Cost-utility analysis of Palbociclib + letrozole and ribociclib + letrozole versus Letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in Iran using partitioned survival model.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2023-11-09 DOI:10.1186/s13561-023-00463-6
Ali Darvishi, Rajabali Daroudi, Ali Akbar Fazaeli
{"title":"Cost-utility analysis of Palbociclib + letrozole and ribociclib + letrozole versus Letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in Iran using partitioned survival model.","authors":"Ali Darvishi, Rajabali Daroudi, Ali Akbar Fazaeli","doi":"10.1186/s13561-023-00463-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Palbociclib and Ribociclib are cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 oral molecular inhibitors that have the potential to improve overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to analyze the cost-utility of Palbociclib and Ribociclib in comparison with Letrozole monotherapy as the first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) MBC patients in Iran.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) was conducted using a partitioned survival model (PSM) from the perspective of the Iranian healthcare system. The comparative strategies considered were Palbociclib + Letrozole, Ribociclib + Letrozole, and Letrozole monotherapy. The model was structured with a 1-month cycle length and a 15-year time horizon. Clinical safety, efficacy, and survival data in terms of PFS and OS for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were obtained from the latest updates of the PALOMA-1, 2, and MONALEESA-2 studies, respectively. Direct medical costs, including drug costs, visits, hospitalization, CT scans, bone x-rays, monitoring and laboratory testing, as well as medication side effects, were considered. Uncertainty evaluations were performed through deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Excel 2016 and TreeAge 2020 were used for all stages of the evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The base case results indicated that, despite its lower effectiveness, Letrozole monotherapy was the most cost-effective strategy, while Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole compared to Letrozole monotherapy were estimated at $137,302 and $120,478 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively, which exceeded the target threshold of $4565. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the CUA results were not sensitive to changes in the values of uncertain variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also indicated that Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole had no chance of being cost-effective based on changes in various parameters and simulations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Palbociclib and Ribociclib showed significant efficacy in combination with Letrozole, as evidenced by improvements in PFS. However, in the first-line treatment of MBC in Iran, these strategies were not cost-effective compared to Letrozole monotherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10633960/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-023-00463-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Palbociclib and Ribociclib are cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 oral molecular inhibitors that have the potential to improve overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to analyze the cost-utility of Palbociclib and Ribociclib in comparison with Letrozole monotherapy as the first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) MBC patients in Iran.

Methods: A Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) was conducted using a partitioned survival model (PSM) from the perspective of the Iranian healthcare system. The comparative strategies considered were Palbociclib + Letrozole, Ribociclib + Letrozole, and Letrozole monotherapy. The model was structured with a 1-month cycle length and a 15-year time horizon. Clinical safety, efficacy, and survival data in terms of PFS and OS for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were obtained from the latest updates of the PALOMA-1, 2, and MONALEESA-2 studies, respectively. Direct medical costs, including drug costs, visits, hospitalization, CT scans, bone x-rays, monitoring and laboratory testing, as well as medication side effects, were considered. Uncertainty evaluations were performed through deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Excel 2016 and TreeAge 2020 were used for all stages of the evaluation.

Results: The base case results indicated that, despite its lower effectiveness, Letrozole monotherapy was the most cost-effective strategy, while Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole compared to Letrozole monotherapy were estimated at $137,302 and $120,478 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively, which exceeded the target threshold of $4565. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the CUA results were not sensitive to changes in the values of uncertain variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also indicated that Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole had no chance of being cost-effective based on changes in various parameters and simulations.

Conclusions: Palbociclib and Ribociclib showed significant efficacy in combination with Letrozole, as evidenced by improvements in PFS. However, in the first-line treatment of MBC in Iran, these strategies were not cost-effective compared to Letrozole monotherapy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Palbociclib的成本效用分析 + 来曲唑与环核糖 + 来曲唑与来曲唑单药治疗伊朗转移性乳腺癌症的一线治疗,使用分割生存模型。
背景:帕博昔单抗和利博昔单抗是细胞周期依赖性激酶4/6口服分子抑制剂,有可能改善转移性癌症(MBC)患者的总生存率(OS)、无进展生存率(PFS)和生活质量。本研究的目的是分析Palbociciclib和Ribociclib与来曲唑单药治疗伊朗激素受体阳性(HR+)/人表皮生长因子受体2阴性(HER2-)MBC患者的成本效用伊朗医疗系统。所考虑的比较策略是Palbociclib + 来曲唑、瑞博昔单抗 + 来曲唑和来曲唑单药治疗。该模型的结构为1个月的周期长度和15年的时间范围。Palbociclib PFS和OS方面的临床安全性、疗效和生存数据 + 来曲唑和瑞博昔单抗 + 来曲唑分别来自PALOMA-1、2和MONALEESA-2研究的最新更新。考虑了直接医疗费用,包括药品费用、就诊、住院、CT扫描、骨x光检查、监测和实验室检测,以及药物副作用。通过确定性敏感性分析和概率敏感性分析进行不确定性评估。Excel 2016和TreeAge 2020用于评估的所有阶段。结果:基本病例结果表明,尽管疗效较低,但来曲唑单药治疗是最具成本效益的策略,而帕博西立布 + 来曲唑和瑞博昔单抗 + 来曲唑不具有成本效益。Palbociclib的增量成本效益比(ICERs) + 来曲唑和瑞博昔单抗 + 来曲唑与来曲唑单药治疗相比,估计每个质量调整生命年(QALY)分别为137302美元和120478美元,超过了4565美元的目标阈值。确定性敏感性分析表明,CUA结果对不确定变量值的变化不敏感。概率敏感性分析也表明Palbociclib + 来曲唑和瑞博昔单抗 + 根据各种参数和模拟的变化,来曲唑不可能具有成本效益。结论:Palbociciclib和Ribociclib联合来曲唑显示出显著的疗效,PFS的改善证明了这一点。然而,在伊朗MBC的一线治疗中,与来曲唑单药治疗相比,这些策略并不具有成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1