An Expanded Treatment Protocol of Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients With Previously Treated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Panobinostat was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Commission in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who have received ≥ 2 regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug. The PANEX (panobinostat expansion) treatment protocol provided access to panobinostat and gathered additional safety data before commercial availability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In treatment phase 1, patients received panobinostat 20 mg 3 times per week plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly with dexamethasone 20 mg on the days of and after bortezomib treatment. Patients with no change or better in treatment phase 1 proceeded to treatment phase 2, when bortezomib was reduced to once weekly. Unlike in the phase III trial, PANORAMA-1 (panobinostat or placebo with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma), bortezomib could be administered either subcutaneously or intravenously. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with a median number of previous treatments of 4 (range, 1-12) were enrolled; most received subcutaneous bortezomib (87%). The overall response rate (partial response or better) was 56%. Grade 3/4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (47%), fatigue (31%), dehydration (26%), and diarrhea (18%). Among the patients who received subcutaneous bortezomib, relatively low rates of peripheral neuropathy (all grade, 15%) and notable grade 3/4 adverse events (thrombocytopenia, 47%; diarrhea, 12%) were observed. CONCLUSION: Overall, data from the PANEX trial support regulatory approval of panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone and suggest the potential tolerability benefits of subcutaneous bortezomib in this regimen.

Estimating the Economic Impact of Adding Panobinostat to a U.S. Formulary for Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Budget Impact and Cost-Benefit Model.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is an incurable B-cell malignancy with a natural history that involves alternating periods of remission and subsequent relapse. For relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), the typical patient currently receives more lines of therapy than has been feasible in the past, translating into longer progression-free survival (PFS). Consequently, cost issues have become more prominent because patients may be offered newer and more expensive therapies during a more prolonged overall treatment course. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic impact of adding panobinostat to a U.S. health plan formulary as a treatment option with bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with RRMM previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), using a budget impact and cost-benefit model. METHODS: Total costs of commonly used salvage therapy regimens were combined with market share data and population prevalence estimates of RRMM to yield the total cost of treatment, from the perspective of a U.S. third-party payer (commercial or Medicare) with a time horizon of 1 year. Comparator treatment regimens included bortezomib-dexamethasone, lenalidomide-dexamethasone, lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone, carfilzomib monotherapy, carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Costs (2015 U.S. dollars) included drug costs for oral oncology agents, medical and administration costs for injectable oncology agents, costs of adverse event (AE) prophylaxis and monitoring, and costs of grade 3/4 AEs. RESULTS: In a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, the annual number of RRMM patients with previous PI and IMiD treatments was estimated at 16 and 118 for a commercial and Medicare plan, respectively. Introduction of panobinostat as part of the panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone regimen was not expected to result in a substantial budget impact to either commercial or Medicare plans, with an incremental cost < $0.01 per member per month. Panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had a low cost per treated patient per month without progression, owing to the minimal increase in expenditure over existing bortezomib-based regimens and long median PFS, compared with median duration of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Adding panobinostat to a plan formulary as a treatment option is expected to be cost neutral (and potentially cost saving in the context of new and more expensive treatment regimens). With a low cost per month without progression, panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone represents good value for the money. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was sponsored by Novartis, East Hanover, New Jersey. Bloudek and Kish are employees of Xcenda, a consulting company contracted by Novartis to conduct this analysis. Roy, Globe, and Kuriakose are employees of Novartis. Siegel is on the advisory boards and speaker's bureau of Celgene, Onyx/Amgen, Millennium/Takeda, and Novartis and is on the advisory boards of Merck. Jagannath is a consultant to Sanofi, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Celgene. Orloski is a contractor to Xcenda and provided medical writing support, which was funded by Novartis. Study design and concept were contributed by Bloudek, Roy, and Kish, assisted by Globe. Bloukek took the lead in data collection, along with Kish, and data interpretation was performed by Siegal, Jagannath, Globe, and Kuriakose. The manuscript was written primarily by Orloski, along with Roy and Kish, and revised by Roy, along with Siegal, Jagannath, Globe, Orloski, and Kuriakose.

Real-world treatment patterns and associated progression-free survival in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma among US community oncology practices.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supporting optimal treatment sequencing in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients requiring multiple therapy lines is lacking. METHODS: Using retrospective chart data, this study describes real-world RRMM treatment patterns and related progression-free survival (PFS) in US community oncology clinics. RESULTS: Bortezomib ± a non-immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), lenalidomide ± a non-proteasome inhibitor (PI), bortezomib + an IMiD were the most commonly used regimens in early lines of therapy. Median PFS was similar in 1(st) (11.1 months) and 2(nd) line (10.5) and decreased in lines 3 through 5 (3(rd): 7.9; 4(th): 7.2, 5(th): 5.4). Longest PFS (12.5 months) in first line was with bortezomib + ImiD; longest PFS in second line was with lenalidomide ± a non-PI was (13.2 months). CONCLUSIONS: Re-treatment with bortezomib was common; novel agents were reserved for later therapy lines. Overall, the observed PFS associated with real-world treatment sequences were shorter than those reported in clinical trials.

Estimating the Costs of Therapy in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Model Framework.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a progressive cancer for which there is no cure. Despite treatment, almost all patients eventually experience periods of disease relapse and remission. With the increasing use of novel therapies, including bortezomib, lenalidomide, carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and panobinostat, benchmarks for assessing the value of these therapies in treating patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) are needed for physicians and payers alike. OBJECTIVES: To develop a model framework and to calculate an annual estimate of the total costs per patient for the treatment of patients with RRMM using 7 common treatment regimens, including bortezomib plus dexamethasone; panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone; lenalidomide plus dexamethasone; lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone; carfilzomib; carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone; and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone. METHODS: The expenditures for drugs and their administration, for prophylaxis and adverse event monitoring, and for the treatment of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were included in the calculations of the total pharmacy and medical costs. The drug costs were based on published pricing and labeled dosing schedules; the adverse event prophylaxis and monitoring costs were obtained from peer-reviewed publications; and the adverse event incidence rates were obtained from each regimen's prescribing information and from clinical trials. All the costs were summed over the duration of therapy for which the drugs were administered and were calculated separately for commercial and Medicare plans. The duration of therapy for each regimen was the time for which a patient had to be receiving the regimen to obtain 12 months of progression-free survival based on the duration-of-therapy to progression-free survival ratio observed from published clinical trials and/or the drug's labeling. RESULTS: The pharmacy costs were highest for pomalidomide plus dexamethasone, whereas the medical costs were highest for the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. The total cost associated with available treatments for RRMM was highest for regimens that included lenalidomide (approximate range, $126,000-$256,000). Only bortezomib plus dexamethasone and the combination of panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone had total costs that were lower than $125,000 per patient. CONCLUSION: This study represents the first model developed to comprehensively estimate the costs of managing RRMM with all currently approved and guideline-recommended regimens in the United States. As such, it provides the framework and basis for further budget impact analyses and for cost-effectiveness comparisons with these regimens.