Economic Evaluations of Everolimus Versus Other Hormonal Therapies in the Treatment of HR<sup>+</sup>/HER2<sup>-</sup> Advanced Breast Cancer from a US Payer Perspective

Jipan Xie, Yanni Hao, Zheng Yi Zhou, Cynthia Z. Qi, Gourab De, Stefan Glück

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction The objective of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of EVE+EXE versus endocrine monotherapies in the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR<sup>+</sup>, HER2<sup>-</sup> ABC after failure of treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors from a US third-party payer perspective. Materials and Methods A Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness associated with EVE+EXE, exemestane (EXE), fulvestrant (FUL), and tamoxifen (TAM) over a 10-year time horizon. The model included 3 health states: responsive/stable disease, progression, or death. Monthly transition probabilities were estimated based on the BOLERO-2 (Breast cancer trials of OraL EveROlimus-2) data and network meta-analyses. Costs included drug acquisition and administration costs, medical costs associated health states, and costs for managing adverse events (AEs). Utilities for each health state and disutilities for AEs were derived from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated by comparing EVE+EXE with each endocrine monotherapy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results In the base case, EVE+EXE was associated with 1.99 QALYs and total direct costs of $258,648 over 10 years. The incremental cost per QALY of EVE+EXE was $139,740 compared with EXE, $157,749 compared with FUL, and $115,624 compared with TAM. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $130,000/QALY or above, EVE+EXE appeared to be the most cost-effective treatment among all drugs. Conclusions Everolimus with EXE demonstrated QALY improvements compared with 3 other endocrine monotherapies. Benchmarked by the economic value of other novel cancer therapies, EVE+EXE might be considered a cost-effective option compared with endocrine therapies for HR<sup>+</sup>/HER2<sup>-</sup> ABC.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e263-e276
JournalClinical Breast Cancer
Volume15
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

exemestane
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Breast Neoplasms
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics
Tamoxifen
Health Care Costs
Everolimus
Health Insurance Reimbursement
Aromatase Inhibitors

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Endocrine therapy
  • Markov model
  • Quality adjusted life year
  • Targeted therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Economic Evaluations of Everolimus Versus Other Hormonal Therapies in the Treatment of HR<sup>+</sup>/HER2<sup>-</sup> Advanced Breast Cancer from a US Payer Perspective. / Xie, Jipan; Hao, Yanni; Zhou, Zheng Yi; Qi, Cynthia Z.; De, Gourab; Glück, Stefan.

In: Clinical Breast Cancer, Vol. 15, No. 5, 01.10.2015, p. e263-e276.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Xie, Jipan ; Hao, Yanni ; Zhou, Zheng Yi ; Qi, Cynthia Z. ; De, Gourab ; Glück, Stefan. / Economic Evaluations of Everolimus Versus Other Hormonal Therapies in the Treatment of HR<sup>+</sup>/HER2<sup>-</sup> Advanced Breast Cancer from a US Payer Perspective. In: Clinical Breast Cancer. 2015 ; Vol. 15, No. 5. pp. e263-e276.
@article{eef3de4758434d1aa7cc237e28fc4487,
title = "Economic Evaluations of Everolimus Versus Other Hormonal Therapies in the Treatment of HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer from a US Payer Perspective",
abstract = "Introduction The objective of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of EVE+EXE versus endocrine monotherapies in the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC after failure of treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors from a US third-party payer perspective. Materials and Methods A Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness associated with EVE+EXE, exemestane (EXE), fulvestrant (FUL), and tamoxifen (TAM) over a 10-year time horizon. The model included 3 health states: responsive/stable disease, progression, or death. Monthly transition probabilities were estimated based on the BOLERO-2 (Breast cancer trials of OraL EveROlimus-2) data and network meta-analyses. Costs included drug acquisition and administration costs, medical costs associated health states, and costs for managing adverse events (AEs). Utilities for each health state and disutilities for AEs were derived from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated by comparing EVE+EXE with each endocrine monotherapy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results In the base case, EVE+EXE was associated with 1.99 QALYs and total direct costs of $258,648 over 10 years. The incremental cost per QALY of EVE+EXE was $139,740 compared with EXE, $157,749 compared with FUL, and $115,624 compared with TAM. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $130,000/QALY or above, EVE+EXE appeared to be the most cost-effective treatment among all drugs. Conclusions Everolimus with EXE demonstrated QALY improvements compared with 3 other endocrine monotherapies. Benchmarked by the economic value of other novel cancer therapies, EVE+EXE might be considered a cost-effective option compared with endocrine therapies for HR+/HER2- ABC.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness analysis, Endocrine therapy, Markov model, Quality adjusted life year, Targeted therapy",
author = "Jipan Xie and Yanni Hao and Zhou, {Zheng Yi} and Qi, {Cynthia Z.} and Gourab De and Stefan Gl{\"u}ck",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.clbc.2015.04.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "e263--e276",
journal = "Clinical Breast Cancer",
issn = "1526-8209",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic Evaluations of Everolimus Versus Other Hormonal Therapies in the Treatment of HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer from a US Payer Perspective

