ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This nationwide retrospective study reports data on the real-world use of the selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor palbociclib in a large population of advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients during a 2-year period in Hungary. METHODS: All patients with ABC who received palbociclib between May 1, 2017 and June 30, 2019 were included in the analysis. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, disease-related factors and treatment patterns were examined during the early access program and in the regular reimbursement period. RESULTS: Altogether, 962 patients were included (mean age: 60.6 years). A total of 399 patients (41%) were treated with palbociclib plus aromatase inhibitors (P+AI), and 563 patients (59%) received palbociclib and fulvestrant (P+F). The most commonly prescribed AI was letrozole (n=359; 90%). Of those with metastatic disease (n=733; 76%), 241 patients (33%) had visceral metastases and 449 (61%) had bone-only disease. The majority of patients (79%) received palbociclib as first- or second-line therapy for ABC. The starting dose of palbociclib was 125 mg in 98% of patients; dose reductions were required in 32% of patients receiving P+AI and 31% of those treated with P+F. At the time of data collection, palbociclib therapy was ongoing in 270 patients (68%) in the P+AI group and 245 patients (44%) in the P+F group. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide analysis is the first to provide insights into the real-world use of palbociclib in a large patient population from a Central-Eastern European country. The findings confirm the good tolerability of palbociclib with similar dose reduction rates to those reported from registration trials.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare evidence requirements for health technology assessment of pharmaceuticals by national agencies across Europe responsible for reimbursement decisions focusing specifically on relative effectiveness assessment. METHODS: Evidence requirements from thirty-three European countries were requested and twenty-nine national agencies provided documents to review. Data were extracted from national documents (manufacturer's submission templates and associated guidance) into a purpose-made framework with categories covering information about the health condition, the technology, clinical effectiveness and safety. RESULTS: The level of detail in the required evidence varies considerably across countries. Some countries include specific questions while others request information under general headings. Some countries include all information in a single document, which may or may not include guidance on how to complete the template. Others have specific guidance documents or methods and process manuals that help with the completion of the submission templates. Despite differences in quantity and detail, the content of the evidence requirements is broadly similar. All countries ask for information on the health technology, target disease, and clinical effectiveness and safety. However, one country only requests clinical effectiveness information as part of cost-effectiveness analyses. We found twenty-six evidence requirements for which generic answers may apply across borders and nineteen in which countries requested nationally specific information. CONCLUSIONS: This work suggests that it would be possible to put together a minimum set of evidence requirements for HTA to support reimbursement decisions across Europe which could facilitate collaboration between jurisdictions.