Assessment of rituximab-abbs, a biosimilar, and rituximab outcomes in patients with CLL or NHL: A real-world UK study.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab (chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) treatment is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Rituximab-abbs (first biosimilar approved in 2017) is expected to significantly reduce healthcare economic burden due to lower acquisition costs. This non-interventional, non-comparative study assessed real-world effectiveness and tolerability of rituximab-abbs and rituximab in treatment-naive patients with CLL or NHL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Via an online physician survey, 46 UK-registered hematologists and oncologists retrospectively reported on randomly selected patients aged ≥18 years with CLL or NHL with rituximab-abbs or rituximab as first-line immunotherapy. Overall, 201 patient charts were examined across 4 cohorts: rituximab-abbs in CLL, rituximab-abbs in NHL, rituximab in CLL, rituximab in NHL. RESULTS: Demographic profiles across cohorts were similar. Most patients (94 %-100 %) received combination therapy (rituximab-abbs or rituximab mainly with chemotherapy). For both treatments, overall response rate (94 %-98 %) and 1-year overall survival (98 %-100 %) were very high for patients with CLL or NHL. Most common serious adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia and infusion reactions. The majority of patients (54 %-66 %) did not experience a grade ≥3 adverse event. Healthcare resource utilization was similarly high across cohorts, driven by diagnostic testing, oncologist office visits, and day-case hospital admissions; many patients required supportive medical therapies. Mean annual savings of ∼£1000/patient driven by acquisition costs occurred with rituximab-abbs versus rituximab, administration costs were similar. CONCLUSION: Rituximab-abbs and rituximab demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability in treating CLL and NHL in routine UK clinical practice and demonstrate the utility of the biosimilar as a cost-saving alternative treatment.

Budgetary Impact of Bendamustine Ready-to-Dilute Products in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma to a United States Infusion Facility.

BACKGROUND: Bendamustine hydrochloride (BND HCl) is indicated for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and rituximab-refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). There are two ready-to-dilute (RTD) formulations of BND HCl on the US market: a large-volume, long-duration infusion (BND-L) and a small-volume, short-duration infusion (BND-S). It is estimated that the shorter duration infusion could result in cost savings to infusion facilities. OBJECTIVE: Estimate the one-year budget impact between BND-S and BND-L for use in the treatment of CLL and iNHL when all current BND-L utilization is replaced with BND-S, from the US infusion facility perspective. METHODS: An illustrative budget impact model estimated the change in costs associated with a projected increase from 50% to 100% market share for BND-S. The model included CLL and iNHL patient populations. Budgetary costs reflected facility expenditures on drug acquisition and administration based on recommended dosing for BND-S and BND-L. The base-case model assumptions and inputs were derived from scientific literature and publicly available resources. The total budget impact was calculated annually, along with the differences in per patient cost; one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Per-patient savings with BND-S use after the utilization shift were estimated at $2812.24 for CLL and $4769.01 for iNHL. Across both indications, the total annual incremental savings after the utilization shift were estimated at $452,209 for 250 CLL and iNHL patients in a 10,000-patient infusion facility, resulting in cost savings of $150.74 per BND HCI patient per month and $1808.84 per BND HCI patient per year. The model was sensitive to changes in proportion of patients receiving BND HCI infusions for CLL and iNHL, patient body surface area, and BND-S wholesale acquisition cost. CONCLUSION: This analysis estimated over $450,000 in annual savings for a 10,000-patient chemotherapy infusion facility following a utilization shift from 50% use of each RTD product to 100% use of BND-S in CLL and iNHL patients, driven by lower acquisition costs for BND-S and lower administration labor costs associated with rapid infusion.

Real-world healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: differences between patients treated with first-line ibrutinib or bendamustine + rituximab.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the real-world healthcare resource utilization and costs in chronic lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL) patients treated with first-line ibrutinib monotherapy (IbM) therapy or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) combination therapy. METHODS: Treatment-naïve CLL patients in the IBM MarketScan Research Databases were identified based on the first prescription of either IbM or BR therapy between 1 February 2014 and 30 August 2017. RESULTS: A total of 1866 patients with 12 months of continuous enrollment (IbM n = 1157; BR=n = 729) were identified. Thirty-four percent of IbM patients had at least one inpatient admission compared to 24% of BR patients. A total of 31% of IbM patients had at least one CLL-related inpatient admission compared to 20% of BR patients. Among patients with an ER visit, IbM patients visited the emergency room (ER) more frequently than BR patients. There were no differences in total cost, both all-cause and CLL-related, between the IbM and BR cohorts. However, IbM patients had significantly higher all-cause and CLL-related inpatient costs than BR patients as well as all-cause outpatient pharmacy prescriptions costs, while BR patients had significantly higher PPPM outpatient medical costs. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that further research on the real-world effectiveness of IbM in comparison to BR combination therapy, given the comparatively higher rates of inpatient admissions, longer lengths of stay, and more ER visits observed in IbM patients relative to the BR patients is needed. Given the differences in costs, it is important to further examine the impact these healthcare expenditures have on the cost-effectiveness of IbM first line treatment.

