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 and budget impact of dolutegravir/lamivudine for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir(DTG)/lamivudine(3TC) is the first 2-drug regimen recommended as an initial treatment for people living with HIV (PLHIV). OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and potential budget impact of DTG/3TC in the US healthcare setting. METHODS: A previously published hybrid decision-tree and Markov cohort state transition model was adapted to estimate the incremental costs and health outcome benefits over a patients' lifetime. DTG/3TC was compared with current standard of care in treatment naive and treatment experienced virologically suppressed PLHIV. Health states included in the model were based upon virologic response and CD4 cell count, with death as an absorbing state. Clinical data was informed by the Phase III GEMINI 1 and 2 clinical trials, a published network meta-analysis (NMA) in treatment-naive patients and the Phase III TANGO clinical trial in treatment experienced patients. Costs and utilities were informed by published data and discounted annually at a rate of 3%. A separate 5-year budget impact analysis was conducted assuming 5%-15% uptake in eligible treatment naive and 10%-30% uptake in eligible treatment experienced patients. RESULTS: In the treatment naive analyses based on GEMINI 1 and 2, DTG/3TC dominated, i.e., was less costly and more effective, than all comparators. DTG/3TC resulted in 0.083 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a cost saving of $199,166 compared with the DTG + tenofovir disoproxil(TDF)/emtricitabine(FTC) comparator arm. The incremental QALY and cost savings for DTG/3TC compared with DTG/abacavir(ABC)/3TC, cobicistat-boosted darunavir(DRV/c)/tenofovir alafenamide(TAF)/FTC, and bictegravir (BIC)/TAF/FTC, based on NMA results were 0.465, 0.142, and 0.698, and $42,948, $122,846, and $44,962, respectively. In the analyses of treatment-experienced virologically suppressed patients based on TANGO, DTG/3TC offered slightly lower QALYs (-0.037) with an estimated savings of $78,730 when compared with continuation of TAF-based regimen (TBR). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that these conclusions were relatively insensitive to alternative parameter estimates. The budget impact analysis estimated that by 5th year a total of 70,240 treatment naive patients and 1,340,480 treatment experienced patients could be eligible to be prescribed DTG/3TC. The estimated budget savings over 5 years ranged from $1.12b to $3.35b (corresponding to 27,512 to 82,536 on DTG/3TC by year 5) in the lowest and highest uptake scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, DTG/3TC with its comparable efficacy and lower drug acquisition costs, has the potential to offer significant cost savings to US healthcare payers for the initial treatment of treatment naive patients and as a treatment switching option for virologically suppressed patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded in full by ViiV healthcare, Brentford, UK. Medical writing to support this study was also funded in full by ViiV Healthcare, Brentford, UK. Butler, Hayward, and Jacob are employees of HEOR Ltd, the company performing this study funded by ViiV Healthcare. Anderson is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline and owns shares in the company. Punekar, Evitt, and Oglesby are employees of ViiV Healthcare and own stocks in GlaxoSmithKline.

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.

Health Care Cost in Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Brexpiprazole Versus Other Oral Atypical Antipsychotic Therapy.

PURPOSE: Brexpiprazole is an oral atypical antipsychotic (OAA) for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). This study compared all-cause and psychiatric inpatient hospitalization and medical costs in adult patients with SCZ newly treated with brexpiprazole versus other US Food and Drug Administration-approved OAAs in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from: (1) the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, and the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database; and (2) the de-identified Optum Clinformatics Datamart. Adult patients were identified if they had SCZ and initiated either brexpiprazole or another OAA during the study identification period (July 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, for MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental and for Optum; July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, for MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid) and had ≥12 months of continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the first treatment date. Linear regression analyses were performed to test associations between treatment groups (brexpiprazole vs another OAA) and costs (total and medical); negative binomial regression models were used to estimate number of hospitalizations per year, adjusting for baseline characteristics and medication adherence to index treatment during the 12-month follow-up. FINDINGS: The final study sample consisted of 6254 patients with SCZ: 176 initiated brexpiprazole; 391, ziprasidone; 453, paliperidone; 523, lurasidone; 786, aripiprazole; 1234, quetiapine; 1264, olanzapine; and 1427, risperidone. Controlling for baseline characteristics and medication adherence, the adjusted number of hospitalizations (both all-cause and psychiatric), all-cause total costs, and all-cause medical costs did not differ across groups. Brexpiprazole users had the lowest mean psychiatric costs among all OAA users ($12,013; 95% bootstrap CI, 7488-16,538). Compared with brexpiprazole users, paliperidone (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.52 [1.05-2.19]; P = 0.027) and quetiapine (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.47 [1.04-2.07]; P = 0.029) users had more psychiatric hospitalizations per year. Paliperidone had higher psychiatric costs than brexpiprazole (total, $32,066 [95% bootstrap CI, 28,779-35,353] vs $23,851 [18,907-28,795]; medical, $19,343 [16,294-22,392] vs $12,013 [7488-16,538]). Psychiatric medical costs were also $6744 higher in olanzapine users (95% bootstrap CI, 1694-11,795; P = 0.009) than in brexpiprazole users. IMPLICATIONS: Patients with SCZ treated with brexpiprazole had fewer psychiatric hospitalizations and lower psychiatric costs than those treated with paliperidone. Differences in the number of all-cause hospitalizations and medical costs among treatments were not statistically significant. Although treatment decisions are driven by a number of factors (eg, clinical circumstances and drug costs), choice of OAA may affect health care costs.

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.

[Clinical and economic efficiency of treatment with cariprazine in schizophrenia]. / Kliniko-ékonomicheskaia éffektivnost' primeneniia Kariprazina pri shizofrenii.

AIM: To conduct a comprehensive pharmacoeconomic evaluation of feasibility of treatment with cariprazine (reagila) in patients with schizophrenia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study using the pharmacoeconomic cost analysis, budget impact analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Data on cariprazine were compared to those on sertindole. RESULTS: If cariprazine is used instead of sertindole, the cost saved will amount to 30.8% per patient per year. If sertindole is fully replaced with cariprazine, the costs related to treatment of patients with a second generation antipsychotics funded by the state will be reduced by 97.8 million rubles over 3 years (30.9%). Gradual replacement of sertindole with cariprazine will make it possible to reduce budget expenditures by 20.1% or 63.8 million rubles over 3 years. This replacement will make it possible to provide therapy to additional 44.6% of patients, or 561 people. In this case, the number of patients receiving therapy will increase from 1257 to 1818. CONCLUSION: The results of the pharmacoeconomic analysis show that the registration of cariprazine (reagila) in the Russian Federation as therapeutic drug is economically feasible.