Trends in treatment patterns and costs of care among patients with advanced stage cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) do not offer satisfactory clinical benefits, with most patients progressing beyond first-line (1L) treatment. With new treatments under investigation, understanding current treatment patterns, the impact of newly approved therapies, and total costs of care for r/mCC are important. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a US commercial insurance claims database to identify adult patients with r/mCC between 2015 and Q1-2020; defining 1L treatment as the first administration of systemic treatment without concomitant chemoradiation or surgery. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, duration of therapy, and total costs of care were evaluated for each line of therapy. RESULTS: 1323 women initiated 1L treatment for r/mCC (mean age, 56.1 years; mean follow-up, 16.5 months). One-third (n = 438) had evidence of second-line (2L) treatment; of these, 129 (29%) had evidence of third-line (3L) treatment. No regimen represented a majority among 2L+ treatments. The 2018 approval of pembrolizumab led to increased 2L immunotherapy use (0% in 2015, 37% in 2019/Q1-2020). However, only a small proportion of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period. Mean per-patient-per-month total costs of care during treatment were $47,387 (1L), $77,661 (2L), and $53,609 (3L), driven primarily by outpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: No clear standard of care was observed in 2L+. Although immunotherapy is increasingly used in 2L+, only a small subset of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period, suggesting a need for more therapeutic options. Better understanding of disease biology and the introduction of new therapies may address these unmet needs.

Key learnings from Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's real-world evidence reassessment pilot.

Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are considering adopting a lifecycle approach to assessments to address uncertainties in the evidence base at launch and to revisit the clinical and economic value of therapies in a dynamic clinical landscape. For reassessments of therapies post launch, HTA agencies are looking to real-world evidence (RWE) to enhance the clinical and economic evidence base, though challenges and concerns in using RWE in decision-making exists. Stakeholders are embarking on demonstration projects to address the challenges and concerns and to further define when and how RWE can be used in HTA decision making. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review piloted a 24-month observational RWE reassessment. Key learnings from this pilot include identifying the benefits and challenges with using RWE in reassessments and considerations on prioritizing and selecting topics relevant for RWE updates.

Are Drugs Priced in Accordance With Value? A Comparison of Value-Based and Net Prices Using Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Reports.

OBJECTIVES: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent organization that reviews drugs and devices with a focus on emerging agents. As part of their evaluation, ICER estimates value-based prices (VBP) at $50 000 to $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained thresholds. We compared actual estimated net prices to ICER-estimated VBPs. METHODS: We reviewed ICER final evidence reports from November 2007 to October 2020. List prices were combined with average discounts obtained from SSR Health to estimate net prices. If a drug had been evaluated more than once for the same indication, only the more recent VBP was included. RESULTS: A total of 34 ICER reports provided unique VBPs for 102 drugs. The net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100 000 per QALY VBP and 71% exceeded the $150 000 per QALY VBP. The median change in net price needed to reach the $150 000 per QALY VBP was a 36% reduction. The median decrease in net price needed was highest for drugs targeting rare inherited disorders (n = 15; 62%) and lowest for cardiometabolic disorders (n = 6; 162% price increase). The reduction in net prices needed to reach ICER-estimated VBPs was higher for drugs evaluated for the first approved indication, rare diseases, less competitive markets, and if the drug approval occurred before the ICER report became available. CONCLUSION: Net prices are often above VBPs estimated by ICER. Although gaining awareness among decision makers, the long-term impact of ICER evaluations on pricing and access to new drugs continues to evolve.

