Cost-effectiveness analysis of abemaciclib with endocrine therapy (ET) versus ET alone for HR+, HER2−, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer in Italy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2023.2561Keywords:
Abemaciclib, Cost-effectiveness, Early breast cancer, Endocrine therapy, HER2−, HRAbstract
Background: Abemaciclib was recently approved by the European Medicines Agency in combination with adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for adult patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2−), node-positive early breast cancer (EBC) at high risk of recurrence.
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone in patients with HR+, HER2−, node-positive EBC at high risk of disease recurrence, from the Italian healthcare system perspective.
Methods: A cohort state transition model was developed with five states: invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), nonmetastatic recurrence, remission, metastatic recurrence, and death. The analysis had a time horizon of 30 years. Individual patient-level data from the monarchE trial (NCT03155997) were used to generate IDFS estimates. Resource use included drug acquisition/administration, best supportive care, terminal care, adverse events, hospitalization, post-progression therapy, and associated resource use in the metastatic disease health state. Health state utilities were derived from monarchE patient-level data and other sources, applying Italian tariffs where feasible.
Results: The estimated total discounted costs (€39,249 vs. €16,806; difference: €22,443) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (11.49 vs. 10.50; difference: 0.99) were higher for abemaciclib plus ET compared with ET alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €22,651 per QALY gained. The likelihood of abemaciclib plus ET being cost-effective vs. ET alone was 99% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained.
Conclusion: Abemaciclib plus ET is a cost-effective treatment option vs. ET alone for those with HR+, HER2− node-positive EBC at high risk of recurrence in Italy.
Downloads
References
Cancer.Net. Breast cancer: statistics. https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/breast-cancer/statistics. Accessed May 2022.
American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures 2019–2020. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc. 2019. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2019-2020.pdf. Accessed October 2022.
Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Li CI, et al. US incidence of breast cancer subtypes defined by joint hormone receptor and HER2 status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(5):dju055. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju055 PMID:24777111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju055
Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: clinicalguidelines@esmo.org. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(8):1194-1220. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz173 PMID:31161190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz173
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;386(10001):1341-1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61074-1 PMID:26211827 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61074-1
Cheng L, Swartz MD, Zhao H, et al. Hazard of recurrence among women after primary breast cancer treatment – a 10-year follow-up using data from SEER-Medicare. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(5):800-809. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1089 PMID:22426147 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1089
Mamounas EP, Tang G, Paik S, et al. 21-Gene recurrence score for prognosis and prediction of taxane benefit after adjuvant chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy: results from NSABP B-28/NRG oncology. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168(1):69-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4550-8 PMID:29128898 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4550-8
AIOM. AIRTUM, SIAPEC-IAP. I numeri del cancro in Italia 2020. https://www.aiom.it/i-numeri-del-cancro-in-italia/. Accessed September 2022)
AIOM. I numeri del cancro 2021. https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/news/p3_2_1_1_1.jsp?lingua=italiano&menu=notizie&p=dalministero&id=5681#:~:text=In%20Italia%20nel%202021%20i,all'Istituto%20superiore%20di%20sanit%C3%A0. Accessed September 2022.
AIOM. AIRO, A.N.I.S.C, SIAPEC-IAP, SICO, SIRM. Linee Guida Neoplasie della Mammella. Edizione 2021, aggiornata a 11.11.2021b. https://www.iss.it/documents/20126/8403839/LG_260_mammella_agg2021.pdf/3ad70baa-7280-be94-160a-a710f865c5ac?t=1678805124483. Accessed September 2022.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Abemaciclib (Verzenios®) summary of product characteristics. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/verzenios-epar-product-information_en.pdf. Accessed May 2022.
Johnston SRD, Harbeck N, Hegg R, et al; monarchE Committee Members and Investigators. Abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for the adjuvant treatment of HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk, early breast cancer (monarchE). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(34):3987-3998. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02514 PMID:32954927 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02514
Toi M, Boyle F, Im Y-H, et al. Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy: efficacy results in monarchE cohort 1. Oncologist. 2023;28(1):e77-e81. https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac234 PMID: 36342342 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac234
ISTAT. 2021. Noiitalia2022. https://noi-italia.istat.it/pagina.php?id=3&categoria=3&action=show&L=0. Accessed January 2023.
