Evolving oncology care management trends in the United States: A survey among health care decision makers.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge of how US managed care professionals view and prioritize quality metrics/performance measures, care models, alternative payment models, and clinical pathways in oncology settings. OBJECTIVE: To characterize payor perspectives on, and the use of, oncology clinical pathways and performance measures in their reimbursement/access decision-making process. METHODS: A survey was implemented via SurveyMonkey software and distributed electronically to a national sample of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights Panel members from July 11 through August 5, 2022. The survey was created by a steering committee based on literature reviews of the current and future oncology care landscapes. The survey consisted of 47 questions, including those to establish respondents' position, responsibilities, and demographics. The results are presented as descriptive statistics for 7 key questions that covered the perceptions and use of quality metrics/performance measures, alternative payment models, and oncology care pathways as prioritized by the steering committee. RESULTS: Among the 695 AMCP panel members who were sent the survey, 73 responded (response rate 10.5%), 54 were eligible to continue, and 31 completed the entire questionnaire; the low response rate may limit generalizability of the survey results. Specific oncology clinical and economic measures of performance were currently used (70%-88%) but generally received less endorsement for future use (39%-49%) except for chemotherapy during end of life, which was considered for future use by 80% of respondents but was only currently used by 31%. Benchmarking was the primary reason for the use of performance measures; only 27% used these to inform value-based agreements. Real-world data tracked by respondents' institutions primarily focused on managed care and pharmacy utilization (39%-85%), with patient-reported and clinical outcomes tracked by only 17%-34%. Almost one-third (31%) did not use clinical oncology pathways, and among those who did, fewer than half (48%) reported that their organization tracks whether treatment decisions agree with the oncology care pathways, and only 26% reported feedback to oncology providers on how often their treatment decisions agree with the pathways. When considering alternative payment models, patient-related components received lower rankings in importance than clinical relevance, actionability, and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Variation among payors regarding current trends in oncology care management, including on the importance of patient-centric outcomes and the use of oncology clinical pathways, suggests the need to focus on value-based health care and greater uptake of oncology clinical pathways.

Potential of pharmacogenetics in minimizing drug therapy problems in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: With advancements in CF drug development, people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF) now take a median of seven medications daily, increasing treatment complexity, risk of drug therapy problems (DTPs), and interference with treatment goals. Given that some of these DTPs can be prevented with preemptive pharmacogenetic testing, the overall goal of this study was to test the clinical utility of a multi-gene pharmacogenetics (PGx) panel in potentially reducing DTPs in PwCF. METHODS: A population based retrospective study of patients with CF was conducted at the University of Utah Health Care System. The patients were genotyped for CYP450 enzymes using a pharmacogenomic assay, and their drug utilization information was obtained retrospectively. This pharmacogenomic information was combined with clinical guidelines to predict the number of actionable PGx interventions in this patient cohort. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were included in this study. In the patient sample, a minimum of one order of actionable PGx medication was observed in 75 % of the cases. Results revealed that 4.2 treatment modifications per 10 patients can be enabled with the help of a PGx intervention in this patient population. Additionally, our findings suggest that polymorphisms in CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 are most likely to be the primary contributors to DTP's within PwCF. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the PGx panel has the potential to help alleviate the clinical burden of DTPs in PwCF and can assist in informing pharmacotherapy recommendations. Future research should validate these findings and evaluate which subgroups of PwCF would most benefit from pharmacogenetic testing.

Gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with the use of intravenous oliceridine compared with intravenous hydromorphone or fentanyl in acute pain management utilizing adjusted indirect treatment comparison methods.

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. Aim: To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine - 2; hydromorphone - 3; fentanyl - 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.

Patient Perspectives on the Use of Digital Technology to Help Manage Cystic Fibrosis.

Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs) have shown potential to improve health outcomes through improved medication adherence in different disease states. Cystic fibrosis (CF) requires care coordination across pharmacies, patients, and providers. DHTs can potentially support patients, providers, and pharmacists in diseases like CF, where high medication burden can negatively impact patient quality of life and outcomes. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, a CF-specific mobile application (Phlo) was distributed to adults with CF who received care at the University of Utah Cystic Fibrosis Center, used an iPhone, and filled prescriptions through the University of Utah Specialty Pharmacy services. Participants were asked to use Phlo for 90 days with an optional 90-day extension period. Participants completed four surveys at baseline and after 90 days. Changes in patient-reported outcomes, adherence, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization from baseline to 90 days were tracked. Results: Phlo allowed users to track daily regimen activities, contact their care team, receive medication delivery reminders, and share progress with their healthcare team. A web-based dashboard allowed the care team to review reported performance scores from the app. Most patients (67%) said the app improved confidence in and motivation for continuing their regimen. The most important reported benefit of Phlo was having a single location to manage their whole routine. Conclusions: Phlo is a mobile health technology designed to help patients with CF manage their treatment regimen and improve patient-provider communication.

Applying diagnosis support systems in electronic health records to identify wild-type transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy risk.

Aim: Wild-type transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTRwt-CM) is frequently misdiagnosed, and delayed diagnosis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. At three large academic medical centers, combinations of phenotypic features were implemented in electronic health record (EHR) systems to identify patients with heart failure at risk for ATTRwt-CM. Methods: Phenotypes/phenotype combinations were selected based on strength of correlation with ATTRwt-CM versus non-amyloid heart failure; different clinical decision support and reporting approaches and data sources were evaluated on Cerner and Epic EHR platforms. Results: Multiple approaches/sources showed potential usefulness for incorporating predictive analytics into the EHR to identify at-risk patients. Conclusion: These preliminary findings may guide other medical centers in building and implementing similar systems to improve recognition of ATTRwt-CM in patients with heart failure.

Payer perceptions on the use of patient-reported outcomes in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, US payers appreciate all evidence that can help support formulary decision making, including evidence beyond traditional safety and efficacy data from clinical trials. Research suggests payers incorporate patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence in their decision making and expect the importance of PRO evidence to grow. Greater understanding on payers' use of PRO information in oncology is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use of PRO evidence in informing oncology formulary decision making. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving a measurement specialist, health economics and outcomes research experts, and payers developed a survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists who were invited to discuss and contextualize the survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Two-tailed values are reported and a P value less than or equal to 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers (45.9%) completed the survey; 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% of all respondents indicating their job was pharmacy administrator. The majority of payers (60.0% of small health plans and 57.8% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from clinical trials is useful. Similarly, the majority of payers (57.8% of small plans and 51.9% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from real-world studies is useful. Almost half (47.1%) suggested formulary review would be influenced by a lack of PRO evidence from oncology clinical trials either somewhat, much, or a great deal. Most payers (78.2%) thought PRO evidence is useful for providing additional context for safety of oncology therapies. More than one-third of payers (34.3%) valued PRO evidence when comparing 2 similar therapies, and 51.5% felt PRO evidence may help in measuring value for value-based agreements. Panelists indicated PRO evidence can be useful for developing treatment pathways for addressing health-related quality of life, informing provider-patient dialogues, and defining progression-free survival length and quality. CONCLUSIONS: US payers view PRO evidence from both clinical trials and real-world studies as useful for supplementing traditional clinical trial data when making oncology formulary decisions and for refining treatment pathways and care delivery models. Manufacturers of oncology therapies should collect and consider leveraging PRO evidence from both settings when engaging with US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer contributed to the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the interpretation of the data, and contributed to the discussion and output as authors. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Arondekar, Deal, and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer and own Pfizer stock. Qwek was an employee of Pfizer at the time of this project and owns Pfizer stock.

Positive Association between Peri-Surgical Opioid Exposure and Post-Discharge Opioid-Related Outcomes.

