RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.Methods: A decision analysis model compared the costs and effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib versus placebo for patients with or without germline BRCA mutations. Resource use and associated costs were estimated from the 2020 National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list. Clinical effectiveness was measured in progression-free survival per life-years (PFS-LY) based on the results of clinical trials SOLO2/ENHOT-Ov21 and ENGOT-OV16/NOVA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from a single-payer perspective. RESULTS: In the base case, olaparib was the more cost-effective treatment regimen. The ICERs for olaparib and niraparib compared to placebo were NT$1,804,785 and NT$2,340,265 per PFS-LY, respectively. Tornado analysis showed that PFS and the total resource use cost of niraparib regimen for patients without gBRCA were the most sensitive parameters impacting the ICER. The ICERs for both drugs in patients with a gBRCA mutation were lower than in patients without a gBRCA mutation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that olaparib was more cost-effective than niraparib at the willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$2,602,404 per PFS life-year gained. CONCLUSION: Olaparib was estimated to be less cost and more effective compared to niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.