Tagliabue G, Fabiano S, Contiero P, et al; AIRTUM Working Group. Molecular subtypes, metastatic pattern and patient age in breast cancer: an analysis of Italian network of cancer registries (AIRTUM) data. J Clin Med. 2021;10(24):5873. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245873 PMID:34945169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245873
AIFA (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco). Linee guida per la compilazione del dossier a supporto della domanda di rimborsabilità e prezzo di un medicinale ai sensi del D.M. 2 agosto 2019. https://www.aifa.gov.it/documents/20142/1283800/Linee_guida_dossier_domanda_rimborsabilita.pdf. Accessed January 2023.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al; CHEERS 2022 ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Value Health. 2022;25(1):3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1351 PMID:35031096 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1351
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2022;25(1):10-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008 PMID:35031088 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Breast cancer (Version 2.2022). https://www.nccn.org. Accessed May 2022.
Latimer N. NICE DSU technical support document 14: survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials – extrapolation with patient-level data. Sheffield: Report by the Decision Support Unit. 2011 (updated 2013);(0). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK395885/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK395885.pdf. Accessed November 2022.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Trastuzumab emtansine for adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer [Technology Appraisal Guidance TA632] 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta632. Accessed January 2023.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Neratinib for extended adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-positive early stage breast cancer after adjuvant trastuzumab [Technology Appraisal Guidance TA612] 2019a. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta612. Accessed January 2023.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Pertuzumab for adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early stage breast cancer [Technology Appraisal Guidance TA569] 2019b. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta569. Accessed January 2023.
Sledge GW Jr, Toi M, Neven P, et al. MONARCH 2: abemaciclib in combination with fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(25):2875-2884. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.73.7585 PMID:28580882 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.73.7585
Goetz MP, Toi M, Campone M, et al. MONARCH 3: abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(32):3638-3646. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.75.6155 PMID:28968163 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.75.6155
Finch AP, Meregaglia M, Ciani O, Roudijk B, Jommi C. An EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy using videoconferencing interviews and feasibility of a new mode of administration. Soc Sci Med. 2022;292:114519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114519 PMID:34736804 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114519
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 PMID:22867780 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008
Scalone L, Cortesi PA, Ciampichini R, et al. Italian population-based values of EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2013;16(5):814-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.008 PMID:23947975 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.008
Ara R, Wailoo A. NICE DSU technical support document 12: the use of health state utility values in decision models. 2011a. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425824/. Accessed January 2023.
Ara R, Brazier JE. Using health state utility values from the general population to approximate baselines in decision analytic models when condition-specific data are not available. Value Health. 2011b;14(4):539-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.029 PMID:21669378 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.029
Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jönsson B, Rehnberg C. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(6):1073-1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9202-8 PMID:17468943 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9202-8
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Abemaciclib with endocrine therapy for adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence [Technology Appraisal Guidance TA810]. 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta810. Accessed January 2023.
Brouwer W, van Baal P, van Exel J, Versteegh M. When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(2):175-180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1000-4 PMID:30187251 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1000-4
Cherla A, Renwick M, Jha A, Mossialos E. Cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs: comparative analysis of the United States and England. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;29-30:100625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100625 PMID:33437948 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100625
Ryen L, Svensson M. The willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: a review of the empirical literature. Health Econ. 2015;24(10):1289-1301. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3085 PMID:25070495 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3085
Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness – the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796-797. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1405158 PMID:25162885 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1405158
Fattore G. Proposta di linee guida per la valutazione economica degli interventi sanitari in Italia. PharmacoEcon Ital Res Artic. 2009;11(2):83-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03320660 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03320660
Martone N, Lucioni C, Mazzi S, et al. Valutazione di costo-efficacia dei nuovi farmaci oncologici immessi sul mercato italiano. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2014;1(2):31-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2014.315
Villa F, Tutone M, Altamura G, et al. Determinants of price negotiations for new drugs. The experience of the Italian Medicines Agency. Health Policy. 2019;123(6):595-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.03.009 PMID:31097207 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.03.009
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 The authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment agree to publish their articles under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license, which allows third parties to re-use the work without permission as long as the work is properly referenced and the use is non-commercial.
Accepted 2023-08-10
Published 2023-09-28