Real-world economic impact of onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the utilization of healthcare resources is reduced after chronic migraine patients are treated for 6 months with onabotulinumtoxinA. BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA is indicated for headache prophylaxis in patients with chronic migraine, but its effect on healthcare resource use is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed data from an open-label study of 230 chronic migraine patients refractory to ≥2 oral prophylactics who presented to a headache specialty clinic and who were treated with two cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA. Frequency and cost of migraine-related healthcare resource use, including visits to emergency departments, urgent care, or hospitalization, were compared for the 6 months before and after initial treatment. Costs were based on publicly available sources. RESULTS: Compared with the 6 months predating initial treatment, patients had 55% fewer emergency department visits (174 vs 385), 59% fewer urgent care visits (61 vs 150), and 57% fewer hospitalizations (19 vs 45) during the 6-month treatment period (P < .01 for all). Analysis of treatment-related costs yielded an average reduction of $1219.33/patient, off-setting 49.7% of the total estimated cost for 6 months of treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSIONS: Although we are unable to distinguish onabotulinumtoxinA's treatment effect from other potential confounding variables, our analysis showed that severely afflicted, treatment-refractory patients with chronic migraine experienced a significant cost-offset through reduced migraine-related emergency department visits, urgent care visits, and hospitalizations in the 6 months following treatment initiation of onabotulinumtoxinA. Future analyses will assess the longer-term effect of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment and the potential contribution of regression to the mean.

Treatment persistence and switching in triptan users: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate persistence to and switching of triptan therapy for the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Migraine affects over 12% of adults in Western countries and an estimated 36 million people in the United States. Triptans are an abortive treatment option in patients with moderate to severe migraine. Despite the safety and efficacy of triptans reported in clinical trials, observational studies have consistently demonstrated low persistence to therapy and frequent switching among products over time. METHODS: The following databases were researched: Medline, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified a priori before conducting abstract and full-text screening. Included studies were required to: (1) report triptan use for migraine treatment; (2) report measures of persistence and/or switching patterns; (3) study migraineurs aged 18 years or older; and (4) conduct an observational study. Studies were excluded if they (1) incorporated interventional study design; (2) lack information or relevance to outcome of interest; (3) were not original research; (4) did not clearly state the results; and (5) were not written in English. Abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed independently by two investigators. RESULTS: Out of 595 studies identified, 380 studies were included for abstract screening. A total of 12 articles met the eligibility criteria after full-text screening of 44 studies, including four studies from reference search. The proportion of patients that remained persistent up to six refills of an index triptan ranged from 3.2% to 12.6% and the proportion of patients that never refilled their index triptan ranged from 38% to 65.8%. In addition to those patients who discontinued, several studies reported that 5-9% of newly initiating triptan users switch to a different triptan before refilling their original medication. Finally, several studies reported the 1-year probability of discontinuation among a general group of triptan users (not limited to treatment naïve patients) to be between 30% and 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Triptans can be a valuable option for acute treatment of migraine. However, studies have shown that treatment persistence is low. This, along with frequent switching behaviors, suggests that a significant unmet clinical need remains despite the wide availability of triptans.

Validation of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) in patients with chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: The Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 was developed and has been validated in patients with various types of headache. The objective of this study was to report the psychometric properties of the HIT-6 among patients with chronic migraine. METHODS: Data came from two international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of chronic migraine patients (N = 1,384) undergoing prophylaxis therapy. Confirmatory factor analysis and differential item functioning (DIF) analysis were used to test the latent structure and cross-cultural comparability of the HIT-6. Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness were assessed. Two sets of criterion groups were used: (1) 28-day headache frequency: <10, 10-14, and ≥15 days; (2) sample quartiles of the total cumulative hours of headache: <140, 140 to <280, 280 to <420, and ≥420 hours. Two sets of responsiveness categories were defined as reduction of <30%, 30% to <50%, or ≥50% in (1) number of headache days and (2) cumulative hours of headache. RESULTS: Measurement invariance tests supported the stability of the HIT-6 latent structure across studies. DIF analysis supported cross-cultural comparability. Good reliability was observed across studies (Cronbach's α: 0.75-0.92; intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.76-0.80). HIT-6 scores correlated strongly (-0.86 to -0.59) with scores of the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Analysis of variance indicated that HIT-6 scores discriminated across both types of criterion groups (P<0.001), across studies and time points. HIT-6 change scores were significantly higher in magnitude in groups experiencing greater improvement (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: All measurement properties were consistently verified across the two studies, supporting the validity of the HIT-6 among chronic migraine patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00156910 and NCT00168428 on www.ClinicalTrials.gov.

