Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice. METHODS: An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12. RESULTS: There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles. CONCLUSION: In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive medication failure on quality of life, functioning, and costs among individuals with migraine across several European countries: need for effective preventive treatment.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0-1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: Among individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0-1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P < 0.005), numerically higher scores on the Mental Component Summary (39.5 vs 38.5; P = 0.145), significantly higher scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment (39.1 vs 34.0; P < 0.05), and significantly higher prevalence of depression symptoms (62% vs 47%; P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (42% vs 31%; P < 0.01). The ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group also had significantly more functional impairment as assessed by mean numbers of migraine-specific missed work days (7.8 vs 4.3) and household activities days (14.3 vs 10.6) in the past 6 months (P < 0.001) as well as the prevalence of absenteeism (19% vs 13%), overall work impairment (53% vs 42%), and activity impairment (53% vs 47%) (all P < 0.05). Emergency department visits (0.7 vs 0.5; P = 0.001) and hospitalizations (0.5 vs 0.3; P < 0.001) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group, while indirect costs (€13,720 vs €11,282) and the proportion of individuals with non-adherence during the past 7 days (73% vs 64%) were numerically higher. CONCLUSIONS: Increased burden, quality-of-life impairment, and functional impairment exist among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 MHDs and more treatment failures. While cause and directionality cannot be determined, these results suggest the need for effective preventive migraine treatments.

Effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A meta-analysis on 10 years of real-world data.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis evaluated the real-world effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®), the first preventive treatment FDA-approved specifically for chronic migraine in 2010. METHODS: We systematically reviewed onabotulinumtoxinA observational data in chronic migraine published between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2021. Random-effects models evaluated available data for primary and secondary endpoints defined in onabotulinumtoxinA pivotal trials at approximately 24 weeks and 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 44 full-text eligible studies (29 prospective; 13 retrospective; 2 other), seven evaluated change from baseline (mean[confidence interval]) at ∼24 weeks and ∼52 weeks, respectively, for onabotulinumtoxinA in: number of headache days/month: (-10.64 [-12.31, -8.97]; -10.32 [-14.92, -5.73]); number of days of acute headache pain medication intake per month (-7.40 [-13.04, -1.77]; overlapping CIs at 52 weeks); total Headache Impact Test-6 score (-11.70 [-13.86, -9.54]); -11.80 [14.70, -8.90]); and Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life v2.1 score (MSQ; 23.60 [CI: 21.56, 25.64]; 30.90 [CI: 28.29, 33.51]). At ∼24 weeks onabotulinumtoxinA showed total Migraine Disability Assessment score of 44.74 [28.50, 60.99] and ≥50% reduction in migraine days response rate of 46.57% [29.50%, 63.65%]. A sensitivity analysis at study-end suggested durability of onabotulinumtoxinA effectiveness on MSQ. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis reflecting real-world practice broadly corroborated with evidence from pivotal and long-term open-label studies of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine preventive treatment.

Real life patterns of care and progression free survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data.

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics and survival outcomes in randomized trials may be different from those in real-life clinical practice. The objective of this study was to describe treatment pathways, safety, drug costs and survival in patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) in a real world setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using IQVIA real world oncology cross-sectional survey data, a retrospective treatment database collecting anonymized patient-level data in Europe. Data on treatment naïve patients with mRCC who received a first-line targeted therapy in France were extracted for the period 2005-2015. Descriptive analyses were performed on treatment patterns, patient characteristics and safety profiles. Progression Free Survival (PFS) was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred thirty-one patients with mRCC who received a first-line targeted therapy were included. The male/female sex ratio was 2.5 and 66% of patients were aged > 60 years. 83% of patients had clear cell adenocarcinoma. 83% of patients underwent a surgical procedure, 10% had radiotherapy. In patients who received a first-line targeted therapy, 73% received sunitinib. The mean time from diagnosis to first-line treatment by targeted therapies in patients initially diagnosed with metastatic disease was 3.3 months [95% CI:2.5-4.1]. In patients who received second-line targeted therapy n = 257 (19%), the most frequently observed treatment sequences were sunitinib-everolimus (33%) and sunitinib-sorafenib (27%). Adverse events data were available for 501 patients and adverse events were documented in 70% of patients, most frequently diarrhoea. The overall median PFS was 13 months [95% CI:11.5-16]. CONCLUSION: Patient characteristics were consistent with the literature. Treatment patterns appeared to follow current practice guidelines. Despite some variations, PFS in our study seems to be consistent with findings from other real world studies. Nevertheless, PFS results were higher than those observed in clinical trials. Due to the use of cross-sectional data, PFS in our study should be interpreted with caution.

