estimate of the relative contributions of various clearance pathways of the compound. Ribociclib is moderately to highly absorbed across species (approx. 59% in human), and is extensively metabolized in vivo, predominantly by oxidative pathways mediated by CYP3A4 (ultimately forming N-demethylated metabolite M4) and, to a lesser extent, by FMO3 (N-hydroxylated metabolite M13). It is extensively distributed in rats, based on QWBA data, and is eliminated rapidly from most tissues with the exception of melanin-containing structures. Ribociclib passed the placental barrier in rats and rabbits and into milk of lactating rats. In human, 69.1% and 22.6% of the radiolabeled dose were excreted in feces and urine, respectively, with 17.3% and 6.75% of the 14 C dose attributable to ribociclib, respectively. The remainder was attributed to numerous metabolites. Taking into account all available data, ribociclib is estimated to be eliminated by hepatic metabolism (approx. 84% of total), renal excretion (7%), intestinal excretion (8%), and biliary elimination (1%).

Dissipation of fluazinam in citrus groves and a risk assessment for its dietary intake.

BACKGROUND: Citrus is one of the most important fruit crops worldwide. Fluazinam is a fungicide that is used to control fungal diseases, and its dissipation and residue in citrus fruits should be studied. RESULTS: A Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe (QuEChERS) procedure combined with gas chromatography with an electron capture detector (GC-ECD) has been developed. The fortified recoveries ranged from 82.1% to 105.9%, with relative standard deviations (RSDs) of less than 5.7%. Fluazinam dissipated relatively quickly following first-order kinetics, with a half-life of 8.5-9.5 days. The experiments on the terminal residue of fluazinam in citrus were conducted at six locations in China, and the risk quotient (RQ) method was applied to citrus fruits for dietary exposure risk assessment based on the terminal residue test. The RQs of fluazinam at three preharvest intervals (PHIs) (21, 28, and 35 days) were all less than 100%, which is an acceptable level for human consumption. The present study provides a reference for the establishment of maximum residue limit (MRL) for fluazinam in citrus. CONCLUSIONS: The dissipation and residues of fluazinam in citrus were monitored. The half-life of less than 10 days showed that fluazinam could degrade relatively easily in citrus. The risk assessment also indicated the intake safety of fluazinam in citrus. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry.

Longitudinal changes in lung function following initiation of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination.

BACKGROUND: The combination of lumacaftor and ivacaftor (LUM/IVA) is a recently approved CFTR modulator treatment for homozygous F508del CF patients. Our study aimed at evaluating the change in the rate of lung function decline after one-year treatment with LUM/IVA. METHODS: The study evaluated patients homozygous for F508del, 12 to 23 years old. All had been treated for one year with LUM/IVA. The collected data included the percent predicted values of FEV1 (ppFEV1) and FVC (ppFVC), and the FEV1/FVC ratio (FEV1/FVC), that corresponded to 12, 24, and 36 months prior to, and 12 months after the initiation of LUM/IVA; also, the 3 highest values of the ppFEV1 (and the corresponding ppFVC, and FEV1/FVC) for the periods 0-12 months, 12-24 months, and 24-36 months prior to as well as the 12-month period after the initiation of LUM/IVA. The baseline lung function was estimated before the commencement of the drug. Data were analyzed longitudinally with generalized estimating equations models and continuous linear splines. A single knot was used that corresponded to the time point of LUM/IVA initiation. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were analyzed. The multivariate longitudinal analysis of spirometric indices with linear splines demonstrated a significant change in the slopes of ppFEV1 and ppFVC decline, reflecting a significant improvement after the initiation of LUM/IVA treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, lung function improved over a relatively short time period of only one year, after the commencement of LUM/IVA.

Concurrent radiotherapy with palbociclib or ribociclib for metastatic breast cancer patients: Preliminary assessment of toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early toxicity of concurrent use of radiotherapy in association with CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib or ribociclib) in patients with hormone-receptors positive metastatic breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Records of patients with histologically proven metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer treated in our institution were reviewed. Patients who received radiotherapy and concurrent palbociclib or ribociclib were selected. Toxicity was assessed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (NCI-CTCAE V4.0). RESULTS: Sixteen consecutive metastatic breast cancer patients with 24 radiotherapy treatments were studied. Thirteen patients (81.3%) received palbociclib, 3 (18.7%) patients received ribociclib concurrently with RT (18 and 5 radiotherapy courses respectively). The majority of patients (68.7%) received palliative radiotherapy to the bones (median dose 30 Gy, range 8-36 Gy). Five patients (31.2%) were treated in oligo-metastatic or oligo-progressive sites of disease with higher doses (median dose = 50 Gy, range 39.6-60 Gy). The most common toxicity observed was hematological toxicity. Neutropenia was common (grade 2 = 12.5%; grade 3 = 25%, grade 4 = 6.3%); 60% of patients experiencing grade ≥ 3 neutropenia had already experienced neutropenia during previous cycles of palbociclib. One patient (6.3%) completed the RT course earlier (48 Gy of 50 Gy prescribed) and another patient (6.3%) suspended RT for 2 days. CONCLUSION: concomitant treatment of CDK4/6 and radiotherapy seems well tolerated; high grade hematological toxicity is common, but did not change treatment course in the majority of patients. Previous toxicity should be carefully evaluated as it usually reoccurs.

