Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

First-line Treatment with Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Women with Hormone-receptor-positive Advanced Breast Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (MONALEESA-7) data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib (RIB) as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) from the United States healthcare payer perspective. In addition, because RIB has not been marketed in China, we identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding RIB to endocrine therapy over a lifetime. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Costs data were obtained from United States and Chinese official websites, and we determined the potential price for RIB in China based on its price in the United States. The main outcomes of this study were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The model projected that mean outcome was better with RIB and endocrine combined (3.83366 QALYs) than with endocrine therapy alone (2.71203 QALYs). In the United States, RIB and endocrine therapy cost an additional $604,960.06, resulting in an ICER of $539,357.95/QALY compared with endocrine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses indicated that, in China, the projected mean outcomes were better for RIB and endocrine therapy (6.37 QALYs) than for endocrine monotherapy (2.71 QALYs). The corresponding incremental costs were $224,731.88943. Thus, the ICER comparing RIB and endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone represented a $61,454.96/QALY gain. CONCLUSION: Additional use of RIB is estimated to not be cost effective as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC in the United States. A value-based price for the cost of RIB is less than $31.74/200 mg for China.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus placebo plus endocrine therapy in HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer with endocrine therapy plus or minus palbociclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ribociclib, a new orally available selective CDK4/6 inhibitor. While gains in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from ribociclib are important for clinical and treatment outcomes, trade-offs in adverse events (AEs) and additional costs necessitate cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assist consideration by third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To (a) develop a Markov model and (b) determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone as treatment for premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. METHODS: A lifetime 3-state Markov model ("stable," "progressed," and "dead" health states) was developed using a U.S. payer perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated based on OS and PFS outcomes from the randomized controlled phase 3 trial MONALEESA-7. These Kaplan-Meier curves were extended to lifetime by estimating best-fit distributions using loglogistic distribution for ribociclib curves and Weibull distribution for placebo curves. Costs were obtained from national data sources using 2019 U.S. dollars (USD) and discounted by 3%. Utilities were obtained via published breast cancer literature and were included for each health state and for time spent with each AE. Results were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as USD per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Treatments were assumed to be cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Base-case, 1-way sensitivity tornado diagrams and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated changes in the ICER and were driven by the cost of ribociclib and the utility of remaining in the stable health state. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was cost-effective at an ICER of $124,513 per QALY when compared with endocrine therapy alone at a WTP threshold of $150,000. The ribociclib plus endocrine therapy arm had an effectiveness of 5.28 QALYs and a total cost of $385,112, while placebo plus endocrine therapy provided only 2.46 QALYs at a lower total cost of $67.246. The model was sensitive to the cost of ribociclib and the utility of time spent in the stable health state. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that endocrine therapy alone was cost-effective until a WTP of $125,000 and was cost-effective 72% of the time at the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy is more cost-effective than endocrine therapy alone. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic benefits of ribociclib for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as they make value-based formulary decisions. Further CEAs should be considered as direct treatment comparison trials between CDK4/6 inhibitors are completed in the future. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

The effectiveness and value of novel treatments for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Seidner, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Tice reports contracts to his institution, University of California, San Francisco, from ICER during the conduct of this study. Wherry has nothing to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib as initial treatment for premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown promising results for treating advanced breast cancer (ABC) and are routinely used in Singapore. In view of their high costs, it is important to assess their relative value compared to existing standards of care in the local setting. AIMS: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to goserelin and a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen as initial therapy for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free on first-line treatment, progression-free on second-line treatment, progressed disease, and death) was developed from a healthcare system perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Key clinical inputs were derived from the MONALEESA-7 trial, and survival curves were extrapolated beyond the trial period. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct medical costs were obtained from local public healthcare institutions. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties. RESULTS: The base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD197, 667 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the survival parametric distribution, ribociclib price, time horizon, and utility weights used. Even when these were varied, ICERs remained high and not cost-effective in the local context. CONCLUSION: At its current price, adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in Singapore for HR+, HER2- ABC. Results from this study are useful to inform future funding decisions for CDK4/6 inhibitors alongside other factors including clinical effectiveness, safety, and budget impact considerations.