Treatment patterns and outcomes of Stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma in France, Germany and the UK: A retrospective and prospective observational study (MELABIS).

AIM: Real-world data on treatment patterns/outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, while scarce, are useful for health technology assessments that govern patient access in many countries. We collected retrospective data on treatment patterns among patients in France, Germany and the UK with Stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement, whose primary melanoma and regional lymph node metastases had been completely resected. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years were diagnosed between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011. Data were obtained from patients' medical records and a patient survey. RESULTS: Forty-nine centres provided data on 558 patients: 53.6% had Stage IIIB disease; 58.2% were of working age (<65 years), 22.5% reported a change in employment status due to melanoma, 8% were on long-term sick leave; and 35.1% were deceased over the study period. Overall median distant metastases-free survival was 23.4 months and median disease-free survival was 13.3 months. Hospitalisation frequency increased during distant metastatic/terminal disease phases. Adjuvant therapy was received by 7.0% (14/199) of patients in France, 2.6% (5/195) in the UK, and 33.5% (55/164) in Germany. Low-dose interferon was used more frequently than other regimens. High-dose interferon was associated with discontinuation in 28.6% and dose delay/reduction in 33.3% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid disease progression combined with increased use of healthcare resources in later phases of disease result in a high burden-of-illness for patients and healthcare providers. The use of adjuvant interferon therapy varies considerably in this population in the countries studied, highlighting the need for improved treatments for melanoma.

Impact of the healthcare payment system on patient access to oral anticancer drugs: an illustration from the French and United States contexts.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticancer drugs (OADs) allow treating a growing range of cancers. Despite their convenience, their acceptance by healthcare professionals and patients may be affected by medical, economical and organizational factors. The way the healthcare payment system (HPS) reimburses OADs or finances hospital activities may impact patients' access to such drugs. We discuss how the HPS in France and USA may generate disincentives to the use of OADs in certain circumstances. DISCUSSION: French public and private hospitals are financed by National Health Insurance (NHI) according to the nature and volume of medical services provided annually. Patients receiving intravenous anticancer drugs (IADs) in a hospital setting generate services, while those receiving OADs shift a part of service provision from the hospital to the community. In 2013, two million outpatient IADs sessions were performed, representing a cost of €815 million to the NHI, but positive contribution margin of €86 million to hospitals. Substitution of IADs by OADs mechanically induces a shortfall in hospital income related to hospitalizations. Such economic constraints may partially contribute to making physicians reluctant to prescribe OADs. In the US healthcare system, coverage for OADs is less favorable than coverage for injectable anticancer drugs. In 2006, a Cancer Drug Coverage Parity Act was adopted by several states in order to provide patients with better coverage for OADs. Nonetheless, the complexity of reimbursement systems and multiple reimbursement channels from private insurance represent real economic barriers which may prevent patients with low income being treated with OADs. From an organizational perspective, in both countries the use of OADs generates additional activities related to physician consultations, therapeutic education and healthcare coordination between hospitals and community settings, which are not considered in the funding of hospitals activities so far. SUMMARY: Funding of healthcare services is a critical factor influencing in part the choice of cancer treatments and this is expected to become increasingly important as economic constraints grow. Drug reimbursement systems and hospital financing changes, coupled with other accompanying measures, should contribute to improve equal and safe patient access to appropriate anticancer drugs and improve the management and care pathway of cancer patients.