AU - Xie, Jipan

AU - Hao, Yanni

AU - Zhou, Zheng Yi

AU - Qi, Cynthia Z.

AU - De, Gourab

AU - Glück, Stefan

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - Introduction The objective of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of EVE+EXE versus endocrine monotherapies in the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC after failure of treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors from a US third-party payer perspective. Materials and Methods A Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness associated with EVE+EXE, exemestane (EXE), fulvestrant (FUL), and tamoxifen (TAM) over a 10-year time horizon. The model included 3 health states: responsive/stable disease, progression, or death. Monthly transition probabilities were estimated based on the BOLERO-2 (Breast cancer trials of OraL EveROlimus-2) data and network meta-analyses. Costs included drug acquisition and administration costs, medical costs associated health states, and costs for managing adverse events (AEs). Utilities for each health state and disutilities for AEs were derived from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated by comparing EVE+EXE with each endocrine monotherapy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results In the base case, EVE+EXE was associated with 1.99 QALYs and total direct costs of $258,648 over 10 years. The incremental cost per QALY of EVE+EXE was $139,740 compared with EXE, $157,749 compared with FUL, and $115,624 compared with TAM. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $130,000/QALY or above, EVE+EXE appeared to be the most cost-effective treatment among all drugs. Conclusions Everolimus with EXE demonstrated QALY improvements compared with 3 other endocrine monotherapies. Benchmarked by the economic value of other novel cancer therapies, EVE+EXE might be considered a cost-effective option compared with endocrine therapies for HR+/HER2- ABC.

AB - Introduction The objective of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of EVE+EXE versus endocrine monotherapies in the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC after failure of treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors from a US third-party payer perspective. Materials and Methods A Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness associated with EVE+EXE, exemestane (EXE), fulvestrant (FUL), and tamoxifen (TAM) over a 10-year time horizon. The model included 3 health states: responsive/stable disease, progression, or death. Monthly transition probabilities were estimated based on the BOLERO-2 (Breast cancer trials of OraL EveROlimus-2) data and network meta-analyses. Costs included drug acquisition and administration costs, medical costs associated health states, and costs for managing adverse events (AEs). Utilities for each health state and disutilities for AEs were derived from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated by comparing EVE+EXE with each endocrine monotherapy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results In the base case, EVE+EXE was associated with 1.99 QALYs and total direct costs of $258,648 over 10 years. The incremental cost per QALY of EVE+EXE was $139,740 compared with EXE, $157,749 compared with FUL, and $115,624 compared with TAM. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $130,000/QALY or above, EVE+EXE appeared to be the most cost-effective treatment among all drugs. Conclusions Everolimus with EXE demonstrated QALY improvements compared with 3 other endocrine monotherapies. Benchmarked by the economic value of other novel cancer therapies, EVE+EXE might be considered a cost-effective option compared with endocrine therapies for HR+/HER2- ABC.

KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - Endocrine therapy

KW - Markov model

KW - Quality adjusted life year

KW - Targeted therapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941316476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941316476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clbc.2015.04.001

DO - 10.1016/j.clbc.2015.04.001

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - e263-e276

JO - Clinical Breast Cancer

JF - Clinical Breast Cancer

SN - 1526-8209

IS - 5

ER -