Adherence to lumacaftor-ivacaftor therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis in France.

BACKGROUND: Lumacaftor-ivacaftor combination is a promising treatment for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. Optimal adherence is essential to achieve full health outcomes benefits. METHODS: This retrospective study used pharmacy refills data to calculate proportion of days covered (PDC). Adherence was defined as a PDC ≥80%. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine factors associated with medication adherence. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included in the final cohort for analysis. The mean PDC was 96%  ± 14 at 6 months, and 91% ± 17 at 12 months. The proportion of adherent patients was 89% and 83% at 6 and 12 months respectively. Age and ppFEV1 were found to affect medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the medico-economic impact of CFTR modulator therapy, high adherence rates to lumacaftor-ivacaftor found in this study are encouraging.

Orphan Drug Pricing and Costs: A Case Study of Kalydeco and Orkambi.

BACKGROUND: A common narrative is that high prices are necessary for "orphan drugs" because of the fewer patients. In the context of state health insurance systems, the high prices create significant challenges because of limited budgets. RESULTS: This study carefully examines both costs and revenues of two drugs for cystic fibrosis (ivacaftor and lumacaftor), showing that, for this important example, prices are not high because of fewer patients. The study then explores the justifications usually given for high orphan drug prices, including the need to support research and development for new drugs. Each of these standard justifications is shown to be inadequate; instead, it appears that the exercise of market power in the presence of insurance is the dominant driver of high prices. INTERPRETATION: Insurers need to re-examine how they address high-priced drugs.

Quantification of Economic Impact of Drug Wastage in Oral Oncology Medications: Comparison of 3 Methods Using Palbociclib and Ribociclib in Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discarding unused drugs after dose changes or discontinuation can significantly affect pharmacy budgets. This is especially concerning for expensive oncology agents. However, few economic studies account for drug wastage, providing an inaccurate estimate of a drug's actual economic cost, cost-effectiveness, and value. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare the economic impact of drug wastage between ribociclib and palbociclib-clinically similar oral medications for metastatic breast cancer-using 3 approaches (Markov model, pharmacy acquisition cost model, and a retrospective claims analysis) and (b) compare the modeling results with a published estimate of drug wastage for palbociclib from a claims analysis. METHODS: A Markov model and a pharmacy acquisitions cost model were developed to evaluate the economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib over a 1-year time period. Data inputs were pharmacy costs (RED BOOK wholesale acquisition cost) and proportion of patients experiencing dose reductions from either ribociclib randomized clinical trials (MONALEESA-2, -3, or -7) or real-world observational data (Symphony Health retrospective claims analysis). The latter constituted the third approach for quantifying drug wastage. The economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib in postmenopausal women with previously untreated HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer was assessed. Drug wastage was defined as drug doses that could not be used by a patient following a dose reduction. The cost of drug wastage was defined as the cost associated with an unused drug resulting from a dose reduction. The predicted results from the 2 models were compared with a previously published claims analysis that estimated the effect of treatment costs and drug wastage for palbociclib based on the observed dosing patterns from the Symphony Health Solutions database. RESULTS: In the Markov model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib users experienced drug wastage of $112,382 total, or $1,124 per treated patient, per year due to dose changes. In the pharmacy acquisition cost model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib usage was associated with an increased cost of $7,196 per patient per year (based on a mid-cycle dose reduction) comprising dosing-based cost differences and drug wastage cost for palbociclib of $3,727. The previously published claims analysis found that palbociclib users experiencing a dose reduction had drug wastage costs of $5,471 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In both models, dose reductions for ribociclib patients resulted in no wastage, since unused tablets could be administered in subsequent cycles, while dose reductions for palbociclib resulted in drug wastage and increased costs. The results from both models were consistent with previously published results from the claims analysis, demonstrating drug wastage costs for palbociclib. DISCLOSURES: This study received financial support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which has products approved for treatment of breast cancer. Tang was employed by Novartis during this study; Zacker and Dalal are employed by Novartis and own company stock. Biskupiak, Brixner, and Oderda received payment from Novartis for this study. Brixner serves as a consultant for Millcreek Outcomes Group and also declares consulting fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Becton Dickinson, and Xcenda, unrelated to this study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Three CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB), and abemaciclib, when combined with letrozole (LET), have been approved as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic HR+, HER2- breast cancer. However, an economic evaluation of these newer therapies is currently lacking. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PAL or RIB for the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer in the United States. METHODS: A Markov simulation model was constructed using data from published clinical trials evaluating PAL and RIB. Three simulated treatment strategies included PAL + LET, RIB + LET, or LET alone. The main outcome measures were simulated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Simulated median OS was 38.9 months for PAL + LET and 33.0 months for LET alone. Simulated median OS for RIB + LET was 43.3 months. Compared to LET alone, PAL + LET provided an additional 0.48 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $634,000 per QALY gained; RIB + LET provided an additional 0.86 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $440,000 per QALY gained. At current prices, neither PAL nor RIB was cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. To reach such a cost-effectiveness threshold, PAL and RIB prices must decrease by approximately 70%. CONCLUSION: Despite significant gains in progression-free survival over letrozole alone, the addition of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer is not cost-effective in the United States given current drug prices.

