Modelling the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant lapatinib for early-stage breast cancer

Cost-Effectiveness of Pyrotinib Plus Capecitabine versus Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine for the Treatment of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in China: A Scenario Analysis of Health Insurance Coverage

Background: The overexpression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) gene is present in 20~25% of breast cancer (BC) patients, contributing to an inferior prognosis. Recent clinical trials showed that pyrotinib has promising antitumor activities and acceptable tolerability for those patients (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03080805 and NCT02422199). Therefore, this study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of pyrotinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine for patients with HER2-positive metastatic BC after prior trastuzumab. Methods: A lifetime-partitioned survival model was established to evaluate health and economic outcomes with different treatment strategies. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Data were derived from the published literature, clinical trials, expert opinions, and other local charges. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Scenario analyses were developed to make further evaluations. Results: The pyrotinib regimen had significant advantages over the lapatinib regimen after enrolling in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), with cost savings of USD 15,599.27 and a gain of 0.53 QALYs. Meanwhile, before enrolling in NRDL, the pyrotinib regimen afforded the same QALYs at a higher incremental cost of USD 45,400.64 versus the lapatinib regimen, producing an ICER of USD 85,944.79 per QALY. Scenario analyses yielded similar results. Sensitivity analyses suggested stability in the cost-effectiveness findings. Conclusions: Compared to lapatinib plus capecitabine, the pyrotinib plus capecitabine enrolled in NRDL is a cost-effective alternative second-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive metastatic BC in China.

Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transparent reporting of validation efforts of health economic models give stakeholders better insight into the credibility of model outcomes. In this study we reviewed recently published studies on seasonal influenza and early breast cancer in order to gain insight into the reporting of model validation efforts in the overall health economic literature.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in Pubmed and Embase to retrieve health economic modelling studies published between 2008 and 2014. Reporting on model validation was evaluated by checking for the word validation, and by using AdViSHE (Assessment of the Validation Status of Health Economic decision models), a tool containing a structured list of relevant items for validation. Additionally, we contacted corresponding authors to ask whether more validation efforts were performed other than those reported in the manuscripts.

RESULTS

A total of 53 studies on seasonal influenza and 41 studies on early breast cancer were included in our review. The word validation was used in 16 studies (30 %) on seasonal influenza and 23 studies (56 %) on early breast cancer; however, in a minority of studies, this referred to a model validation technique. Fifty-seven percent of seasonal influenza studies and 71 % of early breast cancer studies reported one or more validation techniques. Cross-validation of study outcomes was found most often. A limited number of studies reported on model validation efforts, although good examples were identified. Author comments indicated that more validation techniques were performed than those reported in the manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although validation is deemed important by many researchers, this is not reflected in the reporting habits of health economic modelling studies. Systematic reporting of validation efforts would be desirable to further enhance decision makers' confidence in health economic models and their outcomes.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.