Treatment patterns, clinical outcomes and health care costs associated with HER2-positive breast cancer with central nervous system metastases: a French multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: The population of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) who develop central nervous system (CNS) metastases is growing. Treatment strategies in this population are highly diverse. The objective of the study was to assess health care costs for the management of HER2 positive BC with CNS metastases. METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, observational study was conducted on HER2-positive BC patients diagnosed with CNS metastases between 2006 and 2008. Data were extracted from patient medical records to estimate health care resource use. A partitioned estimator was used to adjust censoring costs by use of the Kaplan-Meier survival estimate. RESULTS: 218 patients were included and costs were estimated for 200 patients. The median time to detection of CNS metastases was 37.6 months. The first metastatic event involved the CNS in 39 patients, and this was the unique first metastatic site in 31 of these patients. Two years following diagnosis of CNS metastases, 70.3% of patients had died. The mean per capita cost of HER2-positive BC with CNS metastases in the first year following diagnosis was €35,735 [95% CI: 31,716-39,898]. The proportion of costs attributed to expensive drugs and those arising from hospitalisation were in the same range. CONCLUSION: A range of individualised disease management strategies are used in HER2-positive BC patients with CNS metastases and the treatments used in the first months following diagnosis are expensive. The understanding of cost drivers may help optimise healthcare expenditure and inform the development of appropriate prevention policies.

Prospective, Observational, Multicenter, Real-World Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Pattern of Use of the Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Diabetic Macular Edema in France: Short-Term Outcomes of LOUVRE 3.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate real-world efficacy, safety, and treatment patterns with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in diabetic macular edema (DME) in France. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, observational, noncomparative, post-reimbursement study, consecutively enrolled patients with DME had a baseline evaluation on day 0. Those treated with DEX on day 0 were to be reevaluated at week 6 and months 6, 12, 18, and 24. DEX retreatment and/or alternative therapies were allowed during follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the maximum best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain from baseline during follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included time to maximum BCVA gain, patients (%) with prespecified BCVA gains from baseline at each visit, maximum central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction from baseline, patients (%) with CRT reduction ≥ 20% from baseline at each visit, patients (%) with DME resolution (per investigator judgement), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Of 112 patients/eyes with DME for 3.5 years (mean) at baseline, 80 (including 86.1% previously treated) received DEX on day 0 and were analyzed for efficacy. Early study termination precluded collection of ≥ 12-month efficacy data. Patients received 1.4 DEX injections over 8.3 months (averages). The maximum BCVA gain from baseline was 3.6 letters, reached after 77.2 days (averages); 24.6% (week 6) and 15.0% (month 6) of patients experienced ≥ 10-letter BCVA gains from baseline. The mean maximum CRT reduction from baseline was -146.4 µm; 61.4% (week 6) and 36.0% (month 6) of patients had CRT reductions ≥ 20% from baseline, and 68.1% reported DME resolution at least once during follow-up. Ocular hypertension (n = 8, 12.1%) was the most frequent treatment-related AE. CONCLUSIONS: LOUVRE 3 confirmed that DEX improves BCVA and CRT, even in a patient population that had predominantly received DEX before enrollment in the study, and showed that DME resolution was observed during follow-up. DEX tolerability was consistent with published data, supporting treatment benefits in DME. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03003416.

Costs comparison of treating diabetic macular edema with aflibercept, ranibizumab or dexamethasone at 1 year in France (INVICOST study).

PURPOSE: INVICOST, a medico-economic analysis, compared costs of managing treatment-naive patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) receiving intravitreal injections (IVIs) of aflibercept (AFL), dexamethasone implant (DXI) or ranibizumab (RAN) over 1 year. METHODS: Healthcare resource use and associated costs were estimated using individual patient data from INVICTUS, a prospective, open-label, monocentric study. Healthcare costs comprised direct medical costs such as drug acquisition and administration, consultations and ophthalmological procedures. Costs were assessed from the French National Health Insurance perspective using published national tariffs expressed in 2019 euros. RESULTS: Of the 60 treated eyes, 48 had no treatment switch; 14 received AFL, 19 received DXI and 15 received RAN. AFL-treated eyes received an average of 6.5 IVIs, DXI-treated patients received 2 IVIs and RAN-treated received 6.8 IVIs. All treated eyes received an initial prescription for adjunctive ocular medications and 349 follow-up procedures were performed including an average of 3.9 optical coherence tomography and 3.2 retinography procedures per eye. Average total direct cost of per-eye treatment was €4516 (€1128-€8257). Average cost was €5782 for eyes treated with AFL, €2779 with DXI and €5536 with RAN. Drug therapy was the cost driver: €4394 (76%) for AFL, €1915 for DXI (69%) and €4268 (77%) for RAN. CONCLUSION: The difference in total treatment cost is largely explained by the significantly lower frequency of IVI and annual cost of therapy with DXI, compared with AFL and RAN. INVICOST is the first study comparing treatment costs with AFL, DXI and RAN in France in current clinical practice.