Safety evaluation of adenovirus type 4 and type 7 vaccine live, oral in military recruits.

Before the widespread adoption of vaccination, adenovirus type 4 and type 7 were long associated with respiratory illnesses among military recruits. When supplies were depleted and vaccination was suspended in 1999 for approximately a decade, respiratory illnesses due to adenovirus infections resurged. In March 2011, a new live, oral adenovirus vaccine was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and was first universally administered to military recruits in October 2011, leading to rapid, dramatic elimination of the disease within a few months. As part of licensure, a postmarketing study (Sentinel Surveillance Plan) was performed to detect potential safety signals within 42days after immunization of military recruits. This study retrospectively evaluated possible adverse events related to vaccination using data from the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS) database. Among 100,000 recruits who received the adenovirus vaccine, no statistically significant greater risk of prespecified medical events was observed within 42days after vaccination when compared with a historical cohort of 100,000 unvaccinated recruits. In an initial statistical analysis of International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes, a statistically significant higher risk for 19 other (not prespecified) medical events occurring in 5 or more recruits was observed among vaccinated compared with unvaccinated groups. After case record data abstraction for attribution and validation, two events (psoriasis [21 vs 7 cases] and serum reactions [12 vs 4 cases]) occurred more frequently in the vaccinated cohort. A causal relation of these rare events with adenovirus vaccination could not be established given confounding factors in the DMSS, such as coadministration of other vaccines and incomplete or inaccurate medical information, for some recruits. Prospective surveillance assessing these uncommon, but potentially relevant, immune-related symptoms may be beneficial in defining potential causal association with adenovirus vaccination.

Rasagiline for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease: A placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This study's aims were to determine the efficacy and tolerability of rasagiline, a selective monoamine oxidase inhibitor B, for PD patients with mild cognitive impairment. METHODS: Patients on stable dopaminergic therapy were randomized to adjunct rasagiline 1 mg/day or placebo in this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multisite study. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 24 on the Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's Disease-Cognition total score. Key secondary measures included changes in cognition, activities of daily living, motor scores, and Clinical Global Impression of Change, as well as safety and tolerability measures. RESULTS: Of the 170 patients randomized, 151 (88.2%) completed the study. Change in Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's Disease-Cognition scores were not significantly different in the rasagiline and placebo groups (adjusted mean: 1.6 [standard error {SE} = 0.5] vs. 0.8 [SE = 0.5] points; LS means difference = 0.8; 95% confidence interval: -0.48, 2.05; P = 0.22). There were no between-group differences in change in the MoCA (p=0.84) or Penn Daily Activities Questionnaire (P = 0.48) scores or in the distribution of Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change modified for mild cognitive impairment (P = 0.1). Changes in motor (UPDRS part III; P = 0.02) and activities of daily living (UPDRS part II; P < 0.001) scores favored rasagiline. Rasagiline was well tolerated; the most common adverse events in both groups were falls and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: Rasagiline treatment in PD patients with mild cognitive impairment was not associated with cognitive improvement. Rasagiline did not worsen cognition, improved motor symptoms and activities of daily living, and was well tolerated in elderly cognitively impaired patients. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Randomized, controlled trial of rasagiline as an add-on to dopamine agonists in Parkinson's disease.

Dopamine agonists (DA) are often used as first-line monotherapy for the symptomatic control of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, DA monotherapy typically becomes inadequate within a few years, at which time the DA dosage must be increased or other antiparkinsonian medications added. Adding a monoamine oxidase-B (MAO-B) inhibitor to DA monotherapy might improve symptomatic control while maintaining good safety and tolerability. We conducted an 18-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of rasagiline 1 mg/d as an add-on to DA therapy (ropinirole ≥ 6 mg/d or pramipexole ≥ 1.0 mg/d) in early PD patients whose conditions were not adequately controlled on their current treatment regimen. The primary efficacy variable was the change in total Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score (sum of parts I, II, and III) from baseline to week 18, comparing rasagiline and placebo groups. The modified intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 321 subjects whose mean ± SD age was 62.6 ± 9.7, and duration of PD was 2.1 ± 2.1 years. Results demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in total UPDRS scores from baseline to week 18 in the rasagiline group compared with the placebo group (least squares [LS] mean difference ± SE, -2.4 ± 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.3, -0.5; P = 0.012). Mean improvement (LS mean ± SE) was -3.6 ± 0.68 in the rasagiline group and -1.2 ± 0.68 in the placebo group. Rasagiline was well tolerated, and the most common adverse events (AEs; rasagiline vs. placebo) were dizziness (7.4% vs. 6.1%), somnolence (6.8% vs. 6.7%), and headache (6.2% vs. 4.3%). Rasagiline 1 mg/d provided statistically significant improvement when added to dopamine agonist therapy and was well tolerated.