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.

The impact of the introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors on adherence to hormonal therapy over the full course of 5-year treatment for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) often are found to be inversely associated with adherence to medical treatment. The introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors (GAIs) significantly reduced the OOPCs of patients. The objective of the current study was to explore the impact of the introduction of GAIs on adjuvant hormone therapy (AHT) adherence over the full course of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Women aged ≥65 years who were diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from 2007 through mid-2009 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood of AHT initiation and an interrupted time series model was used to predict the association between the introduction of GAIs and AHT adherence. The model was stratified further using Medicare low-income subsidy (LIS) status. RESULTS: A total of 10,905 women were included, approximately 62.8% of whom initiated AHT within the first year of their breast cancer diagnosis. Adjusted adherence among LIS beneficiaries was 11.4% higher than among non-LIS beneficiaries (P < .001). Non-LIS beneficiaries had an overall decreasing trend of adherence (-0.035; P < .001) prior to the introduction of GAIs. They experienced a 3.4% increase in the slope 6 months after the first GAI, anastrozole, entered the market, and an additional 0.8% increase in the slope 6 months after letrozole and exemestane were introduced (P < .001). Adherence change among LIS patients was small and statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: With the introduction of GAIs, the decrease trend of adherence to therapy atteunated over the course of treatment. Although the successful implementation of the Medicare LIS program minimized the OOPCs for financially vulnerable patients, policymakers should be cautious not to introduce disparities for those who may be of low income but ineligible for such a program.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endocrine therapy alone versus partial-breast irradiation alone versus combined treatment for low-risk hormone-positive early-stage breast cancer in women aged 70 years or older.

PURPOSE: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer in women age 70 years or older: an aromatase inhibitor (AI-alone) for 5 years, a 5-fraction course of accelerated partial-breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (APBI-alone), or their combination. METHODS: We constructed a patient-level Markov microsimulation from the societal perspective. Effectiveness data (local recurrence, distant metastases, survival), and toxicity data were obtained from randomized trials when possible. Costs of side effects were included. Costs were adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated using utilities extracted from the literature. RESULTS: The strategy of AI-alone ($12,637) was cheaper than both APBI-alone ($13,799) and combination therapy ($18,012) in the base case. All approaches resulted in similar QALY outcomes (AI-alone 7.775; APBI-alone 7.768; combination 7.807). In the base case, AI-alone was the cost-effective strategy and dominated APBI-alone, while combined therapy was not cost-effective when compared to AI-alone ($171,451/QALY) or APBI-alone ($107,932/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, AI-alone was cost-effective at $100,000/QALY in 50% of trials, APBI-alone in 28% and the combination in 22%. Scenario analysis demonstrated that APBI-alone was more effective than AI-alone when AI compliance was lower than 26% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a Markov microsimulation analysis, both AI-alone and APBI-alone are appropriate options for patients 70 years or older with early breast cancer with small cost differences noted. A prospective trial comparing the approaches is warranted.

CDK4/6 inhibition in low burden and extensive metastatic breast cancer: summary of an ESMO Open-Cancer Horizons pro and con discussion.

In December 2017, ESMO Open-Cancer Horizons convened a round-table discussion on the background and latest data regarding cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy (ET) in the treatment of endocrine-sensitive breast cancer (BC). A review on this discussion was published in summer 2018 (https://esmoopen.bmj.com/content/3/5/e000368).Endocrine-sensitive BC with non-visceral disease and limited spread of the metastases.Endocrine-sensitive BC with non-life-threatening visceral involvement. Several open questions were identified, which led to a second ESMO Open discussion on CDK4/6 inhibitors, taking place in December 2018 and covered in this article. The panel discussed two important clinical scenarios and the pro and cons of a treatment approach with CDK4/6 inhibitors for each scenario:Endocrine-sensitive BC with non-visceral disease and limited spread of the metastases.Endocrine-sensitive BC with non-life-threatening visceral involvement. Regarding scenario 1, the panel agreed that CDK4/6 inhibitors should be recommended in first-line therapy for most patients if cost and practicality allow. However, the use of single-agent ET with an aromatase inhibitor in the first-line treatment of these patients is still a possibility for a small group of patients with very limited disease, such as one or two bone lesions or limited lymph node involvement. Regarding scenario 2, chemotherapy is the first approach for patients with endocrine-sensitive metastatic BC with life-threatening visceral involvement because of the need for a faster response. The therapeutic approaches for patients with non-life-threatening visceral involvement are still under debate. Nevertheless, CDK4/6 inhibitors are currently the treatment of choice for most patients with a close follow-up of tumour response. A treatment algorithm has been suggested at the round table.

HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer: Epidemiology, Prescription Patterns, Healthcare Resource Utilisation and Costs from a Large Italian Real-World Database.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The economic burden of breast cancer is crucial for the sustainability of healthcare systems. The objective of this study was to estimate the burden of HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in Italy, in terms of incidence, prescription patterns, healthcare resource utilisation and costs for the National Health System (NHS). METHODS: A cohort study based on healthcare administrative data (ReS database), covering > 10 million Italians, was performed. Incident cases of HR+/HER2- MBC were identified among adult women in 2013. The cohort was followed-up for 2 years to describe healthcare utilisation and integrated costs (pharmaceuticals, hospitalisations and outpatient services) for NHS. Prescription patterns were described as first-line choice and therapeutic changes. Specific therapeutic changes were used as proxies of disease progression. A survival analysis was performed to estimate the time from diagnosis to first disease progression. RESULTS: Of 5174,723 women, 355 cases of de novo HR+/HER2- MBC were selected (incidence: 6.9 per 100,000). During the 1st follow-up year, they generated an average cost of €7543, whereas €4834 in the 2nd year. The 85.9% received a monotherapy, while the 14.1% received a combination therapy. The most used monotherapy was nonsteroidal-aromatase-inhibitors (45.9%), while the most prescribed combination was tamoxifen + luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues (6.2%). Therapeutic changes occurred in 45.4% of patients, especially from chemotherapy to nonsteroidal-aromatase-inhibitors, after an average of 276.8 days from the first treatment. Disease progression was identified in 22.5% of patients occurring after a mean 13 ± 6 months from diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This detailed picture of HR+/HER2- MBC, based on real-world data, could be helpful in health technology assessment and expenditure forecasts of future therapeutic strategies for this condition in Italy.

Radiation Therapy Without Hormone Therapy for Women Age 70 or Above with Low-Risk Early Breast Cancer: A Microsimulation.

PURPOSE: Hormone therapy without radiation therapy is considered appropriate for women age 70 or above with low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer after partial mastectomy. However, some patients may prefer radiation without hormone therapy, for which there is minimal modern data. We modeled the comparative efficacy of aromatase inhibition alone without radiation versus radiation alone without hormone therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We constructed a patient-level Markov model and compared 5 years of anastrozole to a 15-fraction course of radiation without boost or anastrozole. The relative effectiveness between treatments was based on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-21 trial, which was further adjusted such that the endocrine-alone arm matched the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9343 and PRIME II trials. Common or severe side effects were considered. Eight survival metrics were assessed and validated against clinical trial data. The cost-efficacy of each strategy was considered using the quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The model's predicted outcomes matched those demonstrated by modern trials. Aromatase inhibitors were superior in preventing contralateral cancers, with a small impact on the risk of distant metastatic disease. Radiation was superior in preventing ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with a small impact on regional failure. No clinically significant differences were seen in the other 4 oncologic endpoints. Differences in quality-adjusted life years were small, but radiation therapy was $3809 more expensive over the average lifetime. The ICER suggested anastrozole was cost-effective in 62% of probabilistic simulations. However, the ICER was unstable owing to a denominator that approached zero. CONCLUSIONS: Women age 70 or above with low-risk early breast cancer who are reluctant or unable to pursue adjuvant aromatase inhibition can safely pursue adjuvant radiation alone with limited differences in outcome and a modest increase in costs.

Economic Evaluation of Letrozole for Early Breast Cancer in a Health Resource-Limited Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy is expected to improve the health outcomes with high health resource consumption in early breast cancer. The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of letrozole for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor positive early breast cancer in a health resource-limited setting. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the lifetime outcomes based on the clinical course of early breast cancer. The clinical and utility data were derived from reported results. Costs were estimated from the perspective of Chinese health care. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) were measured. Probabilistic sensitivity and one-way analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared to 5 years of tamoxifen therapy, 5 years of AI treatment with letrozole improved the QALYs (10.44 versus 10.84) and increased the lifetime costs (CNY ¥13,613 versus CNY ¥28,797), resulting in an ICER of CNY ¥38,092 /QALY. The ICER of 5 years of letrozole versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen and then letrozole was CNY ¥68,233 /QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that the age of initiating adjuvant endocrine therapy was the most influential parameter. CONCLUSIONS: In health resource-limited settings, adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole is a cost-effective strategy compared to tamoxifen in women with early breast cancer.

