Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of PFS and OS comparing ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole as first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

Background: Current standard-of-care first-line treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) is cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy. In the MONALEESA-2 trial, first-line ribociclib + letrozole demonstrated statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus placebo + letrozole in postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. In the PALOMA-2 trial, first-line palbociclib + letrozole did not show OS benefit versus placebo + letrozole in a similar patient population. Understanding OS outcomes in the respective trials is critical for treatment decisions; however, there are no head-to-head clinical trial data comparing ribociclib and palbociclib. Objectives: To conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and OS of first-line ribociclib + letrozole versus palbociclib + letrozole in postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. Design: Letrozole-anchored MAIC using individual patient data from MONALEESA-2 and published summary data from PALOMA-2. Methods: Using individual data, patients from MONALEESA-2 who matched inclusion criteria from PALOMA-2 were selected, and weighting was conducted to ensure baseline characteristics were similar to those in published aggregated data from PALOMA-2. The Bucher method was used to generate corresponding hazard ratios (HRs). Results: The final effective sample size compared n = 150 (ribociclib) and n = 112 (placebo) MONALEESA-2 patients with n = 444 (palbociclib) and n = 222 (placebo) PALOMA-2 patients. After matching and weighting, patient characteristics were well balanced. MAIC analysis showed a numerical PFS benefit [HR, 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.58-1.11; p = 0.187] and significant OS benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96; p = 0.031) with ribociclib + letrozole versus palbociclib + letrozole. Conclusion: Results of this cross-trial MAIC analysis showed a numerical PFS benefit and significantly greater OS benefit with first-line ribociclib + letrozole versus palbociclib + letrozole. These results support letrozole + ribociclib as the preferred first-line CDK4/6i for postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. Trial registration: NCT01958021; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01958021 (MONALEESA-2) and NCT01740427; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01740427 (PALOMA-2).

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib versus palbociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: analysis based on final OS results of MONALEESA-2 and PALOMA-2.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Combination of a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor and an aromatase inhibitor is the standard of care first-line (1L) treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Updated clinical data have become available from the MONALEESA-2 and PALOMA-2 trials for ribociclib and palbociclib, respectively. This analysis with updated data assessed the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib versus palbociclib, both in combination with letrozole, in the setting of 1L therapy of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC, from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service perspective. METHODS: A three state (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model with a 1-month cycle was developed. Clinical data were derived from MONALEESA-2 (NCT01958021) and PALOMA-2 (NCT01740427). The treatment effect was modeled using hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival and overall survival derived through a matched-adjusted indirect comparison. Trial data and published literature were used to derive utility values. Cost inputs included drug acquisition, disease monitoring, subsequent therapies, and adverse events. Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3.5%, over a 40-year lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Ribociclib dominated palbociclib, and was both overall cost saving (-£3,273) and more effective (+1.251 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Ribociclib total drug costs were £17,156 lower than palbociclib. At a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of ribociclib being cost-effective was almost 100%. Ribociclib remained cost-effective when varying HRs, utilities, drug cost, and health state costs. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib is both cost-saving and cost-effective compared with palbociclib for the 1L treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC in the UK.

Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler COPD Triple Therapy in Spain: IMPACT Trial.

Purpose: Given between-country differences in healthcare systems, treatment costs, and disease management guidelines, country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses are important. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI among patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations from a Spanish healthcare system perspective. Patients and Methods: Baseline data and treatment effects from the IMPACT trial were populated into the validated GALAXY COPD progression model. Utilities were estimated using Spanish observational data. Direct healthcare costs (2019 €) were informed by Spanish public sources. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. The time horizon and treatment duration were 3 years (base case). One-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: FF/UMEC/VI treatment resulted in fewer exacerbations over 3 years (4.130 vs 3.648) versus FF/VI, with a mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) incremental cost of €444 (€149, €713) per patient and benefit of 0.064 (0.053, 0.076) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €6887 per QALY gained. FF/UMEC/VI was a dominant treatment strategy versus UMEC/VI, resulting in fewer exacerbations (4.130 vs 3.360), with a mean (95% CI) incremental cost of -€450 (-€844, -€149) and benefit of 0.054 (0.043, 0.064) QALYs. FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI across all analyses. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to be a cost-effective treatment option versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in symptomatic COPD patients at risk of exacerbations in Spain, across all scenarios and sensitivity analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Using the FULFIL Trial: A Spanish Perspective.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed. Results: FF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: At the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.