Real-Life Efficacy, Safety, and Use of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Posterior Segment Inflammation Due to Non-infectious Uveitis (LOUVRE 2 Study).

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate real-life efficacy, safety, and treatment patterns with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis (treatment-naïve or not) in French clinics. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, observational, non-comparative, post-reimbursement study, consecutive patients with posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis were enrolled and evaluated at baseline (day 0). Those who received DEX on day 0 were re-evaluated at months 2, 6, and 18. Retreatment with DEX and/or alternative therapies was allowed during follow-up. PRIMARY OUTCOME: patients (%) with at least a 15-letter gain in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 2 months. Secondary outcomes included patients (%) with at least 15-letter BCVA gains at 6 and 18 months; mean BCVA change from baseline at 2, 6, and 18 months; and patients (%) retreated, mean central retinal thickness (CRT), and adverse events (AEs) at all post-baseline visits. RESULTS: Ninety-seven of 245 enrolled patients with posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis (80% previously treated) and disease duration of 5 years (average) received DEX on day 0 and were included in efficacy analyses. At month 2 (n = 91), 20.5% of patients (95% CI 12.0-28.9) gained at least 15 letters from a baseline mean of 60.9 letters; the mean gain was 6.2 letters (95% CI 3.5-8.9). At month 6, 50.0% (n = 38/76) of patients did not receive alternative treatment or DEX retreatment, mostly because inflammation had sufficiently subsided (n = 27/38, 71.1%). Although early study termination prevented efficacy analysis at 18 months (n = 12), CRT reductions persisted throughout follow-up. From baseline to month 18, 21/245 (8.6%) patients had DEX-related AEs; 17/245 (6.9%) had ocular hypertension (most common AE). CONCLUSION: LOUVRE 2 confirms DEX efficacy on visual acuity and CRT in predominantly DEX-pretreated patients with relatively old/stabilized uveitis. DEX tolerability was consistent with known/published data, confirming treatment benefits in posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02951975.

Real-life management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in France: a nationwide observational study using retrospective claims data.

AIMS: Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy is standard care for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), but the recommended monthly injection regimen is burdensome. Evidence suggests low injection/monitoring frequencies in clinical practice and suboptimal vision outcomes. This observational cohort study uses administrative claims data from the French national healthcare system to assess anti-VEGF treatment patterns and nAMD-specific healthcare resource demands and costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: nAMD patients ≥50 years initiating intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept or bevacizumab treatment (2014‒2015), and propensity score-matched non-nAMD patients (controls), were identified from the Echantillon Généraliste de Bénéficiaires database. Outcomes of interest included anti-VEGF treatment patterns, and healthcare resource utilization and associated costs of patients vis-à-vis controls over 24 months. RESULTS: Study patients (n = 355) received (mean) 5.2 and 2.4 anti-VEGF injections over 0‒12 and 12‒24 months, respectively. Most patients (79.0%) remained on their initial anti-VEGF agent; among treatment switchers, the most common transition was from ranibizumab to aflibercept. During follow-up, nAMD patients were more likely than controls to require ophthalmology visits (99.7% vs. 44.8%), ocular procedures (optical coherence tomography/angiography/fundoscopy) (96.9% vs. 27.2%), cataract surgery (13.0% vs. 6.7%), and medical transports (38.0% vs. 31.9%). Mean numbers of ophthalmology visits (25.1 vs. 1.2) and medical transports (6.0 vs. 3.5) were higher (p<.01) among nAMD patients. Total reimbursed costs were two-fold higher for nAMD patients than controls (mean €16,799 vs. €8,255) due to higher treatment costs (€6,847 vs. €1,156), medical fees (€1,858 vs. €295), hospital fees (€6,396 vs. €5,235), and transport costs (€358 vs. €259). Excess total healthcare cost was (mean) €5,279 and €7,918 over the first 12 and 24 months of treatment, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment and monitoring requirements place a considerable economic burden on the French healthcare system. New intravitreal therapies with extended dosing intervals and predictable efficacy might reduce demand for ophthalmology services.

Economic burden of resected (stage IB-IIIA) non-small cell lung cancer in France, Germany and the United Kingdom: A retrospective observational study (LuCaBIS).