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of HER2 amplification, overexpression, and positivity in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death globally. Recent clinical trials suggest an emerging role for HER2 as a potential clinically relevant biomarker in CRC. Testing for HER2 in CRC is not standard practice; consequently, the prevalence of HER2 positivity (HER2+) in patients with CRC remains uncertain. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted to generate estimates of proportions of patients with CRC with HER2 overexpression or HER2 amplification and HER2+ (either overexpression or amplification), overall and in patients with rat sarcoma virus (RAS) wild-type cancer. HER2+ was defined as 1) immunohistochemistry with a score of 3+, 2) immunohistochemistry with a score of 2+ and in situ hybridization+, or 3) next-generation sequencing positive. RESULTS: Of 224 studies identified with information on HER2 in CRC, 52 studies used a US Food and Drug Administration-approved assay and were selected for further analysis. Estimated HER2+ rate was 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 5.0%) overall (n = 17 589). HER2+ rates were statistically higher in RAS wild-type (6.1%, 95% CI = 5.4% to 6.9%) vs RAS mutant CRC (1.1%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 4.4%; P < .0001). Despite limited clinical information, we confirmed enrichment of HER2+ CRC in patients with microsatellite stable and left-sided CRC. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis provides an estimate of HER2+ CRC and confirms enrichment of HER2 in microsatellite stable, left-sided, RAS wild-type CRC tumors. Our work is important given the recently described clinical efficacy of HER2-targeted therapies in HER2+ CRC and informs strategies for incorporation of HER2 testing into standard of care.

Development of stakeholder-informed recommendations for inclusion of family spillover effects in health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: The impacts of disease and treatment on a patient's family members and informal caregivers are known as "family spillover effects." Although many formal value frameworks call for the consideration of these effects, they are often not included in health technology assessments (HTAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). A formal evaluation of stakeholder perspectives may help address the disconnect for inclusion of family spillover effects observed in practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop stakeholder-driven recommendations for the measurement and use of family spillover effects in the United States and to identify research opportunities. METHODS: We first conducted a targeted literature review of US-based CEAs and HTA reports from the past 10 years to assess the current use of family spillover effects. We then used a purposeful sampling technique to conduct 25 qualitative interviews with outcomes researchers, patient advocates, health economists, and health policy and payer experts to gather perspectives on when and how family spillover effects should be considered in HTA processes. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts to identify key themes and develop preliminary recommendations. Finally, we conducted an online workshop with 8 stakeholders to discuss, rate, and refine preliminary recommendations to develop final recommendations. RESULTS: A key theme identified in the stakeholder interviews was the role that data availability, analyst preferences, and prior precedence play in limiting the inclusion of spillover effects in HTAs. Additional themes included support for the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative spillover effects and the need to capture broad and diverse impacts across populations. We developed 15 recommendations from the consensus building workshop addressing measurement, CEA modeling, and HTA processes. Key recommendations included (1) a transparent process for deciding when family spillover effects should be included, (2) measurement of direct and indirect costs with priority based on the magnitude of impact, (3) the use of validated measures, (4) the use of proxy information and expert elicitation when quality data are unavailable, and (5) the use of a modified impact inventory table for transparency of included effects. Research opportunities included patient involvement in family spillover effect research and HTAs, mapping algorithms and non-preference-based caregiver measures to generate utilities, and consensus best practices for modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The inconsistent inclusion of family spillover effects in HTAs and CEAs remains a persistent challenge. The stakeholder-driven recommendations and research opportunities identified in this study may help improve the transparency, measurement, and use of family spillover effects in assessing the clinical and economic value of novel medical technologies.