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.

Palbociclib or Ribociclib in First-Line Treatment in Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Receptor 2-Negative Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Perspective Based on Pharmacologic Costs.

PURPOSE: To assess the pharmacologic costs of CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib and ribociclib) in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC). Pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered. DISCUSSION: Two phase 3 RCTs including 1334 patients were considered. European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale reached grade 3 for the PALOMA-2 and MONALEESA-2 trials. Pharmacologic costs of palbociclib and ribociclib at full dose were similar, at €3864 and €4002 per month of progression-free survival (PFS) gained, respectively. The reduction of dose of ribociclib (36.1% in the pivotal RCT vs. 36.0% of palbociclib in pivotal RCT) resulted in €2718 and €1348 per month of PFS gained at 400 and 200 mg daily, respectively. CONCLUSION: When pharmacologic costs of drugs are combined with the measure of efficacy represented by PFS, both palbociclib and ribociclib are cost-effective first-line treatments in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic BC, with a lower cost in favor of ribociclib in patients with dose reduction.

Ribociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: Establishing a value-based cost in China.

BACKGROUND: The addition of ribociclib (RIB) to letrozole (LET) significantly increases progression free survival for patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). We identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese perspective. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed to model the treatment sequences among patients with ABC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and lifetime costs were estimated. Costs were estimated for Chinese health care systems. Three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China 2016 ($24,360) and three times the per capita GDP of Beijing city 2016 ($53,384) were used as the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, RIB + LET provided an incremental survival benefit of 0.631 LYs and 0.451 QALYs. When RIB costs less than $721 or $1170 per 4 weeks, there was a nearly 90% likelihood that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RIB + LET would be less than $24,360 per QALY or $53,384 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: A value-based price for the cost of RIB is $732 or $1170 per 4 weeks for China and Beijing City, respectively. Our study is helpful to inform the multilateral drug price negotiations in China that may be upcoming for RIB.

Ribociclib with an Aromatase Inhibitor for Previously Untreated, HR-Positive, HER2-Negative, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as part of the institute's single technology appraisal process, invited the manufacturer of ribociclib (Kisqali®, Novartis) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for the treatment of previously untreated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group for this submission. The Evidence Review Group reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, corrected and validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This article describes the company submission, the Evidence Review Group assessment and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence subsequent decisions. The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from the MONALEESA-2 trial, a randomised controlled trial comparing ribociclib plus letrozole with placebo plus letrozole. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group (95% confidence interval, 19.3-not reached) vs. 14.7 months (95% confidence interval 13.0-16.5) in the placebo group. To assess the cost effectiveness of ribociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, the company developed an individual patient-level model using a discrete-event simulation approach in Microsoft® Excel. In the model, simulated patients move through a series of three health states until death, i.e. first-line progression-free survival, second-line progression-free survival and progressive disease. The length of progression-free survival during the first line was informed by the MONALEESA-2 trial. The benefit in progression-free survival in the first line was transferred to a benefit in overall survival assuming full progression-free survival to overall survival surrogacy (because of the immaturity of overall survival data from the MONALEESA-2 trial). Patient-level data from the BOLERO-2 trial, evaluating the addition of everolimus to exemestane in the second-line treatment of postmenopausal HR-positive advanced breast cancer, were used to inform the length of progression-free survival during the second line. Costs included in the model were treatment costs (e.g. technology acquisition costs of first, second, third and/or later line treatments), drug administration costs, monitoring costs and health state costs (including terminal care). Additionally, the costs of adverse events associated with the first-line treatment were incorporated. The Evidence Review Group recalculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using data from a different data cut-off date from the MONALEESA-2 trial and by changing some assumptions (e.g. progression-free survival to overall survival surrogacy approach and post-progression third and/or later line treatment-related costs). After two appraisal committee meetings and a revised base case submitted by the company (including a second enhanced patient access scheme discount), the committee concluded that taking into account the uncertainties in the calculation of the cost effectiveness, there were plausible cost-effectiveness estimates broadly in the range that could be considered as a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. Therefore, ribociclib was recommended as a treatment option for the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer, contingent on the company providing ribociclib with the discount agreed in the second enhanced patient access scheme.