Palbociclib in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer: A cost-utility analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The addition of palbociclib to letrozole improves progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assesses the cost-utility of palbociclib from the Canadian healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A probabilistic discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed and parameterised with data from the PALOMA 1 and 2 trials and other sources. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-month (QALM) gained for palbociclib was calculated. A time horizon of 15 years was used in the base case with costs and effectiveness discounted at 5% annually. Time-to- progression and time-to-death were derived from a Weibull and exponential distribution. Expected costs were based on Ontario fees and other sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared to letrozole, the addition of palbociclib provided an additional 14.7 QALM at an incremental cost of $161,508. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10,999/QALM gained. Assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $4167/QALM, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 0%. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP of $11,000/QALM gained, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 50%. CONCLUSION: The addition of palbociclib to letrozole is unlikely to be cost-effective for the treatment of ABC from a Canadian healthcare perspective with its current price. While ABC patients derive a meaningful clinical benefit from palbociclib, considerations should be given to increase the WTP threshold and reduce the drug pricing, to render this strategy more affordable.

Association Between Out-Of-Pocket Costs, Race/Ethnicity, and Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Adherence Among Medicare Patients With Breast Cancer.

Purpose Previous studies suggest that adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with breast cancer is suboptimal, especially among minorities, and is associated with out-of-pocket medication costs. This study aimed to determine whether there are racial/ethnic differences in 1-year adherence to AET and whether out-of-pocket costs explain the racial/ethnic disparities in adherence. Methods This retrospective cohort study used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify patients ≥ 65 years of age with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who were enrolled in Medicare Part D from 2007 to 2009. The cohort included non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Out-of-pocket costs for AET medications were standardized for a 30-day supply. Adherence to tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors (AIs), and overall AET (tamoxifen or AIs) was assessed using the medication possession ratio (≥ 80%) during the 12-month period. Results Of 8,688 patients, 3,197 (36.8%) were nonadherent to AET. Out-of-pocket costs for AET medication were associated with lower adjusted odds of adherence for all four cost categories compared with the lowest category of ≤ $2.65 ( P < .01). In the univariable analysis, Hispanics had higher odds of adherence to any AET at initiation (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.57), and blacks had higher odds of adherence to AIs at initiation (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.54) compared with non-Hispanic whites. After adjusting for copayments, poverty status, and comorbidities, the association was no longer significant for Hispanics (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17) or blacks (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.19). Blacks had significantly lower adjusted odds of adherence than non-Hispanic whites when they initiated AET therapy with tamoxifen (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.93) after adjusting for socioeconomic, clinic, and prognostic factors. Conclusion Racial/ethnic disparities in AET adherence were largely explained by women's differences in socioeconomic status and out-of-pocket medication costs.

Factors Associated with Adherence to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Among Privately Insured and Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients: A Quantile Regression Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer remains suboptimal, which suggests that women are not getting the full benefit of the treatment to reduce breast cancer recurrence and mortality. The majority of studies on adherence to AET focus on identifying factors among those women at the highest levels of adherence and provide little insight on factors that influence medication use across the distribution of adherence. OBJECTIVE: To understand how factors influence adherence among women across low and high levels of adherence. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from 2007-2011. Privately insured women aged 18-64 years who were recently diagnosed and treated for breast cancer and who initiated AET within 12 months of primary treatment were assessed. Adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC) over a 12-month period. Simultaneous multivariable quantile regression was used to assess the association between treatment and demographic factors, use of mail order pharmacies, medication switching, and out-of-pocket costs and adherence. The effect of each variable was examined at the 40th, 60th, 80th, and 95th quantiles. RESULTS: Among the 6,863 women in the cohort, mail order pharmacies had the greatest influence on adherence at the 40th quantile, associated with a 29.6% (95% CI = 22.2-37.0) higher PDC compared with retail pharmacies. Out-of-pocket cost for a 30-day supply of AET greater than $20 was associated with an 8.6% (95% CI = 2.8-14.4) lower PDC versus $0-$9.99. The main factors that influenced adherence at the 95th quantile were mail order pharmacies, associated with a 4.4% higher PDC (95% CI = 3.8-5.0) versus retail pharmacies, and switching AET medication 2 or more times, associated with a 5.6% lower PDC versus not switching (95% CI = 2.3-9.0). CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with adherence differed across quantiles. Addressing the use of mail order pharmacies and out-of-pocket costs for AET may have the greatest influence on improving adherence among those women with low adherence. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award for Individual Predoctoral Fellowship grant from the National Cancer Institute (grant number F31 CA174338), which was awarded to Farias. Additionally, Farias was funded by a Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of Texas School of Public Health Cancer Education and Career Development Program through the National Cancer Institute (NIH Grant R25 CA57712). The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. DISCLAIMER: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health. Farias was primarily responsible for the study concept and design, along with Hansen and Zeliadt and with assistance from the other authors. Farias, Hansen, and Zeliadt took the lead in data interpretation, assisted by the other authors. The manuscript was written by Farias, along with Thompson and assisted by the other authors, and was revised by Ornelas, Li, and Farias, with assistance from the other authors.

