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.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Platelet transfusions (PT) are commonly used as prophylaxis in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and severe thrombocytopenia (TCP) before invasive procedures, in order to reduce risk of bleeding. The aim of this cost analysis was to generate a comprehensive estimate of costs of platelet transfusions in Italy, focusing on patients with severe TCP due to CLD undergoing an elective procedure. Methods: The research was conducted in different phases: 1) assessment of a pre-specified framework for the identification of processes related to PT; 2) estimation of resource consumption through Delphi technique and collection of unit costs through literature; 3) development of a cost analysis to estimate the overall average costs per PT, focusing on a representative patient with CLD and severe TCP. Robustness of results was tested in a sensitivity analysis. Results: Despite the lack of some cost components estimation and uncertainty related to event probability, the analysis showed a total cost of 5297 for each PT in patients with CLD and severe TCP. The total cost was largely driven by direct costs (4863 ) associated with platelet collection, transfusion, and management of refractoriness, which accounted for 92% of total. Conclusion: In an environment of limited resources, it is crucial for the healthcare service to have accurate and inclusive information on transfusion costs, incorporating not only the cost of blood products but also those related to collection and management. The analysis showed that platelet collection and administration costs add substantially to the cost of platelet products themselves. As expected, the highest cost was the transfusion process itself (44% of total), followed by refractoriness (43% of total). Since limited literature exists concerning these cost estimates, this analysis represents a step forward in understanding the economic burden of patients with CLD and severe TCP scheduled to undergo an invasive procedure.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop an health technology assessment (HTA) decision tool to support the decision-making process on health technologies for hospital decision makers in cross-border regions. METHODS: Several methods were used to collect information necessary to develop the cross-border mini-HTA decision tool. The literature was inventoried on HTA in border regions and local settings and the use of HTA by local decision makers. Semi-structured interviews with hospital decision makers in cross-border regions were also performed. Based on group discussion of the resulting information, it was decided to use the Danish mini-HTA guideline as a starting point for development of the decision tool. After finishing the first version of the decision tool it was tested in two pilot studies. RESULTS: Some questions in the Danish mini-HTA guideline were not relevant. Other questions needed rephrasing and questions about cross-border situations were added. The pilots showed several missing topics, including legal questions and reimbursement issues. The final decision tool consists of three sections: a general section, a section for hospitals not cooperating cross-border and a section for hospitals that are cooperating with hospitals across a national or regional border. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our literature search, this may be the first cross-border mini-HTA decision tool. The decision tool will be of help for healthcare professionals and decision makers in border settings who would like to use HTA evidence to support their decision-making process.