Headache-related health resource utilisation in chronic and episodic migraine across six countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe headache-related health resource usage in chronic and episodic migraine across six countries. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire eliciting data on several topics, including health resource usage, was administered to panellists with migraine from the USA, Canada, UK, Germany, France and Australia. Respondents were grouped into episodic and chronic migraine, based on reported headache phenotype and headache-day frequency. ORs were calculated, comparing usage in each country to that in the US, controlling for chronic versus episodic migraine and other factors. RESULTS: Relative to the USA, the odds of visiting a provider for headache during the preceding 3 months were significantly higher in all countries, except Germany. Respondents in France were more likely to report having a provider they typically visited for headache-related care. The odds of visiting the emergency department for headache were significantly lower in France, the UK and Germany, and hospitalisation for headache was significantly more frequent in Canada and Australia. Respondents from all countries, except Canada, were more likely to report currently using a prescription-acute treatment, and those from France were more likely to report trying more than three acute treatments. Preventive treatment use did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Headache-related resource usage differed significantly between the USA and other countries. US respondents were generally less likely to report recent provider visits and use of prescription-acute treatments. They were more likely to report emergency department visits than in European countries, but less likely to report hospitalisation than in Canada and Australia.

Patterns of use and reasons for discontinuation of prophylactic medications for episodic migraine and chronic migraine: results from the second international burden of migraine study (IBMS-II).

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to characterize patterns of preventive medication use in persons with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). BACKGROUND: Several classes of medications are used both on- and off-label for the prevention of migraine, including ß-blockers (eg, propranolol, timolol), tricyclic antidepressants (eg, amitriptyline), anti-epileptic drugs (eg, topiramate, valproic acid), and neurotoxins (eg, onabotulinumtoxinA). METHODS: Preventive medication use and reasons for discontinuation were collected in an international, Web-based, cross-sectional survey of adults with migraine during 2010. Descriptive analyses were conducted on demographics and headache-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, stratified by use of preventive medication, and EM or CM. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to assess predictors of preventive medication use. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and sixty-five respondents completed the survey. Only 28.3% of EM and 44.8% of CM respondents were currently using preventive medication; any use of prophylaxis (prior or current) was reported by 43.4% of those with EM and 65.9% with CM. The mean number of prophylactic medications ever used was 2.92 for EM and 3.94 for CM. Antidepressants were used most frequently (EM 60.9%; CM 54.7%), followed by ß-blockers (EM 35.4%; CM 36.8%) and anti-epileptics (EM 28.6%; CM 36.3%). Odds of preventive medication use were higher among CM than EM, adjusting for age, gender, race, years of daily headache, and country (odds ratio 2.72; 95% confidence interval 2.15 to 3.57). Greater headache-related disability and older age were also associated with greater odds of ever having used prophylaxis, regardless of headache frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half the persons with EM and CM were currently using preventive medication for migraine, with treatment rates being higher for CM, as expected. Those with CM tried more medications than those with EM, possibly reflecting higher levels of treatment need.

The psychometric properties of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) in chronic migraine patients.

OBJECTIVE: The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) has been shown to have good psychometric performance in measuring headache impact in migraine patients, but its properties specifically in chronic migraine (CM) patients are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MSQ in a group of CM patients undergoing prophylactic treatment. METHODS: Measurement properties of the MSQ were examined using two international, multicenter, randomized clinical trials evaluating onabotulinumtoxinA as headache prophylaxis in CM patients (N = 1,376). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the latent structure of the MSQ in CM patients. The reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness of the MSQ were assessed. RESULTS: CFA confirmed the currently proposed three-factor MSQ latent structure across the two studies. Good reliability was observed for all three MSQ scales, across studies and time points. MSQ scale scores strongly correlated with the scores of the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Analysis of known-groups validity indicated that MSQ scale scores discriminated between groups of patients differing in their 28-day headache frequency were as follows <10, 10-14, and ≥ 15 days, and the sample-derived quartiles of the total cumulative hours of headache were as follows <140, 140 to <280, 280 to <420, and ≥ 420 h (p < 0.0001), across both studies and time points. MSQ change scores were higher in magnitude in groups experiencing greater decline in headache frequency (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The MSQ is a psychometrically valid tool that can be used to reliably measure the impact of migraine among CM patients.

