Medication use evaluation of the financial and clinical implications of ixazomib compared to bortezomib in the outpatient setting.

In the past decade, several new therapies have been approved for use in multiple myeloma, including the novel oral agent, ixazomib. Ixazomib, like bortezomib and carfilzomib, is a proteasome inhibitor, a class of agents that are a mainstay of treating multiple myeloma in both the frontline and relapsed settings. Ixazomib is administered orally and offers many potential advantages over the subcutaneous or intravenous administration of bortezomib. In this single-center, retrospective medication use evaluation, adult patients with multiple myeloma receiving either ixazomib or bortezomib in the outpatient setting were assessed to evaluate financial implications and tolerability. A total of 28 patients were included. The total wholesale acquisition cost for one cycle of ixazomib was $9942, and $6412 for bortezomib. Average reimbursement per cycle was $9205 for ixazomib and $5664 for bortezomib. Secondarily, the incidence of interruption in therapy was evaluated. Ixazomib was associated with a slightly higher incidence of interruption compared to bortezomib, 42.9% and 35.7%, respectively. It is notable that ixazomib has similar drug reimbursement rates to bortezomib, but slightly higher rates of interruption in therapy. In conclusion, if tolerable for the patient, ixazomib may offer a financially acceptable alternative for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Real-world treatment patterns, resource use and cost burden of multiple myeloma in Portugal.

OBJECTIVE: We provide a real-world overview of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment patterns, outcomes and healthcare resource use (HRU) in Portugal. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from consecutive patients diagnosed/treated at the Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO-Porto) between 2012 and 2015. Primary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with treatment patterns and HRU secondary. Analysis was by line of therapy (LOT), and post hoc by age (<65/≥65 years). RESULTS: 165, 73 and 32 patients received first, second and third LOTs respectively (N = 187). OS probabilities were 91.5%, 83.2% (<65 years) and 86.6%, 65.3% (≥65 years) at 12, 24 months respectively. PFS decreased from the start of each LOT for both age groups and was less for patients ≥65 years. Younger patients received more combination treatment (immunomodulatory drugs + proteasome inhibitors) and stem cell transplants, and had higher mean costs than older patients (€81,213 vs. €36,864 where three LOTs were received). Cost drivers were medications, transplantations and hospitalisations. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest divergence between younger and older MM patients. Older patients had lower OS and PFS probabilities, HRU costs and fewer stem cell transplantations. The treatment patterns in each LOT may differ from other countries' findings, suggesting treatment heterogeneity.

Topical treatment utilization for patients with atopic dermatitis in the United States, and budget impact analysis of crisaborole ointment, 2.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), a chronic inflammatory skin disease, is often treated with topical corticosteroids (TCS) and topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI). Crisaborole ointment is a non-steroidal, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of mild-to-moderate AD. In December 2016, crisaborole was approved in the US for mild-to-moderate AD in patients ≥2 years of age. AIMS: To evaluate real-world utilization and cost of TCS and TCI in the US and estimate the budget impact of crisaborole over 2 years from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: TCS and TCI prescriptions in 2015 for patients ≥2 years of age with ≥1 AD diagnosis in the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Research Databases were analyzed for patients receiving TCI or TCS alone or in combination (TCS/TCI population) and patients receiving TCI alone or in combination with TCS (TCI population). A budget impact model used TCS and TCI market shares, annual use, and cost per prescription. Crisaborole uptake rates of 4.7% (TCS) and 20.2% (TCI), with an annual increase of 1% in year 2, were assumed. Budget impact was calculated as total and per-member-per-month (PMPM) cost over 2 years for a health plan of 1 million members. RESULTS: Annual prescriptions/patient ranged from 1.36-6.41; annual cost/patient was $53-$1,465. The budget impact of crisaborole over 2 years in the TCS/TCI population was $350,946 (PMPM, $0.015), with increases of $162,106 in year 1 (PMPM, $0.014) and $188,841 in year 2 (PMPM, $0.016). The budget impact in the TCI population was -$22,871, with decreases of $11,160 in year 1 and $11,712 in year 2 (each PMPM, -$0.001). For both populations, one-way sensitivity analyses showed that budget impact was most sensitive to changes in crisaborole cost and annual use. CONCLUSIONS: From US payer perspectives, adoption of crisaborole results in modest pharmacy budget impact/savings.