Why upfront use of CDK inhibitors for the treatment of advanced breast cancer may be wasteful, and how we can increase their value.

Three Cyclin Dependent Kinase 4/6 (CDK) inhibitors have been approved by the United Stated Food and Drug Administration for front line treatment of advanced hormone receptor positive breast cancer based on improvements in progression free survival against endocrine monotherapy. Two clinical trials have so far reported results on overall survival but both are negative. CDK inhibitors are usually tolerated well but they do add to inconvenience and cost - for example, grade III-IV neutropenia occur at a frequency of over 60% requiring frequent blood work at least during the initial months of treatment. These drugs cost over $ 13,500 for a 4-week cycle in the United States, and are responsible for billions of dollars annually in drug cost alone. Importantly, many women with metastatic breast cancer do well for a long time with endocrine therapy alone and CDK inhibitors do not have a predictive marker. Selective use of these agents in later lines may improve substantially the convenience and cost without compromise in overall outcome. However, with results demonstrating impressive improvements in PFS published in major medical journals coupled with patients' natural desire for "best available" options, the trend among oncologists is to prescribe these drugs as the default front-line treatment. In this commentary I caution readers against over interpretation of results from the CDK inhibitor trials, describe adverse consequences of routine front-line use, and explain why selective use in later line may yield a higher value.

Ribociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: Establishing a value-based cost in China.