Total healthcare cost savings through improved bipolar I disorder identification using the Rapid Mood Screener in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Misdiagnosis of bipolar I disorder (BP-I) as major depressive disorder (MDD) leads to increased healthcare resource utilization and costs. The cost-effectiveness of the Rapid Mood Screener (RMS), a tool to identify BP-I in patients with depressive symptoms, was assessed in patients diagnosed with MDD presenting with depressive episodes. METHODS: A decision-tree model of a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients in a US health plan was used to estimate the number of correct diagnoses and overall total, direct healthcare costs over a 3-year timeframe for RMS-screened versus unscreened patients. Model inputs included the prevalence of BP-I in patients diagnosed with MDD, RMS sensitivity/specificity, and the cost of misdiagnosing BP-I as MDD. RESULTS: Screening with the RMS resulted in 171, 159, and 143 additional correct BP-I or MDD diagnoses at Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Total healthcare plan cost savings were $1279 per patient in Year 1. Cumulative cost savings per patient for RMS screening versus no RMS screening were $2307 over 2 years and $3011 over 3 years. Scenario analyses showed that the RMS would remain cost-saving assuming a lower prevalence of BP-I (20% or 10%) versus the base case (24.3%). CONCLUSION: The RMS is a cost-effective tool to identify BP-I in patients who would otherwise be misdiagnosed with MDD. Screening with the RMS resulted in cost-savings over 3 years, with model results remaining robust even with lower prevalence of BP-I and reduced RMS sensitivity assumptions.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with post-stroke spasticity before and after spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxina.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data regarding the impact of onabotulinumtoxinA on healthcare resource utilization and costs for post-stroke spasticity are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in 12-month healthcare resource utilization and costs before and after post-stroke spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxinA. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis of IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases included adults with ≥ 1 onabotulinumtoxinA claim for post-stroke spasticity (1 January 2010 to 30 June 2018) and continuous enrolment for ≥ 12 months pre- and post-index (first onabotulinumtoxinA claim date). All-cause and spasticity-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared 12 months pre- and post-index (McNemar's χ2 test or paired t-test). A subgroup analysis assessed effect of stroke-to-index interval on costs. RESULTS: Among 735 patients, mean (standard deviation) stroke-date-to-index-date interval was 284.5 (198.8) days. Decreases were observed post-index for mean all-cause outpatient (62.9 vs 60.5; p ≤ 0.05) and emergency department visits (1.1 vs 0.8; p ≤ 0.0001), and hospital admissions (1.5 vs 0.4; p ≤ 0.0001). Increase in prescription fills (43.0 vs 53.7) was seen post-index. Post-index decreases in all-cause (-66%) and spasticity-related (-51%) costs were driven by reduced inpatient care costs. Findings were consistent regardless of stroke-date-to-index-date interval. CONCLUSION: Significant reductions in healthcare resource utilization and costs were observed after 1 year of post-stroke spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxinA. Long-term studies are needed to establish causality.