OBJECTIVES: New adjuvant treatments are being developed for patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Due to scarcity of real-world data available for treatment costs and resource utilization, health technology and cost-effectiveness assessments can be limited. We estimated the burden and cost-of-illness associated with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC in France, Germany and the United Kingdom (UK). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC between August 2009 and July 2012. Patients (living or deceased) were enrolled at clinical sites by a systematic sampling method. Data were obtained from medical records and patient surveys. Direct, indirect and patient out-of-pocket expenses were estimated by multiplying resource use by country-specific unit costs. National annual costs were estimated based on disease prevalence data available from published sources. RESULTS: 39 centers provided data from 831 patients of whom patient surveys were evaluable in 306 patients. Median follow-up was 26 months. The mean total direct costs per patient during follow-up were: €19,057 (France), €14,185 (Germany), and €8377 (UK). The largest cost drivers were associated with therapies received (€12,375 France; €3694 UK), and hospitalization/emergency costs (€7706 Germany). Monthly direct costs per patient were the highest during the distant metastasis/terminal illness phase in France (€15,562) and Germany (€6047) and during the adjuvant treatment period in the UK (€2790). Estimated mean total indirect costs per patient were: €696 (France), €2476 (Germany), and €1414 (UK). Estimates for the annual national direct cost were €478.4 million (France), €574.6 million (Germany) and €325.8 million (UK). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study describing the burden of illness for patients with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. The economic burden was substantial in all three countries. Treatment of NSCLC is associated with large annual national costs, mainly incurred during disease progression.

Adjuvant treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom based on the LuCaBIS burden of illness study.

OBJECTIVES: To inform health-technology assessments of new adjuvant treatments, we describe treatment patterns in patients with complete resection of stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected via medical record abstraction. Patients were aged ≥18 years with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, diagnosed between 01 January 2009 and 31 December 2011. Median follow-up was 26 months. Adjuvant treatment patterns and clinical outcomes were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Among the 831 patients studied, 239 (29%) had stage IB disease, 179 (22%) had stage IIA disease, 165 (20%) had stage IIB disease, and 248 (30%) had stage IIIA disease. Adjuvant systemic therapy was received by 402 patients (48.4%), (France, 61.8%; Germany, 51.9%; UK, 33.4%). Use of adjuvant therapy increased with increasing stage of disease. Cisplatin/vinorelbine and carboplatin/vinorelbine were the most frequently prescribed adjuvant regimens. Median disease-free survival was 48.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 42.3-not estimable); the 25th percentile was 13.2 months (95% CI, 11.0-15.3). 204 patients (24%) died during the follow-up period. The median overall survival was not reached, the 25th percentile was 31.2 months (95% CI 26.8-36.0 months). 272 patients (33%) had disease recurrence during the follow-up period. For 86 of those patients, the first recurrence was local or regional with no distant metastasis and 14 had further progression to metastatic disease during the follow-up time. For the other 186 patients, the first recurrence involved distant metastases. A total of 200 patients had metastatic disease at any time during study follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half the patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC in this observational study received adjuvant systemic therapy. A high rate of first recurrence with distant metastatic disease was observed, emphasising the need for more effective systemic adjuvant therapies in this population.

Economic burden of advanced melanoma in France, Germany and the UK: a retrospective observational study (Melanoma Burden-of-Illness Study).

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-of-illness associated with completely resected stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement, overall and by disease phase, in France, Germany and the UK. This retrospective observational study included patients aged older than or equal to 18 years first diagnosed with stage IIIB/IIIC cutaneous melanoma between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011. Data were obtained from medical records and a patient survey. Direct costs, indirect costs and patient out-of-pocket expenses were estimated in euros (€) (and British pounds, £) by collecting resource use and multiplying by country-specific unit costs. National annual costs were estimated using national disease prevalence from the European cancer registry and other published data. Forty-nine centres provided data on 558 patients (58.2% aged <65 years, 53.6% stage IIIB disease at diagnosis). The mean follow-up duration was 27 months (France), 26 months (Germany) and 22 months (UK). The mean total direct cost per patient during follow-up was €23 582 in France, €32 058 in Germany and €37 970 (£31 123) in the UK. The largest cost drivers were melanoma drugs [mean €14 004, €21 269, €29 750 (£24 385), respectively] and hospitalization/emergency treatment [mean: €6634, €6950, €3449 (£2827), respectively]. The total mean indirect costs per patient were €129 (France), €4,441 (Germany) and €1712 (£1427) (UK). Estimates for annual national direct cost were €13.1 million (France), €30.2 million (Germany) and €27.8 (£22.8) million (UK). The economic burden of stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement was substantial in all three countries. Total direct costs were the highest during the period with distant metastasis/terminal illness.

