Cost-utility analysis of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel versus paclitaxel in monotherapy in pretreated metastatic breast cancer in Spain.

Emilio Alba, Eva Ciruelos, Rafael López, José Manuel López-Vega, Ana Lluch, Miguel Martín, Montserrat Muñoz, Pedro Sánchez-Rovira, Miguel Ángel Seguí, Marta Rubio Liria, Ferran Pérez-Alcántara

Journal: Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research 2014;13(3):381-91

PMID: 23534988

Abstract

AIM

The COSTABRAX study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) versus polyethylated castor oil-based standard paclitaxel (sb-paclitaxel) in the treatment of patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer in Spain.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Efficacy data were obtained from the CA012 trial (nab-paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks [q3w] and sb-paclitaxel q3w) and indirect comparison (sb-paclitaxel administered weekly), and were modeled to a time horizon of 5 years using a Markov model. The analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective. Use of resources and key assumptions of the model were validated by a panel of 22 local oncologists.

RESULTS

Compared with sb-paclitaxel q3w, nab-paclitaxel q3w was cost effective, with a cost per life year gained of €11,088 and a cost per quality-adjusted life year of €17,808. Compared with sb-paclitaxel administered weekly, it showed savings of €711 per patient.

CONCLUSION

The COSTABRAX study showed that nab-paclitaxel q3w is a cost-effective alternative compared with sb-paclitaxel q3w and a cost-saving alternative to sb-paclitaxel administered weekly in Spain.

Address: Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.