Cost-effectiveness of roflumilast as an add-on to triple inhaled therapy vs triple inhaled therapy in patients with severe and very severe COPD associated with chronic bronchitis in the UK.

Purpose: Patients with severe COPD are at high risk of experiencing disease exacerbations, which require additional treatment and are associated with elevated mortality and increased risk of future exacerbations. Some patients continue to experience exacerbations despite receiving triple inhaled therapy (ICS plus LAMA plus LABA). Roflumilast is recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease as add-on treatment to triple inhaled therapy for these patients. This cost-effectiveness analysis compared costs and quality-adjusted life-years for roflumilast plus triple inhaled therapy vs triple inhaled therapy alone, using data from the REACT and RE2SPOND trials. Patients and methods: Patients included in the analysis had severe to very severe COPD, FEV1 <50% predicted, symptoms of chronic bronchitis and ≥2 exacerbations per year. Our model was adapted from a previously published and validated model, and the analyses conducted from a UK National Health Service perspective. A scenario analysis considered a subset of patients who had experienced at least one COPD-related hospitalization within the previous year. Results: Roflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was associated with non-significant reductions in rates of both moderate and severe exacerbations compared with triple inhaled therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for roflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was £24,976. In patients who had experienced previous hospitalization, roflumilast was associated with a non-significant reduction in the rate of moderate exacerbations, and a statistically significant reduction in the rate of severe exacerbations. The ICER for roflumilast in this population was £7,087. Conclusions: Roflumilast is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with severe or very severe COPD, chronic bronchitis, and a history of exacerbations. The availability of roflumilast as add-on treatment addresses an important unmet need in this patient population.

Budget impact of including ribociclib in combination with letrozole on US payer formulary: first-line treatment of post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The combination of a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitor with the aromatase inhibitor letrozole is a safe and effective alternative to letrozole monotherapy for first-line hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. This study evaluates the budget impact of using the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus letrozole as a first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer, from a United States (US) payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based budget impact model was used to calculate the incremental cost of introducing ribociclib plus letrozole over three years for the target population. The analysis compared two scenarios: treatment options excluding or including ribociclib plus letrozole. Market shares were derived from market research and the assumption was the introduction of ribociclib plus letrozole would only displace existing CDK-based therapies. Treatment duration was based on the median time to treatment discontinuation or median progression-free survival for first-line treatment, and on clinical trial data for second- and third-line treatment. Acquisition costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs and considered co-payment. Costs for drug administration and monitoring, subsequent therapy, and relevant adverse events were included. RESULTS: Of 1 million insured members, 263 were eligible for CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment. Cumulative total savings with ribociclib plus letrozole were $3.01M over three years, corresponding to a cumulative incremental cost saving of $318.11 per member treated per month. CONCLUSIONS: In the US, ribociclib plus letrozole represents a cost-saving first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

Forecasting the Long-Term Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor in Cystic Fibrosis Patients with Homozygous phe508del Mutation.

OBJECTIVES: To forecast lifetime outcomes and cost of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with homozygous phe508del mutation from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed from a US payer perspective. The model included five health states: 1) mild lung disease (percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] >70%), 2) moderate lung disease (40% ≤ FEV1 ≤ 70%), 3) severe lung disease (FEV1 < 40%), 4) lung transplantation, and 5) death. All inputs were derived from published literature. We estimated lumacaftor/ivacaftor's improvement in outcomes compared with a non-CF referent population as well as CF-specific mortality estimates. RESULTS: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with additional 2.91 life-years (95% credible interval 2.55-3.56) and additional 2.42 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% credible interval 2.10-2.98). Lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with improvements in survival and QALYs equivalent to 27.6% and 20.7%, respectively, for the survival and QALY gaps between CF usual care and their non-CF peers. The incremental lifetime cost was $2,632,249. CONCLUSIONS: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor increased life-years and QALYs in CF patients with the homozygous phe508del mutation and moved morbidity and mortality closer to that of their non-CF peers but it came with higher cost.

Assessment of safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with combination lumacaftor and ivacaftor therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation (PROGRESS): a phase 3, extension study.