BACKGROUND: The addition of ribociclib (RIB) to letrozole (LET) significantly increases progression free survival for patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). We identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese perspective. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed to model the treatment sequences among patients with ABC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and lifetime costs were estimated. Costs were estimated for Chinese health care systems. Three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China 2016 ($24,360) and three times the per capita GDP of Beijing city 2016 ($53,384) were used as the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, RIB + LET provided an incremental survival benefit of 0.631 LYs and 0.451 QALYs. When RIB costs less than $721 or $1170 per 4 weeks, there was a nearly 90% likelihood that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RIB + LET would be less than $24,360 per QALY or $53,384 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: A value-based price for the cost of RIB is $732 or $1170 per 4 weeks for China and Beijing City, respectively. Our study is helpful to inform the multilateral drug price negotiations in China that may be upcoming for RIB.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor in the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a chronic, progressive, genetic disease affecting more than 30,000 people in the United States and 70,000 people globally. The goals of treatment are to slow disease progression, reduce pulmonary exacerbations, relieve chronic symptoms, and improve the patient's quality of life. Lumacaftor/ivacaftor is a new therapy for CF that has demonstrated good clinical outcomes, including improved absolute percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%). However, given the high cost of therapy, there is a need to evaluate the overall value of lumacaftor/ivacaftor in CF management. OBJECTIVES: To (a) conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of lumacaftor/ivacaftor to understand the overall effectiveness of the drug compared with its costs and (b) conduct a budget impact analysis (BIA) to understand the potential financial effect of introducing a new drug in a health plan. METHODS: Two static decision models were developed using Microsoft Excel to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of lumacaftor/ivacaftor over a 1-year time frame from a payer perspective. Model inputs included drug costs (wholesale acquisition costs), drug monitoring schedules (package inserts), drug monitoring costs (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid physician fee schedule and published literature), FEV1% predicted and pulmonary exacerbation values (clinical trials), and cost to treat pulmonary exacerbations (published literature). The outcomes in the CEA included total cost of therapy; average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), defined as cost per FEV1% predicted; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference in the ratio of cost per FEV1% predicted of lumacaftor/ivacaftor and placebo. Outcomes in the BIA included total budget impact; cost per member per month (PMPM), defined as total budget impact per hypothetical plan population; and cost per treated member per month (PTMPM), defined as total budget impact per target CF population. All costs were adjusted to 2016 dollars, and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model robustness given uncertainty in model inputs and study assumptions. RESULTS: The annual cost of therapy per patient for lumacaftor/ivacaftor was $379,780. The ACER for lumacaftor/ivacaftor was $151,912, while the ICER for lumacaftor/ivacaftor compared with placebo was $95,016 per FEV1% predicted. The annual total budget impact due to the inclusion of lumacaftor/ivacaftor on the health plan formulary was $266,046. The PMPM cost was $0.02 and the PTMPM cost was $6.21. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CF, lumacaftor/ivacaftor has demonstrated better clinical effectiveness compared with placebo alongside an increased drug acquisition cost. However, the therapy may be a viable alternative to existing standard therapy over a short time horizon. Health care payers, both private and public, need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the financial effect when considering expansion of new drug coverage in CF management. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Covvey and Kamal have received research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Covvey, Giannetti, and Kamal have received research funding from the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. Kamal serves as a consultant to the Lynx Group (Cranbury, NJ) and Manticore Consulting Group (Scottsdale, AZ). Mukherjee has nothing to disclose. A related poster abstract was presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO.

Cost-effectiveness of roflumilast as an add-on to triple inhaled therapy vs triple inhaled therapy in patients with severe and very severe COPD associated with chronic bronchitis in the UK.