Background: Multiple studies have investigated the epidemic of persistent opioid use as a common postsurgical complication. However, there exists a knowledge gap in the association between the level of opioid exposure in the peri-surgical setting and post-discharge adverse outcomes to patients and healthcare settings. We analyzed the association between peri-surgical opioid exposure use and post-discharge outcomes, including persistent postsurgical opioid prescription, opioid-related symptoms (ORS), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). Methods: A retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing cesarean delivery, hysterectomy, spine surgery, total hip arthroplasty, or total knee arthroplasty in an academic healthcare system between January 2015 and June 2018. Peri-surgical opioid exposure was converted into morphine milligram equivalents (MME), then grouped into two categories: high (>median MME of each surgery cohort) or low (≤median MME of each surgery cohort) MME groups. The rates of persistent opioid use 30 and 90 days after discharge were compared using logistic regression. Secondary outcomes, including ORS and HCRU during the 180-day follow-up, were descriptively compared between the high and low MME groups. Results: The odds ratios (95% CI) of high vs. low MME for persistent opioid use after 30 and 90 days of discharge were 1.38 (1.24−1.54) and 1.41 (1.24−1.61), respectively. The proportion of patients with one or more ORS diagnoses was greater among the high-MME group than the low-MME group (27.2% vs. 21.2%, p < 0.01). High vs. low MME was positively associated with the rate of inpatient admission, emergency department admissions, and outpatient visits. Conclusions: Greater peri-surgical opioid exposure correlates with a statistically and clinically significant increase in post-discharge adverse opioid-related outcomes. The study findings warrant intensive monitoring for patients receiving greater peri-surgical opioid exposure.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Payer perceptions on the use of economic models in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: To support oncology formulary decisions, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, payers desire data beyond what regulators review. Economic models showing financial impact of treatments may help, but data on payers' use of economic models in oncology are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess payer perceptions regarding use of economic models in informing oncology formulary decisions. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving health economists and payers developed a survey containing singleanswer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists, who were invited to discuss survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Two-tailed values were reported and an alpha level of 0.05 or less was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers completed the survey (45.9%); 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), and 55.6% indicated that their job was pharmacy administrator. Payers indicated moderate/most interest in cost-effectiveness models (CEMs; 85.3%) and budget impact models (BIMs; 80.4%). Overall, 51.6% of respondents claimed oncology expertise on their pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Large plans were more likely to have expertise in reviewing oncology economic models than small plans (55.6% vs 31.1%, P = 0.015). The most common reasons for not reviewing economic models included "not available at time of review" (44.1%) and "potential bias" (38.2%). Overall, 43.1% of payers conduct analyses using their own data after reviewing a manufacturer-sponsored economic model. To inform formulary decisions, 62.7% of payers use BIMs and 66.7% use CEMs sometimes, often, or always. When comparing therapies with similar safety/efficacy profiles, 68.6% of payers reported economic models as helpful a moderate amount, a lot, or a great deal. Over one-third of payers (37.3%) were willing to partner with manufacturers on economic models using their plans' data. Payers valued preapproval information, data on total cost of care, and early access to models. Concerns remained regarding model transparency and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Most US payers reported interest in using economic models to inform oncology formulary decision making. Opportunities exist to educate payers in assessing economic models, especially among small health plans. Ensuring model availability at launch, transparency in model assumptions, and payer-manufacturer partnership in model development may increase the utility of oncology economic models among US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and Pfizer employees led the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employed by Pfizer. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project.

Payer perceptions of the use of real-world evidence in oncology-based decision making.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the gold standard of safety and efficacy evidence, are conducted in select patients that may not mirror real-world populations. As a result, healthcare decision makers may have limited information when making formulary decisions, especially in oncology, given accelerated regulatory approvals and niche patient populations. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies may help address these knowledge gaps and help inform oncology formulary decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use and relevance of RWE in informing oncology formulary decisionmaking. METHODS: A national survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions evaluated 4 key areas: (1) the value of RWE, (2) barriers to RWE, (3) sources of RWE, and (4) use of RWE in outcomes-based contracting. The survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights program in February 2020. Ten additional respondents were invited to discuss the survey results. The survey results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and were evaluated by the respondent's plan size, type, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in responses for categorical data were compared using a Pearson Chi-Square or a Fisher's Exact test. Two-tailed values are reported and a level of ≤ 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: The national survey had a 45.9% response rate, with 106 payers responding. Most were from managed care organizations (MCOs; 47.5%) and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs; 37.4%), with 54.5% from large plans (≥ 1 million lives) and 45.5% from small plans (< 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% overall indicating their job was a pharmacy administrator. Most (84.9%) used RWE to inform formulary decisions in oncology to support comparative effectiveness in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials (4.1 on a scale of 1 = Not At All Useful to 5 = Extremely Useful) and validation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations (4.0). Almost half (41.5%) used RWE results to inform off-label usage decisions. Payers valued RWE pre-launch to inform formulary and contracting decisions and desired real-world comparative effectiveness data post-launch to validate coverage decisions. However, the majority of payers (54.7%) did not conduct their own real-world studies. Commonly considered RWE sources included claims data (79.2%), medical records (68.9%), prospective cohort studies (60.4%), patient registries (36.8%), and patient outcome surveys (33.0%). Barriers to conducting internal RWE studies included the lack of resources and personnel, analytic capabilities, appropriate in-house data, and perceived value in conducting analyses. Payers expressed interest in using outcomes-based contracting in oncology; few have direct experience, and operationalizing through value measurement is challenging. CONCLUSIONS: RWE providing comparative treatment data, validation of NCCN treatment recommendations, and information on off-label usage are appreciated pre launch with post launch validation. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer led the development of the survey and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer; Oderda, Biskupiak, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Malone was paid by Millcreek Outcomes as a consultant on this project.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Therapeutic Options in Resectable and Advanced/Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Indirect Comparison.