Impact of Ruxolitinib Cream on Work Productivity and Activity Impairment and Associated Indirect Costs in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: Pooled Results From Two Phase III Studies.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that can negatively impact work productivity and daily activities. Ruxolitinib cream, a Janus kinase inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with atopic dermatitis in two phase III studies (TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2). OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis sought to describe the effects of ruxolitinib cream on work productivity and activity impairment from pooled data from the phase III studies, to estimate indirect costs due to atopic dermatitis, and to estimate the incremental cost savings with ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle cream. METHODS: Patients in both studies were ≥ 12 years old with atopic dermatitis for ≥ 2 years, an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 2 or 3, and a 3-20% affected body surface area at baseline. Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to receive ruxolitinib cream (0.75% or 1.5%) or vehicle cream for 8 weeks. Patient self-reported productivity in the efficacy-evaluable population was assessed at weeks 2, 4, and 8 using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Specific Health Problem version 2.0. Statistical significance for the two doses versus vehicle was calculated using an analysis of covariance. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment overall work impairment scores were converted to a model of costs per employed patient due to lost productivity and incremental cost savings from ruxolitinib cream treatment using a human capital approach. RESULTS: Of 1249 patients enrolled (median age, 32 years; female sex, 61.7%), 1208 were included in the efficacy-evaluable population. Patients applying 0.75% or 1.5% ruxolitinib cream had significant changes in overall work impairment (- 17.9% [0.75% strength] and - 15.0% [1.5% strength] vs - 5.7% for vehicle; p < 0.0001 for both) and daily activity impairment (- 20.6% [0.75% strength] and - 21.5% [1.5% strength] vs - 10.6% for vehicle; p < 0.0001 for both). These corresponded to estimated lost productivity costs in 2021 US dollars of $1313 (0.75% strength) and $1242 (1.5% strength) versus $2008 (vehicle) over the 8-week trial period. Compared with a patient receiving vehicle, incremental annual indirect cost savings were estimated to be $5302 with 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and $4228 with 1.5% ruxolitinib cream. CONCLUSIONS: Ruxolitinib cream therapy is associated with improved work productivity and daily activity compared with vehicle and is estimated to reduce the indirect cost burden on the patient. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03745638 (registered 19 November, 2018) and NCT03745651 (registered 19 November, 2018).

Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) of First-Line Therapies (1L) for Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (la/mUC).

To compare efficacy outcomes for all approved and investigational first-line (1L) treatment regimens for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with standard of care (SOC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified phase 2 and 3 randomized trials investigating 1L treatment regimens in la/mUC published January 2001-September 2021. Three networks were formed based on cisplatin (cis) eligibility: cis-eligible/mixed (cis-eligible patients and mixed populations of cis-eligible/ineligible patients), cis-ineligible (strict; exclusively cis-ineligible patients), and cis-ineligible (wide; including studies with investigator's choice of carbo). Analyses examined comparative efficacy by hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratio (OR) for overall response rate (ORR), with 1L regimens vs. SOC. SOC was gemcitabine + cis (GemCis) or carboplatin (GemCarbo), cis-eligible/mixed network, and GemCarbo cis-ineligible networks. Of 1906 SLR identified citations, 55 trials were selected for data extraction. The NMA comprised 11, 6, and 8 studies in the cis-eligible/mixed, cis-ineligible (strict), cis-ineligible (wide) networks, respectively. In a meta-analysis of SOC control arms, median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) in months varied by network: 13.19 (12.43, 13.95) cis-eligible/mixed, 11.96 (10.43, 13.48) cis-ineligible (wide), and 9.74 (6.71, 12.76) cis-ineligible (strict). Most differences in OS, PFS, and ORR with treatment regimens across treatment networks were not statistically significant compared with SOC. Outcomes with current 1L regimens remain poor, and few significant improvements over SOC have been made, despite inclusion of recent clinical trial data, highlighting an unmet need in the la/mUC patient population.