BACKGROUND: The 24-week safety and efficacy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy was shown in two randomised controlled trials (RCTs)-TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT-in patients with cystic fibrosis who were aged 12 years or older and homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. We aimed to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of extended lumacaftor/ivacaftor therapy in this group of patients in PROGRESS, the long-term extension of TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT. METHODS: PROGRESS was a phase 3, parallel-group, multicentre, 96-week study of patients who completed TRAFFIC or TRANSPORT in 191 sites in 15 countries. Patients were eligible if they were at least 12 years old with cystic fibrosis and homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. Exclusion criteria included any comorbidity or laboratory abnormality that, in the opinion of the investigator, might confound the results of the study or pose an additional risk in administering the study drug to the participant, history of drug intolerance, and history of poor compliance with the study drug. Patients who previously received active treatment in TRANSPORT or TRAFFIC remained on the same dose in PROGRESS. Patients who had received placebo in TRANSPORT or TRAFFIC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive lumacaftor (400 mg every 12 h)/ivacaftor (250 mg every 12 h) or lumacaftor (600 mg once daily)/ivacaftor (250 mg every 12 h). The primary outcome was to assess the long-term safety of combined therapy. The estimated annual rate of decline in percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) in treated patients was compared with that of a matched registry cohort. Efficacy analyses were based on modified intention-to-treat, such that data were included for all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01931839. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2013, and April 7, 2016, 1030 patients from the TRANSPORT and TRAFFIC studies enrolled in PROGRESS, and 1029 received at least one dose of study drug. 340 patients continued treatment with lumacaftor 400 mg every 12 h/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h; 176 patients who had received placebo in the TRANSPORT or TRAFFIC studies initiated treatment with lumacaftor 400 mg every 12 h/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h, the commercially available dose, for which data are presented. The most common adverse events were infective pulmonary exacerbations, cough, increased sputum, and haemoptysis. Modest blood pressure increases seen in TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT were also observed in PROGRESS. For patients continuing treatment, the mean change from baseline in ppFEV1 was 0·5 (95% CI -0·4 to 1·5) at extension week 72 and 0·5 (-0·7 to 1·6) at extension week 96; change in BMI was 0·69 (0·56 to 0·81) at extension week 72 and 0·96 (0·81 to 1·11) at extension week 96. The annualised pulmonary exacerbation rate in patients continuing treatment through extension week 96 (0·65, 0·56 to 0·75) remained lower than the placebo rate in TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT. The annualised rate of ppFEV1 decline was reduced in lumacaftor/ivacaftor-treated patients compared with matched controls (-1·33, -1·80 to -0·85 vs -2·29, -2·56 to -2·03). The efficacy and safety profile of the lumacaftor 600 mg once daily/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h groups was generally similar to that of the lumacaftor 400 mg every 12 h/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h groups. INTERPRETATION: The long-term safety profile of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy was consistent with previous RCTs. Benefits continued to be observed with longer-term treatment, and lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with a 42% slower rate of ppFEV1 decline than in matched registry controls. FUNDING: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Determinants, outcomes and costs of ceftriaxone v. amoxicillin-clavulanate in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia at Witbank Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a major cause of death and morbidity worldwide. Treatment is centred on antibiotics with ceftriaxone and amoxicillin-clavulanate being some of the most commonly prescribed agents. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment outcomes and costs in patients receiving either of these two antibiotics at Witbank Hospital (WH). METHODS: A total of 200 randomly selected adult patient files (100 receiving ceftriaxone and 100 amoxicillin-clavulanate) recording a diagnosis of CAP were studied to determine the length of hospital stay, comorbid conditions and treatment outcomes. A descriptive and comparable analysis was performed. RESULTS: Male gender, higher CURB-65 scores and death were associated with the use of ceftriaxone. Severity of disease and previous antibiotic exposure influenced the duration of hospital admission. CONCLUSION: Gender and severity of disease (based on the CURB-65 score) were the determinants of antibiotic choice at WH. Male gender increased the likelihood of being treated with ceftriaxone, as did a CURB-65 score of > 2. There were no differences in the outcomes of CAP patients treated with ceftriaxone compared with those treated with amoxicillin-clavulanate. Irrespective of antibiotic used, gender and severity of disease influenced treatment outcomes. Male gender was associated with a higher mortality and longer hospital stay. The average duration of stay for both antibiotics was not significantly different. Thus, only level 1 and 2 costs need to be considered when comparing the two regimens. On this basis, ceftriaxone was cheaper than amoxicillin-clavulanate.