In-Hospital Economic Burden of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in France in the Era of Targeted Therapies: Analysis of the French National Hospital Database from 2008 to 2013.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the economic burden of hospitalisations for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), to describe the patterns of prescribing expensive drugs and to explore the impact of geographic and socio-demographic factors on the use of these drugs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis from the French national hospitals database. Hospital stays for mRCC between 2008 and 2013 were identified by combining the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes for renal cell carcinoma (C64) and codes for metastases (C77 to C79). Incident cases were identified out of all hospital stays and followed till December 2013. Descriptive analyses were performed with a focus on hospital stays and patient characteristics. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the French National Health Insurance and were obtained from official diagnosis-related group tariffs for public and private hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 15,752 adult patients were hospitalised for mRCC, corresponding to 102,613 hospital stays. Of those patients, 68% were men and the median age at first hospitalisation was 69 years [Min-Max: 18-102]. Over the study period, the hospital mortality rate reached 37%. The annual cost of managing mRCC at hospital varied between 28M€ in 2008 and 42M€ in 2012 and was mainly driven by inpatient costs. The mean annual per capita cost of hospital management of mRCC varied across the study period from 8,993€ (SD: €8,906) in 2008 to 10,216€ (SD: €10,527) in 2012. Analysis of the determinants of prescribing expensive drugs at hospital did not show social or territorial differences in the use of these drugs. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to investigate the in-hospital economic burden of mRCC in France. Results showed that in-hospital costs of managing mRCC are mainly driven by expensive drugs and inpatient costs.

Cost and economic burden of adverse events associated with metastatic melanoma treatments in five countries.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate per-event cost and economic burden associated with managing the most common and/or severe metastatic melanoma (MM) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK. METHODS: AEs associated with chemotherapy (dacarbazine, paclitaxel, fotemustine), immunotherapy (ipilimumab), and targeted therapy (vemurafenib) were identified by literature review. Medical resource use data associated with managing AEs were collected through two blinded Delphi panel cycles in each of the five countries. Published costs were used to estimate per-event costs and combined with AEs incidence, treatment usage, and MM prevalence to estimate the economic burden for each country. RESULTS: The costliest AEs were grade 3/4 events due to immunotherapy (Australia/France: colitis; UK: diarrhea) and chemotherapy (Germany/Italy: neutropenia/leukopenia). Treatment of AEs specific to chemotherapy (Australia/Germany/Italy/France: neutropenia/leukopenia) and targeted therapy (UK: squamous cell carcinoma) contributed heavily to country-specific economic burden. LIMITATIONS: Economic burden was estimated assuming that each patient experienced an AE only once. In addition, the context of settings was heterogeneous and the number of Delphi panel experts was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Management costs for MM treatment-associated AEs can be substantial. Results could be incorporated in economic models that support reimbursement dossiers. With the availability of newer treatments, establishment of a baseline measure of the economic burden of AEs will be crucial for assessing their impact on patients and regional healthcare systems.

Burden of Illness in Prostate Cancer Patients with a Low-to-Moderate Risk of Progression: A One-Year, Pan-European Observational Study.

Objective. To assess the impact of low-to-moderate risk prostate cancer on patients' quality of life (QoL) at diagnosis and within the first year of treatment. Subjects and Methods. Men (n = 672) aged 50-75 years with prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤7, PSA ≤20 ng/mL and clinical staging T1c-T2b) were enrolled in five European countries. Patients completed five questionnaires, including EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Prostate Cancer 25 (QLQ-PR25) and EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (QLQ-C30). Questionnaires were completed at baseline, at 3 months and 12 months after starting treatment. The primary endpoint was the change in QLQ-PR25 urinary symptoms subscale score from baseline to the assessment at 3 months. Results. Mean (SD) age was 65.0 (5.7) years and 400 (66%) men had Gleason score ≤6 prostate cancer. The most frequently used initial treatment was radical prostatectomy (71% of patients). QLQ-PR25 urinary symptoms subscale score was significantly increased at 3 months (P < 0.001), indicating that urinary symptoms worsened after treatment. The score was lower at 12 months than at 3 months, but it was still significantly higher than at baseline (P < 0.001). Hormonal treatment-related symptoms, sexual functioning, and sexual activity scores significantly worsened at 3 and 12 months (all P < 0.001). For the QLQ-C30 questionnaire, global health status/QoL score significantly decreased at month 3 but was not different from baseline by month 12. Scales for physical, role, and social functioning, and fatigue, showed significant deterioration at 3 and 12 months. Conclusions. Low-to-moderate risk prostate cancer may have a substantial effect on patients' QoL within one year following treatment.

