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.

Vaso-occlusive crises and costs of sickle cell disease in patients with commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare insurance - the perspective of private and public payers.

AIM: To characterize vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) and describe healthcare costs among commercially-insured, Medicaid-insured, and Medicare-insured patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IBM Truven Health MarketScan Commercial (2000-2018), Medicaid Analytic eXtract (2008-2014), and Medicare Research Identifiable Files (2012-2016) databases were used to identify patients with ≥2 SCD diagnoses. Study measures were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period, stratified by annual number of VOCs (i.e. 0, 1, and ≥2). RESULTS: Among 16,092 commercially-insured patients (mean age = 36.7 years), 35.3% had 1+ VOCs. Mean annual total all-cause healthcare costs were $15,747, $27,194, and $64,555 for patients with 0, 1, and 2+ VOCs, respectively. Total all-cause healthcare costs were mainly driven by inpatient (0 VOC = 31.0%, 1 VOC = 53.1%, 2+ VOCs = 65.4%) and SCD-related costs (0 VOC = 56.4%, 1 VOC = 78.4%, 2+ VOCs = 93.9%). Among 18,287 Medicaid-insured patients (mean age = 28.5 years, fee-for-service = 50.2%), 63.9% had 1+ VOCs. Mean annual total all-cause healthcare costs were $16,750, $29,880, and $64,566 for patients with 0, 1, and 2+ VOCs, respectively. Inpatient costs (0 VOC = 37.2%, 1 VOC = 64.3%, 2+ VOCs = 72.9%) and SCD-related costs (0 VOC = 60.9%, 1 VOC = 73.8%, 2+ VOCs = 92.2%) accounted for a significant proportion of total all-cause healthcare costs. Among 15,431 Medicare-insured patients (mean age = 48.2 years), 55.1% had 1+ VOCs. Mean annual total all-cause healthcare costs were $21,877, $29,250, and $58,308 for patients with 0, 1, and ≥2 VOCs, respectively. Total all-cause healthcare costs were mainly driven by inpatient (0 VOC = 47.9%, 1 VOC = 54.9%, 2+ VOCs = 67.5%) and SCD-related costs (0 VOC = 74.9%, 1 VOC = 84.4%, 2+ VOCs = 95.3%). LIMITATIONS: VOCs managed at home were not captured. Analyses were descriptive in an observational setting; thus, no causal relationships can be inferred. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of patients experienced VOCs across payers. Furthermore, inpatient and SCD-related costs accounted for a significant proportion of total all-cause healthcare costs, which increased with VOC frequency.