OBJECTIVES: FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem-nab/P), and gemcitabine-capecitabine (gem-cap) demonstrated superiority over gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic cancer (PC). It is still unclear which chemotherapy regimen is the most optimal. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review (SR) and indirect comparison to compare safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX versus gem-nab/P and gem-cap in PC. METHODS: An SR was conducted in several databases from inception to November 2020. RCTs investigating resectable or advanced PC were included. Primary outcomes including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS)/progression-free survival (PFS)/relapse-free survival (RFS), and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were pooled using a random effects model. Indirect comparisons were done to compare FOLFIRINOX versus gem-cap and gem-nab/P. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified involving 6,564 patients. Indirect comparisons showed FOLFIRINOX had significantly better OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-0.99]; advanced: HR 0.71 [0.60-0.85]) and RFS/DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.67 [0.55-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.65 [0.57-0.74]) compared to gem-cap as well as OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-1.00]; advanced: HR 0.73 [0.54-0.98]) and DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.66 [0.53-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.64 [0.49-0.83]) compared to gem-nab/P. FOLFIRINOX increased grade 3/4 AE risk compared to gem-cap and gem-nab/P. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFIRINOX is associated with significant survival benefits compared to gem-nab/P and gem-cap. However, it is important to consider the increased grade 3/4 AE risk associated with FOLFIRINOX.

Estimation of healthcare-related charges in women with BRCA mutations and breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer costs were estimated at $16.5 billion in 2010 and were higher than other cancer costs. There are limited studies on breast cancer charges and costs by BRCA mutations and receptor status. We examined overall health care and breast cancer-related charges by BRCA status (BRCAm vs. BRCAwt), receptor status (HER2+ vs. HER2-), and treatment setting (neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of charge data from 1995-2014 in an academic medical center. Facilities, physician, pharmacy, and diagnosis-related charges were presented as mean and median charges with standard deviation (SD) and interquartile ranges (25%-75%). Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess statistically significant differences in charges between comparators. RESULTS: Total median breast-cancer related charges were $65,414 for BRCAm and $54,635 for BRCAwt (p=0.19); however all-cause charges were higher for BRCAm patients ($145,066 vs. $119,119, p<0.001). HER2+ status was associated with higher median breast cancer charges ($152,159 vs. $44,087, p<0.0001) that was driven by the charges for biological agents. Patients initially seen in the neoadjuvant setting had higher mean breast cancer charges than in the adjuvant setting ($117,922 vs. $80,061, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: BRCA mutation status was not associated with higher breast cancer charges but HER2+ status had significantly higher charges, due to charges for biological agents. Patients who initially received neoadjuvant treatment had significantly higher overall treatment charges than adjuvant therapy patients. With the advent of novel therapies for BRCAm, the economic impact of these treatments will be important to consider relative to their survival benefits.

Budget impact of capmatinib for adults with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring a MET exon 14 skipping mutation in the United States.

AIMS: To estimate the budget impact of adding capmatinib, the first FDA approved MET inhibitor, to a US commercial or Medicare health plan for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) whose tumors have a mutation that leads to MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping. METHODS: Target population size was estimated using published epidemiology data. Clinical data were obtained from the GEOMETRY mono-1 capmatinib trial and published trials. Treatments in the market mix included crizotinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and chemotherapy. Uptake of capmatinib and testing rates were based on market research. All costs (drug acquisition and administration, pre-progression, progression, terminal care, adverse event, and testing) were estimated based on public sources (2020 USD). RESULTS: The number of patients eligible for capmatinib in the first three years was estimated to be 2-3 in a hypothetical 1 million member commercial plan and 34-44 in a hypothetical 1 million member Medicare plan each year. The estimated total budget impact ranged from $9,695 to $67,725 for a commercial plan and $141,350 to $985,695 for Medicare. With capmatinib included, a marginal per member per month budget impact was estimated (commercial: $0.0008 to $0.0056; Medicare: $0.0118 to $0.0821). Capmatinib inclusion resulted in lower medical costs (commercial: -$0.0003 to -$0.0007; Medicare: -$0.0037 to -$0.0106), partially offsetting increased drug costs ($0.0011 to $0.0064; $0.0154 to $0.0928, respectively), and were primarily driven by reductions in progression and terminal care costs (-$0.0003 to -$0.0009; -$0.0037 to -$0.0125, respectively). The results were most sensitive to capmatinib market share, capmatinib price, and treatment duration. LIMITATIONS: Certain assumptions were applied to the model to account for inputs with limited evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated budget impact of including capmatinib for mNSCLC with a METex14 skipping mutation is minimal, and the increased drug costs were partially offset by savings in AEs, and progression-related and terminal care costs.

BRCA testing and outcomes in women with breast cancer.

MAIN PURPOSE: Germline BRCA mutations (BRCAm) strongly influence the risk of developing breast cancer. This study aimed to understand the role of BRCAm testing in affected individuals and to assess its impact on the outcome of BRCAm carriers compared to non-carriers (BRCAwt) with breast cancer. RESEARCH QUESTION: The research question is "Does standard of care testing for BRCAm improve survival outcomes of breast cancer patients?" METHODS: In a single institution observational cohort study, demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between breast cancer patients with and without BRCAm. Frequency of BRCA testing was assessed. Survival outcomes were assessed by initial treatment setting stratified by BRCA status. RESULTS: Of 5712 identified women with breast cancer, 14.6% (n = 835) were tested for a BRCA mutation and had a documented result. The total number and proportion of women tested for a BRCAm increased between 2000 and 2014, resulting in an increased number of BRCAm carriers identified. However, the proportion of women who underwent testing and had a BRCAm decreased during the study period from 27.5% in 2000-2004 to 13.3% in 2010-2014. Disease-free survival was similar in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment settings between BRCAm and BRCAwt patients. Progression-free survival on first line treatment and overall survival for patients with metastatic disease was also similar between BRCAm and BRCAwt patients. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of women tested and the number of BRCAm identified increased during the study period despite a decreasing proportion of positive results among women tested.

Clinical and economic analysis of patients with acute myeloid leukemia by FLT3 status and midostaurin use at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: Identification of cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities has become vital for the appropriate treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). One of the most common molecular alterations in AML is the constitutive activation by internal tandem duplication of FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3). METHODS: This observational, retrospective, cohort study at the Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) had two time periods: 1) a historical pre-midostaurin time period which consisted of the FLT3 mutated (FLT3m) and FLT3 wild type (FLT3wt) cohorts from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016, and 2) a post-midostaurin cohort which consisted of the FLT3 mutated midostaurin-user cohort (early mido) from May 01, 2017 to December 31, 2018. RESULTS: In total, 39 patients were included in the FLT3m cohort, 61 in the FLT3wt cohort, and seven in the early mido cohort. FLT3m patients spent fewer days in the hospital during the first consolidation regimen and received fewer consolidation cycles compared to FLT3wt patients. Overall survival (OS) was similar between FLT3m and FLT3wt patients. For patients without hematopoietic stem cell transplant, OS was significantly shorter for FLT3m patients compared to FLT3wt patients. Mean AML related inpatient charges and physician charges for FLT3m patients were significantly higher than FLT3wt patients. CONCLUSION: The FLT3 mutation is historically associated with a shorter time to transplant and increased total health care charges. More information is needed to evaluate the real-world treatment strategies for FLT3-mutated patients in the presence of FLT3 inhibitors and the impact of these treatment strategies on clinical and economic outcomes.

Quantification of Economic Impact of Drug Wastage in Oral Oncology Medications: Comparison of 3 Methods Using Palbociclib and Ribociclib in Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discarding unused drugs after dose changes or discontinuation can significantly affect pharmacy budgets. This is especially concerning for expensive oncology agents. However, few economic studies account for drug wastage, providing an inaccurate estimate of a drug's actual economic cost, cost-effectiveness, and value. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare the economic impact of drug wastage between ribociclib and palbociclib-clinically similar oral medications for metastatic breast cancer-using 3 approaches (Markov model, pharmacy acquisition cost model, and a retrospective claims analysis) and (b) compare the modeling results with a published estimate of drug wastage for palbociclib from a claims analysis. METHODS: A Markov model and a pharmacy acquisitions cost model were developed to evaluate the economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib over a 1-year time period. Data inputs were pharmacy costs (RED BOOK wholesale acquisition cost) and proportion of patients experiencing dose reductions from either ribociclib randomized clinical trials (MONALEESA-2, -3, or -7) or real-world observational data (Symphony Health retrospective claims analysis). The latter constituted the third approach for quantifying drug wastage. The economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib in postmenopausal women with previously untreated HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer was assessed. Drug wastage was defined as drug doses that could not be used by a patient following a dose reduction. The cost of drug wastage was defined as the cost associated with an unused drug resulting from a dose reduction. The predicted results from the 2 models were compared with a previously published claims analysis that estimated the effect of treatment costs and drug wastage for palbociclib based on the observed dosing patterns from the Symphony Health Solutions database. RESULTS: In the Markov model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib users experienced drug wastage of $112,382 total, or $1,124 per treated patient, per year due to dose changes. In the pharmacy acquisition cost model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib usage was associated with an increased cost of $7,196 per patient per year (based on a mid-cycle dose reduction) comprising dosing-based cost differences and drug wastage cost for palbociclib of $3,727. The previously published claims analysis found that palbociclib users experiencing a dose reduction had drug wastage costs of $5,471 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In both models, dose reductions for ribociclib patients resulted in no wastage, since unused tablets could be administered in subsequent cycles, while dose reductions for palbociclib resulted in drug wastage and increased costs. The results from both models were consistent with previously published results from the claims analysis, demonstrating drug wastage costs for palbociclib. DISCLOSURES: This study received financial support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which has products approved for treatment of breast cancer. Tang was employed by Novartis during this study; Zacker and Dalal are employed by Novartis and own company stock. Biskupiak, Brixner, and Oderda received payment from Novartis for this study. Brixner serves as a consultant for Millcreek Outcomes Group and also declares consulting fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Becton Dickinson, and Xcenda, unrelated to this study.

Budget impact of including ribociclib in combination with letrozole on US payer formulary: first-line treatment of post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The combination of a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitor with the aromatase inhibitor letrozole is a safe and effective alternative to letrozole monotherapy for first-line hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. This study evaluates the budget impact of using the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus letrozole as a first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer, from a United States (US) payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based budget impact model was used to calculate the incremental cost of introducing ribociclib plus letrozole over three years for the target population. The analysis compared two scenarios: treatment options excluding or including ribociclib plus letrozole. Market shares were derived from market research and the assumption was the introduction of ribociclib plus letrozole would only displace existing CDK-based therapies. Treatment duration was based on the median time to treatment discontinuation or median progression-free survival for first-line treatment, and on clinical trial data for second- and third-line treatment. Acquisition costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs and considered co-payment. Costs for drug administration and monitoring, subsequent therapy, and relevant adverse events were included. RESULTS: Of 1 million insured members, 263 were eligible for CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment. Cumulative total savings with ribociclib plus letrozole were $3.01M over three years, corresponding to a cumulative incremental cost saving of $318.11 per member treated per month. CONCLUSIONS: In the US, ribociclib plus letrozole represents a cost-saving first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ribociclib plus Letrozole Versus Palbociclib plus Letrozole and Letrozole Monotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A U.S. Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: U.S. regulatory approvals of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors ribociclib and palbociclib as add-ons to letrozole greatly enhance the prospects for treating postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Clinical trials have established that the combination of a CDK 4/6 inhibitor with letrozole can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole monotherapy and is safe and well tolerated. Cost-effectiveness studies are required to inform payers and clinical decision makers on the money value of combination treatment in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole and versus letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer from a U.S. private third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model including 3 health states (progression free, with either overall response or stable disease; progressed disease; and death) simulated lifetime costs and outcomes over a 40-year lifetime horizon with a 1-month cycle length. Clinical efficacy data (PFS and overall survival [OS]) were derived from a phase III trial of ribociclib plus letrozole (MONALEESA-2; NCT01958021), a phase II trial of palbociclib plus letrozole (PALOMA-1; NCT00721409), and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Health care costs included drug acquisition and monitoring, disease management, subsequent therapies, and serious drug-related adverse events. Effectiveness was measured in life-years, derived from survival projections, and in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), calculated from time spent in each state combined with health-state utility values. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis explored the impact of uncertainty in key model parameters on results, and probabilistic uncertainty was assessed through a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus letrozole was dominant versus palbociclib plus letrozole, with a cost saving of $43,037 and a gain of 0.086 QALYs. Compared with letrozole monotherapy, ribociclib plus letrozole was associated with an incremental cost of $144,915 and an incremental QALY of 0.689, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $210,369 per QALY. Key model drivers included OS HRs for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole and for ribociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, the PFS HR for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, PD health-state costs, utility of response, and cost discount rate. The probabilities that ribociclib plus letrozole was cost-effective versus letrozole at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000 and $200,000 per QALY gained were 1.6%, 6.3%, and 50.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, ribociclib plus letrozole is a cost-effective alternative to palbociclib plus letrozole for the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Ribociclib plus letrozole is also cost-effective versus letrozole monotherapy at willingness-to-pay thresholds greater than $198,000 per QALY (for probabilistic analysis). DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Novartis, which manufactures ribociclib and provided input on the study design and data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Mistry, May, Suri, and Young are employees of PAREXEL. Tang, Mishra, D. Bhattacharyya, and Dalal are employees of Novartis. S. Bhattacharyya was an employee of Novartis during the study period. Tang and Dalal hold stock in Novartis. Brixner, Oderda, and Biskupiak were paid by Millcreek Outcomes Group as consultants for work on this project. Brixner has also consulted for AstraZeneca, UCB, Regeneron, and Abbott.

Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Scar Determined by Late Gadolinium Enhanced Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Left ventricular (LV) scar identified by late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is associated with adverse outcomes in coronary artery disease and cardiomyopathies. We sought to determine the prognostic significance of LV-LGE in atrial fibrillation (AF). We studied 778 consecutive patients referred for radiofrequency ablation of AF who underwent CMR. Patients with coronary artery disease, previous myocardial infarction, or hypertrophic or dilated cardiomyopathy were excluded. The end points of interest were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack. Of the 754 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 60% were men with an average age of 64 years. Most (87%) had a normal LV ejection fraction of ≥55%. LV-LGE was found in 46 patients (6%). There were 32 MACCE over the mean follow-up period of 55 months. The MACCE rate was higher for patients with LV-LGE (13.0% vs 3.7%; p = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, CHA2DS2-VASc score (hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76), the presence of LV-LGE (HR 3.21, 95% CI 1.31 to 7.88), and the LV-LGE extent (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.78) were independent predictors of MACCE. In addition, the presence of LV-LGE was an independent predictor for ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (HR 3.61, 95% CI 1.18 to 11.01) after adjusting for CHA2DS2-VASc score. In conclusion, the presence and extent of LV scar identified by LGE-CMR were independent predictors of MACCE in patients with AF.

Cost of palliative external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) use for bone metastases secondary to prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations of the costs of palliative external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for treatment of bone metastases are limited. OBJECTIVE: To summarize EBRT lifetime care patterns in deceased men with metastatic prostate cancer treated in a cancer hospital in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic health records identified deceased adult prostate cancer (ICD-9 185.xx) patients with bone metastases (ICD-9 198.5) and who were treated for bone pain and metastasis management with EBRT between January 1, 1995 and December 17, 2012. Common Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify all EBRT episodes (total billed EBRT services; initial and final evaluation) to calculate length of EBRT treatments and per episode costs (2011 US$). Bootstrapping approximated the 95% confidence interval for final cost estimates. RESULTS: 176 men were identified; 19 (10.8%) had bone metastases in >1 site. Eighty-nine men (50.6%) received >1 EBRT episode (range, 1-6; median, 2), with first episode length ranging from 1-44 calendar days (mean, 13.4; SD, 8.4) at a mean cost of $7,084 (SD, $4,028). About 70% of costs were attributable to hospital charges and 30% to physician charges. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size limits broad applicability to large populations of men with prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: Care costs for EBRT constitute one of many costs that should be taken into account when planning for palliative care of prostate cancer and bone metastasis.