Estimating the Allocation of the Economic Value Generated by Utilization of All-Oral Direct-Acting Antivirals for Hepatitis C in the United States, 2015 to 2019.

OBJECTIVES: Between 2013 to 2019, several all-oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) were launched with the potential to cure patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV). They generated economic value in terms of the health gains for patients and cost-savings for the US healthcare system. We estimated the share of this value allocated to 4 manufacturers vs society. METHODS: For 2015 to 2019, we estimated the incremental impact of DAAs on HCV health outcomes and costs. We used the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation Polaris Observatory database to estimate utilization. Per-patient projections of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and medical costs avoided were based on a standard 9-state HCV disease-progression model for DAA treatment vs alternatives. Annual QALY gains were valued at $114 000 per QALY. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3%. Estimated revenues were based on reported sales. RESULTS: An estimated 1 080 000 patients received DAAs: 81.5% would not have received the pre-DAA standard of care. On average, these patients were projected to gain 4.4 QALYs and save $104 400 in lifetime healthcare costs, generating $531.8 billion in value. Those who would have received treatment gained 1.7 QALYs and saved $41 500 in lifetime costs, generating $47.4 billion in economic value. As treatment costs fell nearly 75%, the 4 manufacturers reported $37.4 billion from DAA sales-an allocation of 6.5% of the total value. CONCLUSIONS: The significant majority (∼90%) of the economic value of curing HCV with DAAs were health benefits to patients and net cost-savings to society. DAA manufacturers received a minority share (6.5%) of the aggregate economic value generated.

Patient-reported outcomes in patients with resected, high-risk melanoma with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations treated with adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib (COMBI-AD): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 COMBI-AD study, patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations received adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib or placebo. The primary analysis showed that dabrafenib plus trametinib significantly improved relapse-free survival at 3 years. These results led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations. Here, we report the patient-reported outcomes from COMBI-AD. METHODS: COMBI-AD was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done at 169 sites in 25 countries. Study participants were aged 18 years or older and had complete resection of stage IIIA (lymph node metastases >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma as per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria, with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system, stratified by mutation type and disease stage, to receive oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) or matching placebos for 12 months. Patients, physicians, and the investigators who analysed the data were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival, reported elsewhere. Health-related quality of life, reported here, was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, and was assessed with the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in the intention-to-treat population. We used a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis to assess differences in health-related quality of life between groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01682083. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer recruiting participants. FINDINGS: Between Jan 31, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 870 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=438) or matching placebos (n=432). Data were collected until the data cutoff for analyses of the primary endpoint (June 30, 2017). The median follow-up was 34 months (IQR 28-39) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 33 months (20·5-39) in the placebo group. During the 12-month treatment phase, there were no significant or clinically meaningful changes from baseline between groups in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) or utility scores. During treatment, there were no clinically meaningful differences in VAS scores or utility scores in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group between patients who did and did not experience the most common adverse events. During long-term follow-up (range 15-48 months), VAS and utility scores were similar between groups and did not differ from baseline scores. At recurrence, there were significant decreases in VAS scores in both the dabrafenib plus trametinib group (mean change -6·02, SD 20·57; p=0·0032) and the placebo group (-6·84, 20·86; p<0·0001); the mean change in utility score also differed significantly at recurrence for both groups (dabrafenib plus trametinib -0·0626, 0·1911, p<0·0001; placebo -0·0748, 0·2182, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: These findings show that dabrafenib plus trametinib did not affect patient-reported outcome scores during or after adjuvant treatment, and suggest that preventing or delaying relapse with adjuvant therapy could be beneficial in this setting. FUNDING: Novartis.

Comparative efficacy and safety of dabrafenib in combination with trametinib versus competing adjuvant therapies for high-risk melanoma.

Aim To conduct a systematic literature review of high-risk resectable cutaneous melanoma adjuvant therapeutics and compare safety and efficacy. Methods: The systematic literature review included randomized controlled trials investigating: dabrafenib plus trametinib (DAB + TRAM), nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, vemurafenib, chemotherapy and interferons. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and safety. All outcomes were synthesized using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results: Across relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and OS, DAB + TRAM had the lowest estimated hazards of respective events relative to all other treatments (exception relative to nivolumab in OS). Differences were significant relative to placebo, chemotherapy, interferons and ipilimumab. Conclusion: DAB + TRAM has improved efficacy over historical treatment options (ipilimumab, interferons and chemotherapy) and comparable efficacy with other targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective.Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually.Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%.Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

Adjuvant therapy versus watch-and-wait post surgery for stage III melanoma: a multicountry retrospective chart review.

AIM: To describe treatment patterns among patients with stage III melanoma who underwent surgical excision in years 2011-2016, and assess outcomes among patients who subsequently received systemic adjuvant therapy versus watch-and-wait. METHODS: Chart review of 380 patients from 17 melanoma centers in North America, South America and Europe. RESULTS: Of 129 (34%) patients treated with adjuvant therapy, 85% received interferon α-2b and 56% discontinued treatment (mostly due to adverse events). Relapse-free survival was significantly longer for patients treated with adjuvant therapy versus watch-and-wait (hazard ratio = 0.63; p < 0.05). There was considerable heterogeneity in adjuvant treatment schedules and doses. Similar results were found in patients who received interferon-based adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapies with better safety/efficacy profiles will improve clinical outcomes in patients with stage III melanoma.