Real-World Analysis of Medical Costs and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Elderly Women with HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Everolimus-Based Therapy or Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to analyze medical costs and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy among elderly women with hormone-receptor-positive, human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: Elderly women (≥65 years) with HR+/HER2- mBC who failed a non-steroidal-aromatase-inhibitor and subsequently began a new line of treatment with everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy for mBC (index therapy) during July 20, 2012 to March 31, 2014 were identified from two large commercial claims databases. All-cause, BC-, and adverse event (AE)-related medical costs (2014 USD), and all-cause and AE-related HRU per patient per month (PPPM) were compared between patients treated with everolimus-based therapy and chemotherapy across their first four lines of therapy for mBC. Adjusted costs and HRU differences were estimated by pooling all lines and using multivariable models adjusted for differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 925 elderly patients (mean age approximately 73 years) with HR+/HER2- mBC met the inclusion criteria; 230 received everolimus-based therapy (240 lines) and 737 received chemotherapy (939 lines). Compared with chemotherapy, everolimus-based therapy was associated with significantly lower total all-cause PPPM medical services costs (adjusted mean difference: $4007), driven by lower inpatient ($1994) and outpatient ($1402) costs; lower BC-related medical services costs ($3129), driven by both BC-related inpatient ($1883) and outpatient costs ($913); and lower AE-related medical services costs ($1873; all P < 0.01). Additionally, compared to patients treated with chemotherapy, patients treated with everolimus-based therapy had fewer all-cause outpatient visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 0.69), BC-related outpatient visits (0.66), other-medical-service visits (0.65), and AE-related HRU (0.59), which was driven by significantly fewer AE-related outpatient visits (0.56; all P < 0.01). Subgroup analyses comparing medical costs of everolimus-based therapy with capecitabine monotherapy showed consistent results overall. CONCLUSION: This retrospective claims database analysis of elderly women with HR+/HER2- mBC in the United States showed that everolimus-based therapy was associated with significantly lower all-cause, BC-related, and AE-related medical services costs and less use of healthcare resources compared with chemotherapy. FUNDING: Novartis.

Endocrine therapy for breast cancer prevention in high-risk women: clinical and economic considerations.

The global burden of breast cancer highlights the need for primary prevention strategies that demonstrate both favorable clinical benefit/risk profile and good value for money. Endocrine therapy with selective estrogen-receptor modulators (SERMs) or aromatase inhibitors (AIs) has been associated with a favorable clinical benefit/risk profile in the prevention of breast cancer in women at high risk of developing the disease. The available endocrine therapy strategies differ in terms of their relative reductions of breast cancer risk, potential side effects, and upfront drug acquisition costs, among others. This review highlights the clinical trials of SERMs and AIs for the primary prevention of breast cancer, and the cost-effectiveness /cost-utility studies that have examined their "value for money" in various health care jurisdictions.

The introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors and treatment adherence among Medicare D enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) substantially reduce breast cancer mortality in clinical trials, but high rates of nonadherence to these long-term oral therapies have reduced their impact outside of trials. We examined the association of generic AI availability with AI adherence among a large national breast cancer cohort. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental prepost design, we examined the effect of generic AI introductions (7/2010 and 4/2011) on adherence among a national cohort of women with incident breast cancer in 2006 and 2007 who were enrolled in the Medicare D pharmaceutical coverage program. Medicare D claims were used to calculate AI adherence, defined as a medication possession ratio of 80% or more of eligible days, over 36 months. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations were applied to longitudinal adherence data to control for possible confounders, including receipt of a Medicare D low-income subsidy, and to account for repeated measures. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand four hundred sixty-two Medicare D enrollees were eligible. Adherence declined throughout the study. However, among women without a subsidy, the median quarterly out-of-pocket cost of anastrozole fell from $183 in the fourth quarter of 2009 to $15 in 2011, and declines in adherence were attenuated with generic AI introductions. Regression-adjusted adherence probabilities were estimated to be 5.4% higher after generic anastrozole was introduced in 2010 and 11% higher after generic letrozole/exemestane was introduced in 2011. Subsidy recipients had higher adherence rates throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of generic medications attenuated the decline in adherence to AIs over three years of treatment among breast cancer survivors not receiving low-income subsidies for Medicare D coverage.

