PHARMACOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT GONADOTROPIN-RELEASING HORMONE ANALOGS IN THE TREATMENT OF PREMENOPAUSAL HORMONE RECEPTOR-POSITIVE BREAST CANCER IN CHINA
Author(s)
Yu Meng, Master1, Hao Wang, PhD2, Yongbo Gao, Master3, Qiang Liu, PhD4.
1Beijing North Medical & Health Economic Research Center, Beijing, China, 2Department of Breast, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China, 3HEOR Associate Manager, Takeda (China) International Trading Company, Beijing, China, 4Breast Tumor Center, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
1Beijing North Medical & Health Economic Research Center, Beijing, China, 2Department of Breast, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China, 3HEOR Associate Manager, Takeda (China) International Trading Company, Beijing, China, 4Breast Tumor Center, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economics of three gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa), leuprorelin 11.25 mg 3-month (3M) depot, leuprorelin 3.75 mg 1-month (1M) depot and goserelin 3.6 mg 1-month (1M) for the treatment of premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in China.
METHODS: A 5-year cost-minimization analysis model was developed from the societal, healthcare provider, patient, and payer perspectives. Costs included direct medical costs (drug costs, treatment and examination fees), direct non-medical costs (transportation and accommodation), and indirect costs (productivity loss), costs were discounted at an annual rate of 4.5%. Model inputs were obtained from published literature, public websites, and clinical expert interviews. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess robustness and uncertainty.
RESULTS: Compared with patients treated with leuprorelin-1M and goserelin-1M, those receiving leuprorelin-3M would express 28.8 fewer accumulated injections and visits within 5 years. Leuprorelin‑3M was also associated with lower drug costs ($4,436 vs $5,602 vs $6,569), treatment and examination fees ($3,190 vs $3,399 vs $3,401), direct non-medical costs ($571 vs $1,713 vs $1,713), and indirect costs ($699 vs $2,097 vs $2,097), in the order of leuprorelin-3M, leuprorelin-1M, goserelin-1M. Over the 5-year study period, treatment with leuprorelin‑3M resulted in total cost savings of $3,915 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $4,884 (vs. goserelin-1M) from the societal perspective, $1,375 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $2,344 (vs. goserelin-1M) from the health care provider’s perspective, $2,932 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $3,222 (vs. goserelin-1M) from the patient perspective, and $983 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $1,662 (vs. goserelin-1M) from the payer perspective. Sensitivity analysis showed that the most influential parameters were the annual number of injections for leuprorelin-1M, goserelin-1M and leuprorelin-3M, but the uncertainty has limited impact on results.
CONCLUSIONS: Leuprorelin-3M demonstrates economic advantages over leuprorelin 1M and goserelin 1M by reducing the number of injections and lowering costs, benefiting multiple stakeholders including healthcare providers, patients and payers.
METHODS: A 5-year cost-minimization analysis model was developed from the societal, healthcare provider, patient, and payer perspectives. Costs included direct medical costs (drug costs, treatment and examination fees), direct non-medical costs (transportation and accommodation), and indirect costs (productivity loss), costs were discounted at an annual rate of 4.5%. Model inputs were obtained from published literature, public websites, and clinical expert interviews. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess robustness and uncertainty.
RESULTS: Compared with patients treated with leuprorelin-1M and goserelin-1M, those receiving leuprorelin-3M would express 28.8 fewer accumulated injections and visits within 5 years. Leuprorelin‑3M was also associated with lower drug costs ($4,436 vs $5,602 vs $6,569), treatment and examination fees ($3,190 vs $3,399 vs $3,401), direct non-medical costs ($571 vs $1,713 vs $1,713), and indirect costs ($699 vs $2,097 vs $2,097), in the order of leuprorelin-3M, leuprorelin-1M, goserelin-1M. Over the 5-year study period, treatment with leuprorelin‑3M resulted in total cost savings of $3,915 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $4,884 (vs. goserelin-1M) from the societal perspective, $1,375 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $2,344 (vs. goserelin-1M) from the health care provider’s perspective, $2,932 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $3,222 (vs. goserelin-1M) from the patient perspective, and $983 (vs. leuprorelin-1M) and $1,662 (vs. goserelin-1M) from the payer perspective. Sensitivity analysis showed that the most influential parameters were the annual number of injections for leuprorelin-1M, goserelin-1M and leuprorelin-3M, but the uncertainty has limited impact on results.
CONCLUSIONS: Leuprorelin-3M demonstrates economic advantages over leuprorelin 1M and goserelin 1M by reducing the number of injections and lowering costs, benefiting multiple stakeholders including healthcare providers, patients and payers.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE273
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies, Thresholds & Opportunity Cost, Trial-Based Economic Evaluation
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Oncology