AI Article Synopsis

  • This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of elacestrant (ELA) versus standard-of-care (SOC) for advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US, examining patients who had already received treatment.
  • The analysis used a 10-year health outcomes model and incorporated data from a clinical trial, adjusting for costs and health utilities impacting quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
  • Results showed ELA had significantly high costs per QALY gained, exceeding the typical willingness-to-pay threshold, indicating that it is not cost-effective compared to SOC for this patient population.

Article Abstract

Background: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of elacestrant (ELA) and standard-of-care (SOC) as second-/third-line treatment for pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)- positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer (A/MBC) in the US.

Methods: The 3 health states partitioned survival model (PSM) was conducted from the perspective of the US third-party payers. The time horizon for the model lasted 10 years. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the EMERALD trial (NCT03778931). Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. One-way sensitivity analysis as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to observe model stability.

Result: ELA led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8,672,360/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared with SOC in the overall population and $2,900,560/QALY gained compared with fulvestrant (FUL) in the ESR1(estrogen receptor 1) mutation subgroup. The two ICERs of ELA were significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values of $150,000/QALY.

Conclusions: ELA was not cost-effective for the second-/third-line treatment of patients with ER+/HER2-A/MBC compared with SOC in the US.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10758478PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1272586DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

second-/third-line treatment
12
treatment patients
8
advanced metastatic
8
metastatic breast
8
breast cancer
8
sensitivity analysis
8
gained compared
8
compared soc
8
cost-effectiveness analysis
4
analysis elacestrant
4

Similar Publications

Background: Extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EP-TB) constitutes one-fifth of all tuberculosis (TB) cases. EP-TB mimics common infections which pose diagnostic dilemma, requires extensive diagnostics that culminate into therapeutic delay often resulting in irrational and empirical institution of antitubercular therapy (ATT) in challenging cases. This supplemented by poor treatment compliance resulted in emergence of Drug-resistant (DR) strains of EP-TB which further impedes the path to recovery.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a highly aggressive type of lung cancer. Lurbinectedin is recommended as second-/third-line treatment for advanced, previously treated SCLC.

Materials And Methods: LURBICLIN is a nationwide, non-interventional, retrospective chart review study, based on the cohort of consecutive patients enrolled in the named patient use for lurbinectedin in France.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • * Effective strategies before and during treatment include identifying high-risk patients, optimizing blood glucose levels, and recommending lifestyle changes such as a low-carb diet and regular exercise.
  • * If hyperglycemia occurs, metformin is the first-line treatment, with other medications as alternatives, and a team approach is essential for ongoing monitoring and management to help patients continue their therapy effectively.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Although bosutinib is generally safe and effective, drug-related toxicities (DRTs) such as diarrhea or increased transaminase levels often lead to treatment discontinuation. To clarify whether a lower initial dose of bosutinib (i.e.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the mainstay treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is a lack of studies assessing ICIs as subsequent treatment in older adults with NSCLC and brain metastasis (BM). This retrospective cohort study compared the real-world survival of older patients with NSCLC and BM at diagnosis [synchronous BM (SBM)] previously treated with chemotherapy receiving ICI versus chemotherapy as subsequent treatment.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!