The change from brand-name to generic aromatase inhibitors and hormone therapy adherence for early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to hormonal therapy is common and is associated with increased copayment amount. We investigated the change in adherence after the introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors (AIs) in 2010. METHODS: Using deidentified pharmacy and claims data from OptumInsight, we identified women older than 50 years on brand-name AIs (BAIs) and/or generic AIs (GAIs) for early breast cancer between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012. Clinical, demographic, and financial variables were evaluated. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) 80% or greater. RESULTS: We identified 5511 women, 2815 (51.1%) on BAI, 1411 (25.6%) on GAI, and 1285 (23.3%) who switched from BAI to GAI. The median 30-day copayment was higher for BAI ($33.3) than for GAI ($9.04). In a multivariable Cox-proportional hazard analysis, women who took GAI were less likely to discontinue therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57 to 0.84) compared with BAI. Discontinuation was positively associated with a higher monthly copayment of $15 to $30 (HR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.44) and more than $30 (HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.23 to 1.80) compared with less than $15. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, adherence (medication possession ratio ≥ 80%) was positively associated with GAI use (odds ratio = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.22 to 1.91) compared with BAI and inversely associated with increased monthly copayment. In addition, adherence was associated with a high annual income of more than $100k/year (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.17 to 2.11). CONCLUSIONS: Higher prescription copayment amount was associated with nonadherence and discontinuation of AIs. After controlling for copayment, discontinuation was higher and adherence was lower with Brand AIs. Because nonadherence is associated with worse survival, efforts should be directed towards reducing out-of-pocket costs for these life-saving medications.

Hormonal prevention of breast cancer.

Breast cancer prevention can be provided by using SERMs or aromatase inhibitors depending on the ovarian status, with a global risk reduction of 50 to 60%. Prophylactic annexectomy offered to reduce ovarian risk in BRCA mutation carriers also lowers breast cancer risk by 50%. Main side effects include deep vein thrombosis for SERMs, hot flushes and joint pain (although less frequently than initially suspected) with aromatase inhibitors. Other strategies based on progesterone, insulin or prolactin signaling modulation may be offered in the future. Criteria for candidate selection remain to be established.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in the treatment of post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive breast cancer.

Five years of Tamoxifen (Standard TAM) is a common treatment option for early-stage, hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). Extending Standard TAM by 5 additional years (Extended TAM) can improve survival and BC recurrences. In postmenopausal women, the use of extended aromatase inhibitors (Extended AI) after Standard TAM is an alternative to Extended TAM. This study examines the cost-effectiveness (CE) of extending Standard TAM with Extended TAM vs. Extended AI in postmenopausal HR+ early-stage BC patients. Three treatments were assessed: (1) Standard TAM; (2) Extended TAM; (3) Extended AI through a Markov model using a Canadian health system perspective, lifetime time-horizon, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and a 5 % discount rate for future costs and utilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and the impact of parameter uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) using conventional CE thresholds. The estimated total per person costs in 2012 Canadian dollars [$1.00 CAD = $0.99 US 2012] were the least for Extended TAM ($8,623 CAD) and most for Extended AI ($9,432 CAD). Extended AI was the most effective regimen, while Standard TAM was the least. Extended AI was cost-effective at conventional thresholds vs. Extended TAM (ICER: $3,402 CAD/QALY) which was robust to the SA. This study suggests that Extended AI and Extended TAM result in improved QALYs and lower healthcare costs vs Standard TAM. Extended AI results in the greatest improvement in QALYs and is the most cost-effective treatment alternative despite its higher drug costs.

