Cost-Effectiveness of Olaparib vs Niraparib as a Maintenance Regimen for Ovarian Cancer

Findings from recent study indicate that olaparib is more cost-effective than niraparib for maintenance therapy in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;1-8. doi:10.1080/14737167.2021.1954506).

John Hang Leung, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chiayi Christian Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan, and colleagues created a decision analysis model in order to compare the costs and effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib vs placebo for ovarian cancer with or without germline BRCA mutations.

The 2020 National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list was used to guide estimates for resource use and associated costs.

Data from the SOLO2/ENHOT-Ov21 and ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trials on progression-free survival per life-years (PFS-LY) were used to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the two treatments. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from a single-payer perspective.

Results from the base case suggested that olaparib was the more cost-effective treatment. The ICERs for olaparib and niraparib were NT$1,804,785 per PFS-LY, while the ICERS for placebo were NT$2,340,265 per PFS-LY.

The ICERS for both olaparib and niraparib were lower in patients with a germline BRCA compared to those without. Results from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that olaparib was more cost-effective than niraparib at the willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$2,602,404 per PFS life-year gained.

“Olaparib was estimated to be less cost and more effective compared to niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer,” Dr Leung and colleagues concluded.—Marta Rybczynski