Adherence with migraine prophylaxis in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize adherence with antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, and beta blockers as prophylaxis against migraine in typical clinical practice. METHODS: Using a large US health insurance claims database (calendar years 2003 to 2005), we identified all patients with migraine who began prophylaxis with selected antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, or beta blockers ("study agents"). Patients not continuously enrolled for 6 months prior to start of prophylaxis ("pretreatment") and for 6 months subsequently ("follow-up") were excluded. Treatment cohorts were constituted based on the type of prophylaxis received. Adherence with migraine prophylaxis was examined by type of agent received using medication possession ratios (MPRs), defined as total days with medication divided by total follow-up days. MPR < 0.80 was considered indicative of nonadherence. RESULTS: A total of 4,634 patients met all entry criteria and received antidepressants (n = 1,803), antiepileptics (n = 1,896), or beta blockers (n = 935) on their index date. Over the next 6 months, the mean (SD) number of prescriptions for study agents was 2.7 (1.9) for antidepressants, 2.9 (2.0) for antiepileptics, and 2.8 (2.0) for beta blockers, totaling 91.0 (71.4), 98.7 (75.6), and 96.7 (73.0) therapy-days, respectively. Mean MPR at 6 months was 0.48 for antidepressants, 0.51 for antiepileptics, and 0.51 for beta blockers. By the end of the follow-up, 73.4%, 70.2%, and 67.6% of patients who initiated migraine prophylaxis with antidepressants, antiepileptics, and beta blockers, respectively, were designated nonadherent (ie, MPR < 0.80). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that many patients who begin migraine prophylaxis with antidepressants, antiepileptics, or beta blockers are no longer taking these medications at 6 months.

HER2 expression in urothelial carcinoma, a systematic literature review.

Background: Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common malignancy with significant associated mortality. Recent clinical trials suggest an emerging role for HER2-targeted therapy. Testing for HER2 expression in UC is not part of current routine clinical practice. In consequence, the prevalence of HER2 expression in UC is not well defined. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to characterize HER2 expression in both locally advanced unresectable or metastatic (LA/mUC) and earlier stage UC, classified as HER2+, HER2-low, HER2-. HER2+ was defined as an immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 3+ or IHC 2+ and ISH/FISH+. HER2-low was defined as an IHC score of 2+ and ISH/FISH- or IHC 1+. HER2- was defined as an IHC score of 0. Weighted averages were calculated to generate an estimate of the population prevalence. Results: A total of 88 studies were identified, with 45, 30, and 13 studies investigating LA/mUC, earlier stage UC, and mixed stage/unspecified, respectively. The most common assays used were Dako HercepTest and Ventana Pathway anti-HER2/neu (4B5) for IHC to assess HER2 protein expression; Abbott PathVysion HER-2 DNA Probe Kit, FoundationOne CDx, and Guardant360 CDx for assessing HER2 gene amplification. The most frequently cited scoring guidelines were ASCO/CAP guidelines for breast cancer and gastric cancer, though most studies defined their own criteria for HER2 expression. Using the pre-specified definition, HER2+ prevalence ranged from 6.7% to 37.5% with a weighted average of 13.0% in LA/mUC. Only 1 study presented data that could be classified as HER2+ based on pre-specified criteria in earlier stage UC patients, and this study represented a likely outlier, at 76.0%. Conclusion: The results from this SLR help to shed light on HER2 expression in UC, a potentially clinically relevant biomarker-driven subpopulation for emerging HER2-directed regimens. Results of this SLR illuminate the variability in how HER2+ status expression levels are being assessed and how HER2+ is defined. Consensus on standardized HER2 testing and scoring criteria is paramount to better understand the clinical relevance in patients with UC.

Oncology Simulation Model: A Comprehensive and Innovative Approach to Estimate and Project Prevalence and Survival in Oncology.

Objective: We demonstrate a new model framework as an innovative approach to more accurately estimate and project prevalence and survival outcomes in oncology. Methods: We developed an oncology simulation model (OSM) framework that offers a customizable, dynamic simulation model to generate population-level, country-specific estimates of prevalence, incidence of patients progressing from earlier stages (progression-based incidence), and survival in oncology. The framework, a continuous dynamic Markov cohort model, was implemented in Microsoft Excel. The simulation runs continuously through a prespecified calendar time range. Time-varying incidence, treatment patterns, treatment rates, and treatment pathways are specified by year to account for guideline-directed changes in standard of care and real-world trends, as well as newly approved clinical treatments. Patient cohorts transition between defined health states, with transitions informed by progression-free survival and overall survival as reported in published literature. Results: Model outputs include point prevalence and period prevalence, with options for highly granular prevalence predictions by disease stage, treatment pathway, or time of diagnosis. As a use case, we leveraged the OSM framework to estimate the prevalence of bladder cancer in the United States. Conclusion: The OSM is a robust model that builds upon existing modeling practices to offer an innovative, transparent approach in estimating prevalence, progression-based incidence, and survival for oncologic conditions. The OSM combines and extends the capabilities of other common health-economic modeling approaches to provide a detailed and comprehensive modeling framework to estimate prevalence in oncology using simulation modeling and to assess the impacts of new treatments on prevalence over time.

Optimal treatment sequence for targeted immune modulators for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition of the large intestine and rectum. Several targeted immune modulators (TIMs) have demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and are approved by the FDA. Patients may try multiple TIMs, and currently there are no biomarkers or prognostic factors to guide choice of treatment sequence. In 2020, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducted a review of TIMs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis as individual agents relative to conventional treatment but did not address the relative ranking of various treatment sequences to each other. OBJECTIVE: To extend the ICER framework to identify the optimal treatment sequence as informed by metrics such as maximizing incremental net health benefit (NHB), minimizing incremental total cost, or maximizing incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: The model was developed as a Markov model with 8-week cycles over a lifetime time horizon from a US payer perspective, including only direct health care costs. Health states consisted of active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, clinical response without achieving remission, clinical remission, and death. Efficacy of TIMs were informed by the ICER-conducted network meta-analysis. Up to 3 treatments were modeled in a sequence that consisted of 2 different TIMs followed by conventional treatment. Sequences were ranked according to each objective. NHB was calculated using a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to estimate the probability of each sequence having the highest NHB rank under each objective. RESULTS: 21 possible sequences were evaluated in the base case. Two attempts at conventional treatment represented the lowest cost option and, while yielding the fewest QALYs, resulted in the highest NHB. None of the sequences had an incremental cost per QALY below $150,000 relative to 2 attempts with conventional treatment, so the resulting NHB was negative for all sequences. The sequence with the highest NHB was infliximab-dyyb followed by tofacitinib (-0.116). This regimen also had the lowest incremental costs ($37,266). For orally and subcutaneously administered TIMs, the sequence of golimumab-tofacitinib had the highest NHB (-0.344). Ustekinumab-vedolizumab was the top-ranked sequence as measured by QALY maximization (0.172 incremental QALYs) but also had the highest total incremental cost ($166,094). Results of the PSA were consistent with deterministic rankings for the top-ranking sequences but also showed that the top 2 or 3 regimens were often close together. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, the optimal sequence of TIMs as measured by NHB and cost minimization was infliximab or biosimilars as first-line treatment, then moving to tofacitinib, adalimumab, or vedolizumab. Sequences that generated the most QALYs began with ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and adalimumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was based on an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Pandey and Fazioli are employees of ICER. Bloudek reports grants from ICER during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, and TerSera Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Pandey reports grants from California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Donoghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithSline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, uniQure, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Fazioli reports grants from Arnold Ventures, California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and The Donaghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-lngelheim, uniQure, Evolve Phamacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, along with other support from CEA Registry sponsors and personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Allergan, outside the submitted work. The inputs and model framework that were leveraged for this analysis were presented as part of the ICER assessment of TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

The effectiveness and value of targeted immune modulators for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Pandey, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER related to this study and reports other support from the CEA Registry Sponsors and consulting and advisory board fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, the Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, unrelated to this work. Bloudek reports grants from ICER related to this work and reports fees from AbbVie, Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, TerSera Therapeutics, and Incyte, unrelated to this work. Carlson reports grants from ICER related to this work.