Purpose: Patients with severe COPD are at high risk of experiencing disease exacerbations, which require additional treatment and are associated with elevated mortality and increased risk of future exacerbations. Some patients continue to experience exacerbations despite receiving triple inhaled therapy (ICS plus LAMA plus LABA). Roflumilast is recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease as add-on treatment to triple inhaled therapy for these patients. This cost-effectiveness analysis compared costs and quality-adjusted life-years for roflumilast plus triple inhaled therapy vs triple inhaled therapy alone, using data from the REACT and RE2SPOND trials. Patients and methods: Patients included in the analysis had severe to very severe COPD, FEV1 <50% predicted, symptoms of chronic bronchitis and ≥2 exacerbations per year. Our model was adapted from a previously published and validated model, and the analyses conducted from a UK National Health Service perspective. A scenario analysis considered a subset of patients who had experienced at least one COPD-related hospitalization within the previous year. Results: Roflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was associated with non-significant reductions in rates of both moderate and severe exacerbations compared with triple inhaled therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for roflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was £24,976. In patients who had experienced previous hospitalization, roflumilast was associated with a non-significant reduction in the rate of moderate exacerbations, and a statistically significant reduction in the rate of severe exacerbations. The ICER for roflumilast in this population was £7,087. Conclusions: Roflumilast is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with severe or very severe COPD, chronic bronchitis, and a history of exacerbations. The availability of roflumilast as add-on treatment addresses an important unmet need in this patient population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ribociclib plus Letrozole Versus Palbociclib plus Letrozole and Letrozole Monotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A U.S. Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: U.S. regulatory approvals of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors ribociclib and palbociclib as add-ons to letrozole greatly enhance the prospects for treating postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Clinical trials have established that the combination of a CDK 4/6 inhibitor with letrozole can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole monotherapy and is safe and well tolerated. Cost-effectiveness studies are required to inform payers and clinical decision makers on the money value of combination treatment in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole and versus letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer from a U.S. private third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model including 3 health states (progression free, with either overall response or stable disease; progressed disease; and death) simulated lifetime costs and outcomes over a 40-year lifetime horizon with a 1-month cycle length. Clinical efficacy data (PFS and overall survival [OS]) were derived from a phase III trial of ribociclib plus letrozole (MONALEESA-2; NCT01958021), a phase II trial of palbociclib plus letrozole (PALOMA-1; NCT00721409), and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Health care costs included drug acquisition and monitoring, disease management, subsequent therapies, and serious drug-related adverse events. Effectiveness was measured in life-years, derived from survival projections, and in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), calculated from time spent in each state combined with health-state utility values. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis explored the impact of uncertainty in key model parameters on results, and probabilistic uncertainty was assessed through a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus letrozole was dominant versus palbociclib plus letrozole, with a cost saving of $43,037 and a gain of 0.086 QALYs. Compared with letrozole monotherapy, ribociclib plus letrozole was associated with an incremental cost of $144,915 and an incremental QALY of 0.689, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $210,369 per QALY. Key model drivers included OS HRs for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole and for ribociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, the PFS HR for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, PD health-state costs, utility of response, and cost discount rate. The probabilities that ribociclib plus letrozole was cost-effective versus letrozole at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000 and $200,000 per QALY gained were 1.6%, 6.3%, and 50.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, ribociclib plus letrozole is a cost-effective alternative to palbociclib plus letrozole for the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Ribociclib plus letrozole is also cost-effective versus letrozole monotherapy at willingness-to-pay thresholds greater than $198,000 per QALY (for probabilistic analysis). DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Novartis, which manufactures ribociclib and provided input on the study design and data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Mistry, May, Suri, and Young are employees of PAREXEL. Tang, Mishra, D. Bhattacharyya, and Dalal are employees of Novartis. S. Bhattacharyya was an employee of Novartis during the study period. Tang and Dalal hold stock in Novartis. Brixner, Oderda, and Biskupiak were paid by Millcreek Outcomes Group as consultants for work on this project. Brixner has also consulted for AstraZeneca, UCB, Regeneron, and Abbott.

Forecasting the Long-Term Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor in Cystic Fibrosis Patients with Homozygous phe508del Mutation.

OBJECTIVES: To forecast lifetime outcomes and cost of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with homozygous phe508del mutation from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed from a US payer perspective. The model included five health states: 1) mild lung disease (percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] >70%), 2) moderate lung disease (40% ≤ FEV1 ≤ 70%), 3) severe lung disease (FEV1 < 40%), 4) lung transplantation, and 5) death. All inputs were derived from published literature. We estimated lumacaftor/ivacaftor's improvement in outcomes compared with a non-CF referent population as well as CF-specific mortality estimates. RESULTS: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with additional 2.91 life-years (95% credible interval 2.55-3.56) and additional 2.42 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% credible interval 2.10-2.98). Lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with improvements in survival and QALYs equivalent to 27.6% and 20.7%, respectively, for the survival and QALY gaps between CF usual care and their non-CF peers. The incremental lifetime cost was $2,632,249. CONCLUSIONS: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor increased life-years and QALYs in CF patients with the homozygous phe508del mutation and moved morbidity and mortality closer to that of their non-CF peers but it came with higher cost.