CFTR modulators: transformative therapies for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: No funding contributed to the writing of this commentary. Both authors are employed by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has entered into therapeutic development award agreements and licensing agreements to assist with the development of CFTR modulators that may result in intellectual property rights, royalties, and other forms of consideration provided to CFF. Some of these agreements are subject to confidentiality restrictions and, thus, CFF cannot comment on them.

The effectiveness and value of novel treatments for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care 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 Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Seidner, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Tice reports contracts to his institution, University of California, San Francisco, from ICER during the conduct of this study. Wherry has nothing to disclose.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ivacaftor Therapy for Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis Patients With the G551D Gating Mutation.

OBJECTIVES: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rare genetic disease with no cure. Until recently, treatment has targeted symptoms of the disease and not the disease-causing genetic defect. Ivacaftor is included in a new class of breakthrough drugs targeting the genetic defects of CF. We sought to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of ivacaftor from a US payer perspective. METHODS: We developed an individual-level microsimulation model that followed a cohort of heterogeneous US CF patients over a lifetime. The primary outcome of interest was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We also compared unadjusted life years, count of acute pulmonary exacerbations, and count of lung transplants over a lifetime between patients treated with ivacaftor plus best supportive care and patients treated with best supportive care alone. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the impact of various model inputs and uncertainties. RESULTS: We found a substantial increase in QALYs, life years, and treatment costs over a lifetime for patients treated with ivacaftor plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone. Discounted results for ivacaftor were 22.92 QALYs and $8 797 840 in total lifetime costs compared to 16.12 QALYs and $2 336 366 lifetime costs for best supportive care alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $950 217 per QALY. Results from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 0% chance that ivacaftor was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $500 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ivacaftor plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone is not cost-effective at or near commonly accepted WTP thresholds.

Adherence to lumacaftor-ivacaftor therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis in France.

BACKGROUND: Lumacaftor-ivacaftor combination is a promising treatment for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. Optimal adherence is essential to achieve full health outcomes benefits. METHODS: This retrospective study used pharmacy refills data to calculate proportion of days covered (PDC). Adherence was defined as a PDC ≥80%. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine factors associated with medication adherence. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included in the final cohort for analysis. The mean PDC was 96%  ± 14 at 6 months, and 91% ± 17 at 12 months. The proportion of adherent patients was 89% and 83% at 6 and 12 months respectively. Age and ppFEV1 were found to affect medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the medico-economic impact of CFTR modulator therapy, high adherence rates to lumacaftor-ivacaftor found in this study are encouraging.

Orphan Drug Pricing and Costs: A Case Study of Kalydeco and Orkambi.

BACKGROUND: A common narrative is that high prices are necessary for "orphan drugs" because of the fewer patients. In the context of state health insurance systems, the high prices create significant challenges because of limited budgets. RESULTS: This study carefully examines both costs and revenues of two drugs for cystic fibrosis (ivacaftor and lumacaftor), showing that, for this important example, prices are not high because of fewer patients. The study then explores the justifications usually given for high orphan drug prices, including the need to support research and development for new drugs. Each of these standard justifications is shown to be inadequate; instead, it appears that the exercise of market power in the presence of insurance is the dominant driver of high prices. INTERPRETATION: Insurers need to re-examine how they address high-priced drugs.

The pharmacokinetic interaction between ivacaftor and ritonavir in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetic interaction between ivacaftor and ritonavir. METHODS: A liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS) method was developed for the measurement of ivacaftor in plasma. An open-label, sequential, cross-over study was conducted with 12 healthy volunteers. Three pharmacokinetic profiles were assessed for each volunteer: ivacaftor 150 mg alone (study A), ivacaftor 150 mg plus ritonavir 50 mg daily (study B), and ivacaftor 150 mg plus ritonavir 50 mg daily after two weeks of ritonavir 50 mg daily (study C). RESULTS: Addition of ritonavir 50 mg daily to ivacaftor 150 mg resulted in significant inhibition of the metabolism of ivacaftor. Area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf obv ) increased significantly in both studies B and C compared to study A (GMR [95% CI] 19.71 [13.18-31.33] and 19.77 [14.0-27.93] respectively). Elimination half-life (t1/2 ) was significantly longer in both studies B and C compared to study A (GMR [95% CI] 11.14 [8.72-13.62] and 9.72 [6.68-12.85] respectively). There was no significant difference in any of the pharmacokinetic parameters between study B and study C. CONCLUSION: Ritonavir resulted in significant inhibition of the metabolism of ivacaftor. These data suggest that ritonavir may be used to inhibit the metabolism of ivacaftor in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Such an approach may increase the effectiveness of ivacaftor in 'poor responders' by maintaining higher plasma concentrations. It also has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of ivacaftor therapy.

$850 Per Bowel Movement?! Hard To Justify That Cost.

Constipation can be a serious and painful problem, and we shouldn't dismiss other people's suffering. On the other hand there's a danger when new medications are compared against placebo rather than against over-the-counter products with a history of effectiveness.

Healthcare resource utilization associated with ivacaftor use in patients with cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: Ivacaftor was approved in 2012 to treat patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with specific CFTR gene mutations. The objective of this analysis was to analyze the impact of ivacaftor on health resource utilization through analysis of claims data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with CF aged ≥6 years prescribed ivacaftor between January 1, 2012 and July 31, 2014 with ≥12 months of continuous insurance coverage prior to and following the prescription were identified. All-cause and CF-specific healthcare resource utilization during the pre- and post-prescription periods and ivacaftor adherence levels were studied. RESULTS: The 79 identified patients had a mean age of 20.8 years, and 54% were female. The proportion of patients with inpatient admissions (all-cause and CF-related) was significantly higher in the pre index compared to post index period (p ≤ 0.05). Mean ivacaftor medication possession ratio was 0.8 (SD = 0.3), and 73% of patients had a medication possession ratio >0.80. LIMITATIONS: Only a small number of patients met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, claims data may contain errors or inconsistencies and cannot be used to determine if medications were taken as prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Ivacaftor therapy was associated with significant reductions in hospitalizations along with high rates of adherence to treatment over 12 months.

Economic evaluation of linaclotide for the treatment of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To use techniques of decision-analytic modeling to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of linaclotide vs lubiprostone in the treatment of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). METHODS: Using model inputs derived from published literature, linaclotide Phase III trial data and a physician survey, a decision-tree model was constructed. Response to therapy was defined as (1) a ≥ 14-point increase from baseline in IBS-Quality-of-Life (IBS-QoL) questionnaire overall score at week 12 or (2) one of the top two responses (moderately/significantly relieved) on a 7-point IBS symptom relief question in ≥ 2 of 3 months. Patients who do not respond to therapy are assumed to fail therapy and accrue costs associated with a treatment failure. Model time horizon is aligned with clinical trial duration of 12 weeks. Model outputs include number of responders, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs (including direct and indirect). Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment for IBS-C with linaclotide produced more responders than lubiprostone for both response definitions (19.3% vs 13.0% and 61.8% vs 57.2% for IBS-QoL and symptom relief, respectively), lower per-patient costs ($803 vs $911 and $977 vs $1056), and higher QALYs (0.1921 vs 0.1917 and 0.1909 vs 0.1894) over the 12-week time horizon. Results were similar for most one-way sensitivity analyses. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the majority of simulations resulted in linaclotide having higher treatment response rates and lower per-patient costs. LIMITATIONS: There are no available head-to-head trials that compare linaclotide with lubiprostone; therefore, placebo-adjusted estimates of relative efficacy were derived for model inputs. The time horizon for this model is relatively short, as it was limited to the duration of available clinical trial data. CONCLUSIONS: Linaclotide was found to be a less costly option vs lubiprostone for the treatment of adult patients with IBS-C.

Lubiprostone for chronic constipation in adults.

Lubiprostone (Amitiza-Sucampo Pharma Europe), a chloride-channel activator is licensed for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation in adults. It received a marketing authorisation in the UK in September 2012. In this article, we consider the evidence for lubiprostone in the management of constipation and how the treatment fits with current management strategies for constipation.