Economic evaluation of adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer and residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant taxane and trastuzumab-based treatment in Canada.

Background: In the katherine trial, adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine [T-DM1, Kadcyla (Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.)], compared with trastuzumab, significantly reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 50% (unstratified hazard ratio: 0.50; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.64; p < 0.0001) in patients with her2-positive early breast cancer (ebc) and residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant systemic treatment. A cost-utility evaluation, with probabilistic analyses, was conducted to examine the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained associated with T-DM1 relative to trastuzumab, given the higher per-cycle cost of T-DM1. Methods: A Markov model comprising a number of health states was used to examine clinical and economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon from the Canadian public payer perspective. Patients entered the model in the invasive disease-free survival (idfs) state, where they received either T-DM1 or trastuzumab. Transition probabilities between the health states were derived from the katherine trial, Canadian life tables, and published literature from other relevant clinical trials (emilia, cleopatra, and M77001). Resource use, costs, and utilities were derived from katherine, other clinical trials, published literature, provincial fee schedules, and clinical expert opinion. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for key assumptions and model parameters. Results: Compared with trastuzumab, adjuvant T-DM1 was associated with a cost savings of $8,300 per patient and a 2.16 incremental qaly gain; thus T-DM1 dominated trastuzumab. Scenario analyses yielded similar results, with T-DM1 dominating trastuzumab or producing highly favourable incremental cost-utility ratios of less than $10,000 per qaly. Conclusions: Adjuvant T-DM1 monotherapy is a cost-effective strategy compared with trastuzumab alone in the treatment of patients with her2-positive ebc and residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant systemic treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Denosumab is a novel biologic agent approved in Canada for treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis (PMO) in women at high risk for fracture or who have failed or are intolerant to other osteoporosis therapies. This study estimated cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs usual care from the perspective of the Ontario public payer. METHODS: A previously published PMO Markov cohort model was adapted for Canada to estimate cost-effectiveness of denosumab. The primary analysis included women with demographic characteristics similar to those from the pivotal phase III denosumab PMO trial (FREEDOM; age 72 years, femoral neck BMD T-score -2.16 SD, vertebral fracture prevalence 23.6%). Three additional scenario sub-groups were examined including women: (1) at high fracture risk, defined in FREEDOM as having at least two of three risk factors (age 70+; T-score ≤ -3.0 SD at lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck; prevalent vertebral fracture); (2) age 75+; and (3) intolerant or contraindicated to oral bisphosphonates (BPs). Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon comparing denosumab to usual care ('no therapy', alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene [sub-group 3 only]). The analysis considered treatment-specific persistence and post-discontinuation residual efficacy, as well as treatment-specific adverse events. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The multi-therapy comparisons resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab vs alendronate of $60,266 (2010 CDN$) (primary analysis) and $27,287 per quality-adjusted life year gained for scenario sub-group 1. Denosumab dominated all therapies in the remaining scenarios. LIMITATIONS: Key limitations include a lack of long-term, real-world, Canadian data on persistence with denosumab as well as an absence of head-to-head clinical data, leaving one to rely on meta-analyses based on trials comparing treatment to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab may be cost-effective compared to oral PMO treatments for women at high risk of fractures and those who are intolerant and/or contraindicated to oral BPs.