Budget impact analysis of the use of oral and intravenous anti-cancer drugs for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Two anti-cancer drugs are currently approved for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC): trastuzumab-based therapy (TBT) administered intravenously as first line therapy until disease progression and lapatinib, an oral self-administered dual therapy with capecitabine (L+C) as second intention for patients who continue to progress despite TBT. In current practice, TBT is still prescribed beyond disease progression. In addition to medical reasons, the difficulty to switch eligible patients to oral drugs may also be explained by economic reasons. Thus, we aimed at comparing the budgetary impact of TBT and L+C for progressing HER2+MBC after TBT from the French Health Insurance perspective. METHODS: A budget impact analysis was performed on a 3-year time horizon (2012-2014) to simulate a dynamic cohort of 4182 HER2-positive patients with a progressing MBC treated with TBT (73%) and L + C (27%). The model was adjusted on progression-free survival (PFS). Office visits, clinical evaluations, drug acquisition, administration costs, and transportation costs obtained from the literature and published databases were considered. RESULTS: In the base case analysis (2012), the annual treatment cost per patient for TBT (€36,077) was 2-times higher than that of L + C (€17,165). Using L + C for all patients (n = 4182) would avoid €34.8 million of drug administration and transportation costs. Hospital costs represented 1% vs 88%, while community costs represented 99% vs 12% of L + C and TBT treatment costs, respectively. The lack of direct comparison PFS and treatment dosage modification data were the main limitations. However, no major changes from baseline results were observed from sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a slightly higher acquisition cost, the treatment cost of L + C remains lower than that of TBT, and it is the only approved anti-HER2 treatment for HER2-positive patients with progressing MBC. Based on this, it seems important to consider the potential savings for Health Insurance with the use of oral drug due to the reduction of outpatient hospitalizations. Such reductions may result in a subsequent budget reduction for hospitals, but may also provide those facing acute medical activity with opportunities to better manage other diseases whose treatment cannot be externalized.

Physicians' preferences for prescribing oral and intravenous anticancer drugs: a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Although efficacy and tolerability are classical criteria for treatment choice, patient adherence and tariff issues related to novel oral anticancer drugs may also influence therapeutic decisions. We estimated the relative influence of efficacy, tolerability, expected adherence and route of administration of a chemotherapy treatment on 203 French physicians' preferences who participated in a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE), a quantitative method used to elicit preferences. From a questionnaire with six scenarii, respondents had to choose between two treatments which differed with respect to these four attributes. Scenarii were first presented in a curative setting then in a palliative setting. Efficacy, tolerability and expected adherence had two modalities (good versus moderate) and route of administration had three modalities (intravenous (€286-379/session), oral with the current tariff (€28/consultation), oral with a hypothetical tariff (€114)). Efficacy was the reference criterion in choosing a treatment whatever the therapeutic goal (ß: 2.114, p<0.0001 in curative setting versus ß: 1.063, p<0.0001 in palliative setting). The oral route of administration was important but only in a palliative setting (ß: 0.612, p=0.035, and ß: 0.506, p<0.0001 for the current and hypothetical tariff, respectively). Removing the efficacy attribute from logistic regression model, tolerability (ß: 1.228, p=0.0001) and expected adherence (ß: 1.223, p=0.0001) were influent in curative setting while the route of administration was still predominant in palliative setting (ß: 0.431, p<0.0001). Results suggest that economic considerations as well as therapeutic efficacy play a significant role in choosing a treatment. Preference for oral chemotherapy with a hypothetical tariff for a patient support programme should be considered for the development of therapeutic education and healthcare coordination, currently not taken into account in the tariff of oral chemotherapy.