Cost-effectiveness of full coverage of aromatase inhibitors for Medicare beneficiaries with early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rates of nonadherence to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) among Medicare beneficiaries with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer are high. Out-of-pocket drug costs appear to be an important contributor to this and may be addressed by eliminating copayments and other forms of patient cost sharing. The authors estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of providing Medicare beneficiaries with full prescription coverage for AIs compared with usual prescription coverage under the Medicare Part D program. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was developed to simulate AI use and disease progression in a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal Medicare beneficiaries with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. The analysis was conducted from the societal perspective and considered a lifetime horizon. The main outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was measured as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: For patients receiving usual prescription coverage, average quality-adjusted survival was 11.35 QALYs, and lifetime costs were $83,002. For patients receiving full prescription coverage, average quality-adjusted survival was 11.38 QALYs, and lifetime costs were $82,728. Compared with usual prescription coverage, full prescription coverage would result in greater quality-adjusted survival (0.03 QALYs) and less resource use ($275) per beneficiary. From the perspective of Medicare, full prescription coverage was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $15,128 per QALY gained) but not cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Providing full prescription coverage for AIs to Medicare beneficiaries with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer would both improve health outcomes and save money from the societal perspective.

A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A key priority in developing policies for providing affordable cancer care is measuring the value for money of new therapies using cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). For CEA to be useful it should focus on relevant outcomes and include thorough investigation of uncertainty. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of five years of aromatase inhibitors (AI) versus five years of tamoxifen in the treatment of post-menopausal women with early stage breast cancer, show benefit of AI in terms of disease free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) and indicate higher risk of fracture with AI. Policy-relevant CEA of AI versus tamoxifen should focus on OS and include analysis of uncertainty over key assumptions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published CEAs comparing an AI to tamoxifen. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews without language restrictions. We selected CEAs with outcomes expressed as cost per life year or cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). We assessed quality using the Neumann checklist. Using structured forms two abstractors collected descriptive information, sources of data, baseline assumptions on effectiveness and adverse events, and recorded approaches to assessing parameter uncertainty, methodological uncertainty, and structural uncertainty. RESULTS: We identified 1,622 citations and 18 studies met inclusion criteria. All CE estimates assumed a survival benefit for aromatase inhibitors. Twelve studies performed sensitivity analysis on the risk of adverse events and 7 assumed no additional mortality risk with any adverse event. Sub-group analysis was limited; 6 studies examined older women, 2 examined women with low recurrence risk, and 1 examined women with multiple comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Published CEAs comparing AIs to tamoxifen assumed an OS benefit though none has been shown in RCTs, leading to an overestimate of the cost-effectiveness of AIs. Results of these CEA analyses may be suboptimal for guiding policy.

Economic evaluation of fulvestrant 500 mg versus generic nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors in patients with advanced breast cancer in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 500 mg for the treatment of first progression or recurrence of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients compared with generic nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and letrozole) in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A cost-utility model based on a time-in-state approach was used. Clinical effectiveness estimates used in the model were derived from a network meta-analysis for overall survival and serious adverse events. Overall survival was extrapolated by using a Weibull distribution, and progression-free survival (PFS) estimates were derived from a simultaneous network meta-analysis and extrapolation of PFS curves by using the log-normal distribution. Data on resource use, costs, and utilities were based on various sources, including expert opinion and published data. To explore uncertainty, 1-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted. The study was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, and costs are reported in 2010/2011 British pounds. RESULTS: The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for fulvestrant 500 mg versus letrozole was £34,528, with incremental costs of £14,383 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.417. Extended dominance occurred for anastrozole because the ICER for anastrozole versus letrozole was higher than the ICER for fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole. Based on the probability sensitivity analyses, the probability that fulvestrant 500 mg was the most cost-effective treatment option was 3%, 20%, and 53% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000, £30,000, and £40,000 per QALY, respectively. According to the 1-way sensitivity analyses, the PFS estimates were the key drivers of the model results. CONCLUSIONS: Although fulvestrant 500 mg was found not to be a cost-effective option at a standard UK threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY, it may be relevant to apply a higher threshold due to the poor prognosis of patients with advanced breast cancer and the limited number of hormonal treatment options available for this stage of treatment. Certain subgroups may also benefit from fulvestrant as a treatment option; however, limited data are currently available to identify these subgroups.

Extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in hormone dependent breast cancer: the paradigm of the NCIC-CTG MA.17/BIG 1-97 trial.

Early hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer is a chronic relapsing disease that can remain clinically silent for many years. The NCIC-CTG MA.17/BIG 1-97 trial randomized disease-free early breast cancer patients who had received five years of adjuvant tamoxifen to either letrozole or placebo and was the first to demonstrate a benefit with extended endocrine therapy. MA.17/BIG 1-97 was stopped at the first interim analysis because disease free survival was strongly prolonged in the letrozole arm. Subsequent subset analyses and longer follow up have shown that this therapy improved survival across all groups, particularly among women with node-positive disease and those that were pre-menopausal at time of study enrolment. The MA.17/BIG 1-97 study should be considered a paradigm for extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer.