Evidence mapPaperPMID 35534752Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2022

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib and Palbociclib in the Second-Line Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Post-Menopausal Indian Women.

Nidhi Gupta, Dharna Gupta, Jyoti Dixit, Nikita Mehra, Ashish Singh, Manjunath Nookala Krishnamurthy, Gaurav Jyani, Kavitha Rajsekhar, Jayachandran Perumal Kalaiyarasi, Partha Sarathi Roy and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Nidhi GuptaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.
Dharna GuptaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.ORCID 0000-0003-1954-6698
Jyoti DixitDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7942-1796
Nikita MehraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Ashish SinghDepartment of Medical Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Manjunath Nookala KrishnamurthyDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Gaurav JyaniDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3787-2446
Kavitha RajsekharDepartment of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, India.
Jayachandran Perumal KalaiyarasiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Partha Sarathi RoyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dr. B. Booroah Cancer Institute, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Prabhat Singh MalikDepartment of Medical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.
Anisha MathewDepartment of Medical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.
Pankaj MalhotraDepartment of Internal Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Sudeep GuptaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Lalit KumarDepartment of Medical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.
Amal KatakiDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, Dr. B. Booroah Cancer Institute, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Shankar PrinjaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India. shankarprinja@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7719-6986
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INBhubaneswar Borooah Cancer Institute · INCancer Institute (WIA) · INHomi Bhabha National Institute · INChristian Medical College, Vellore · INGovernment Medical College and Hospital · INMinistry of Health and Family Welfare · IN

Funding

Department of Health Research, India F.No.T.11011/02/2017-HR/3100291
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this study, we evaluate the cost and outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and conventional chemotherapy as the second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in India.

methodsUsing a Markov model, the clinical effectiveness of managing HR+, HER2- MBC in postmenopausal women with either a CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) and fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and chemotherapy (single-agent paclitaxel or capecitabine) was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were estimated from two different points of view: scenario I, as per the prevailing market prices of the drugs; and scenario II, as per the reimbursement rates set up by the publicly financed national health insurance scheme. Incremental cost per QALY gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and was assessed for cost effectiveness using a threshold of 1-time the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in India from a societal perspective.

resultsIn scenario I, an MBC patient was found to incur a lifetime cost of Indian Rupees (₹) 2.54 million ($34,644), ₹2.53 million ($34,496), ₹512,598 ($6,984), ₹326,026 ($4,442) and ₹237,115 ($3,230) for the ribociclib and palbociclib combination arms, fulvestrant monotherapy, single-agent paclitaxel and the single-agent capecitabine treatment arms, respectively. The lifetime cost for CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant monotherapy, paclitaxel, and capecitabine arms was estimated to be ₹1.94 million ($26,459), ₹1.92 million ($26,220), ₹315,387 ($4,296), ₹187,392 ($2,553) and ₹153,263 ($2,088), respectively, in scenario II. The mean QALYs lived per MBC patient with CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant, paclitaxel and capecitabine were estimated to be 1.4, 1.0, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. None of the treatment arms are cost effective at current prices and reimbursement rates at a threshold of 1-time the per capita GDP of India. However, a 78% reduction in the current market price or a 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate of fulvestrant in the government-funded insurance program will make it a cost-effective treatment option for HR+, HER2- MBC patients in India.

conclusionCDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MBC patients. A 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate for fulvestrant monotherapy will make it a cost-effective treatment option in the Indian context.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAminopyridinesAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCapecitabineCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFulvestrantHumansPaclitaxelPiperazinesPostmenopausePurinesPyridinesAminopyridinesCapecitabineFulvestrantPaclitaxelpalbociclibPiperazinesPurinesPyridinesribociclib

Identifiers

PMID35534752
OpenAlexW4229450774

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.