Healthcare resource utilization with ixazomib or placebo plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone in the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to assess healthcare resource utilization in the pivotal phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib or placebo plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study (NCT01564537), 722 patients with RRMM following 1-3 prior lines of therapy received Rd plus ixazomib (ixazomib-Rd; n = 360) or matching placebo (placebo-Rd; n = 362) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Healthcare resource utilization data were captured on Day 1 of each 28-day cycle, every 4 weeks during follow-up for progression-free survival, and every 12 weeks during subsequent follow-up, and included medical encounters (length of stay, inpatient, outpatient, and reason) and number of missing days from work or other activities for patients and caregivers. RESULTS: Exposure-adjusted rates of hospitalization were similar between the ixazomib-Rd and placebo-Rd arms, at 0.530 and 0.564 per patient year (ppy), respectively, as were outpatient visit rates (3.305 and 3.355 ppy). Mean length of hospitalization per patient was 10.0 and 10.8 days, respectively. In both arms, hospitalization and outpatient visit rates were higher in patients with two or three prior lines of treatment (ixazomib-Rd: 0.632 and 3.909 ppy; placebo-Rd: 0.774 and 3.539 ppy) compared with patients with one prior line (ixazomib-Rd: 0.460 and 2.888 ppy; placebo-Rd: 0.436 and 3.243 ppy). Patients and their caregivers who missed any work or other activity missed a median of 7 and 5 days in the ixazomib-Rd arm, respectively, vs 8 and 4 days with placebo-Rd. LIMITATIONS: The study was not powered for a statistical comparison of healthcare resource utilization between treatment arms, nor did it capture costs associated with utilization of the identified healthcare resources. CONCLUSIONS: This pre-specified analysis demonstrated that the all-oral triplet regimen of ixazomib added to Rd did not increase healthcare resource utilization compared with placebo-Rd.

Ixazomib for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Review from an Evidence Review Group on a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor used in combination with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IXA-LEN-DEX) and licensed for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. As part of a single technology appraisal (ID807) undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, the Evidence Review Group, Warwick Evidence was invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer of ixazomib, Takeda UK Ltd. The main source of clinical effectiveness data about IXA-LEN-DEX came from the Tourmaline-MM1 randomized controlled trial in which 771 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma received either IXA-LEN-DEX or placebo-LEN-DEX as their second-, third-, or fourth-line treatment. Takeda estimated the cost effectiveness of IXA-LEN-DEX using a de-novo partitioned-survival model with three health states (pre-progression, post-progression, and dead). In their first submission, this model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. bortezomib plus dexamethasone (BORT-DEX) in second-line treatment, and of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. LEN-DEX in third-line treatment. To estimate the relative clinical performance of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. BORT-DEX, Takeda conducted network meta-analyses for important outcomes. The network meta-analysis for overall survival was found to be flawed in several respects, but mainly because a hazard ratio input for one of the studies in the network had been inverted, resulting in a large inflation of the claimed superiority of IXA-LEN-DEX over BORT-DEX and a considerable overestimation of its cost effectiveness. In subsequent submissions, Takeda withdrew second-line treatment as an option for IXA-LEN-DEX. The manufacturer's first submission comparing IXA-LEN-DEX with LEN-DEX for third-line therapy employed Tourmaline-MM1 data from third- and fourth-line patients as proxy for a third-line population. The appraisal committee did not consider this reasonable because randomization in Tourmaline-MM1 was stratified according to one previous treatment and two or more previous treatments. A further deficiency was considered to be the manufacturer's use of interim survival data rather than the most mature data available. A second submission from the company focussed on IXA-LEN-DEX vs. LEN-DEX as third- or fourth-line treatment (the two or more previous lines population) and a new patient access scheme was introduced. Covariate modeling of survival outcomes was proposed using the most mature survival data. The Evidence Review Group's main criticisms of the new evidence included: the utility associated with the pre-progression health state was overestimated, treatment costs of ixazomib were underestimated, survival models were still associated with great uncertainty, leading to clinically implausible anomalies and highly variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates, and the company had not explored a strong assumption that the survival benefit of IXA-LEN-DEX over LEN-DEX would be fully maintained for a further 22 years beyond the observed data, which encompassed only approximately 2.5 years of observation. The appraisal committee remained unconvinced that ixazomib represented a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. Takeda's third submission offered new base-case parametric models for survival outcomes, a new analysis of utilities, and proposed a commercial access agreement. In a brief critique of the third submission, the Evidence Review Group agreed that the selection of appropriate survival models was problematic and at the request of the National Institute for Health Care and Excellence investigated external sources of evidence regarding survival outcomes. The Evidence Review Group considered that some cost and utility estimates in the submission may have remained biased in favor of ixazomib. As a result of their third appraisal meeting, the committee judged that for the two to three prior therapies population, and at the price agreed in a commercial access agreement, ixazomib had the potential to be cost effective. It was referred to the Cancer Drugs Fund so that further data could accrue with the aim of diminishing the clinical uncertainties.