ArticleHealth economics review2023
Cost-utility analysis of Palbociclib + letrozole and ribociclib + letrozole versus Letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in Iran using partitioned survival model.
Article in Health economics review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPalbociclib and Ribociclib are cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 oral molecular inhibitors that have the potential to improve overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to analyze the cost-utility of Palbociclib and Ribociclib in comparison with Letrozole monotherapy as the first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) MBC patients in Iran.
methodsA Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) was conducted using a partitioned survival model (PSM) from the perspective of the Iranian healthcare system. The comparative strategies considered were Palbociclib + Letrozole, Ribociclib + Letrozole, and Letrozole monotherapy. The model was structured with a 1-month cycle length and a 15-year time horizon. Clinical safety, efficacy, and survival data in terms of PFS and OS for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were obtained from the latest updates of the PALOMA-1, 2, and MONALEESA-2 studies, respectively. Direct medical costs, including drug costs, visits, hospitalization, CT scans, bone x-rays, monitoring and laboratory testing, as well as medication side effects, were considered. Uncertainty evaluations were performed through deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Excel 2016 and TreeAge 2020 were used for all stages of the evaluation.
resultsThe base case results indicated that, despite its lower effectiveness, Letrozole monotherapy was the most cost-effective strategy, while Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole compared to Letrozole monotherapy were estimated at $137,302 and $120,478 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively, which exceeded the target threshold of $4565. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the CUA results were not sensitive to changes in the values of uncertain variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also indicated that Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole had no chance of being cost-effective based on changes in various parameters and simulations.
conclusionsPalbociclib and Ribociclib showed significant efficacy in combination with Letrozole, as evidenced by improvements in PFS. However, in the first-line treatment of MBC in Iran, these strategies were not cost-effective compared to Letrozole monotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.