Economic Evaluation for Palbociclib Plus Fulvestrant vs Ribociclib Plus Fulvestrant and Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in Endocrine-Resistant Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer in Italy.
Giorgio Lorenzo Colombo, Maria Chiara Valentino, Alessandra Fabi, Maria Vittoria Dieci, Mauro Caruggi, Giacomo Matteo Bruno, Gloria Lombardi, Sergio Di Matteo
{"title":"Economic Evaluation for Palbociclib Plus Fulvestrant vs Ribociclib Plus Fulvestrant and Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in Endocrine-Resistant Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer in Italy.","authors":"Giorgio Lorenzo Colombo, Maria Chiara Valentino, Alessandra Fabi, Maria Vittoria Dieci, Mauro Caruggi, Giacomo Matteo Bruno, Gloria Lombardi, Sergio Di Matteo","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S391769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To date, no study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of palbociclib (PAL) plus fulvestrant (FUL) vs ribociclib (RIB) plus FUL and abemaciclib (ABM) plus FUL in Italy. Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the three cyclin-dependent 4/6 kinase inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapies for the management of postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Italy was developed.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>To assess the cost-effectiveness of PAL plus FUL vs RIB plus FUL and ABM plus FUL, a cost-minimization has been carried out with a conservative scenario considering three CDK4/6 inhibitors with equal effectiveness in terms of overall survival (OS) (MAIC, Rugo et al 2021). Adverse events (AEs) associated with all therapies were obtained from clinical trials. Ad-hoc analysis was performed to estimate the cost-effectiveness considering the quality-of-life (QoL) data (Lloyd et al 2006).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cost-minimization inputs were drugs, visits and exams, AE monitoring and best supportive care (BSC) before the progression state, active and BSC in the progression and terminal phase of the last two weeks of life. Given the comparability of PAL, RIB and ABM in terms of efficacy, this analysis demonstrated slight economic savings over a lifetime for PAL. Results showed saving per patient of €305 (lifetime) when PAL is compared with RIB; for PAL vs ABM a saving of €243 (lifetime) in a conservative scenario. Results of a budget impact analysis showed a potential savings of €319,563 for PAL vs RIB and €297,544 for PAL vs ABM. When QoL data were considered, results may favor PAL due to the lower impact of AE with savings and improvement in the QoL related to fewer AE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>From the Italian perspective, a cost-saving profile associated with the use of PAL+FUL for the management of advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer compared to RIB+FUL and ABM+FUL emerged.</p>","PeriodicalId":48769,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":"19 ","pages":"301-312"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/58/33/tcrm-19-301.PMC10066701.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S391769","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background: To date, no study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of palbociclib (PAL) plus fulvestrant (FUL) vs ribociclib (RIB) plus FUL and abemaciclib (ABM) plus FUL in Italy. Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the three cyclin-dependent 4/6 kinase inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapies for the management of postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Italy was developed.
Material and methods: To assess the cost-effectiveness of PAL plus FUL vs RIB plus FUL and ABM plus FUL, a cost-minimization has been carried out with a conservative scenario considering three CDK4/6 inhibitors with equal effectiveness in terms of overall survival (OS) (MAIC, Rugo et al 2021). Adverse events (AEs) associated with all therapies were obtained from clinical trials. Ad-hoc analysis was performed to estimate the cost-effectiveness considering the quality-of-life (QoL) data (Lloyd et al 2006).
Results: Cost-minimization inputs were drugs, visits and exams, AE monitoring and best supportive care (BSC) before the progression state, active and BSC in the progression and terminal phase of the last two weeks of life. Given the comparability of PAL, RIB and ABM in terms of efficacy, this analysis demonstrated slight economic savings over a lifetime for PAL. Results showed saving per patient of €305 (lifetime) when PAL is compared with RIB; for PAL vs ABM a saving of €243 (lifetime) in a conservative scenario. Results of a budget impact analysis showed a potential savings of €319,563 for PAL vs RIB and €297,544 for PAL vs ABM. When QoL data were considered, results may favor PAL due to the lower impact of AE with savings and improvement in the QoL related to fewer AE.
Conclusion: From the Italian perspective, a cost-saving profile associated with the use of PAL+FUL for the management of advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer compared to RIB+FUL and ABM+FUL emerged.
期刊介绍：
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas.
The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature.
As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
