Tackling Challenges in Assessing the Economic Value of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as a Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the value of tumor-agnostic drugs (TAD) is challenging given the potential variability in treatment effects, trials with small sample sizes, different standards of care (SoC), and lack of comparative data from single-arm basket trials. Our study developed and applied novel methods to assess the value of pembrolizumab compared with SoC to inform coverage decisions. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the cost-utility of pembrolizumab for previously treated patients with 8 advanced or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient cancers from a US commercial payer perspective. Efficacy of pembrolizumab was based on data from trials directly or with adjustment using Bayesian hierarchical models. Eight chemotherapy-based external control arms were constructed from the TriNetX electronic health record databases. Tumor-specific health-state utility values were applied. All costs were adjusted to 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: At a lifetime horizon, pembrolizumab was associated with increased effectiveness compared with chemotherapies in colorectal (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]: +0.64, life years [LYs]: +0.64), endometrial (QALYs: +3.79, LYs: +5.47), and small intestine cancers (QALYs: +1.73, LYs: +2.48), but not for patients with metastatic gastric, cholangiocarcinoma, pancreatic, ovarian, and brain cancers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied substantially across tumor types. Pembrolizumab was found to be cost-effective in treating colorectal and endometrial cancers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: $121 967 and $139 257, respectively), and not cost-effective for other assessed cancers at a $150 000 willingness-to-pay/QALY threshold, compared with SoC chemotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of TADs can vary by cancers. Using analytic tools such as external controls and Bayesian hierarchical models can tackle several challenges in assessing the value of TADs and uncertainties from basket trials.

Evaluating Policies of Expanding Versus Restricting First-Line Treatment Choices: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Framework.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare payers often implement coverage policies that restrict the utilization of costly new first-line treatments. Cost-effectiveness analysis can be conducted to inform these decisions by comparing the new treatment with an existing one. However, this approach may overlook important factors such as treatment effect heterogeneity and endogenous treatment selection, policy implementation costs, and diverse patient preferences across multiple treatment options. We aimed to develop a cost-effectiveness analysis framework that considers these real-world factors, facilitating the evaluation of alternative policies related to expanding or restricting first-line treatment choices. METHODS: We introduced a metric of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that compares an expanded choice set (CS) including the new first-line treatment with a restricted CS excluding the new treatment. ICER(CS) accounts for treatment selection influenced by heterogeneous treatment effects and policy implementation costs. We examined a basic scenario with 2 standard first-line treatment choices and a more realistic scenario involving diverse preferences toward multiple choices. To illustrate the framework, we conducted a retrospective evaluation of including versus excluding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] + AAP) as a first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. RESULTS: The traditional ICERs for ADT + AAP versus ADT alone and ADT+ docetaxel were $104 269 and $206 324/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. The ICER(CS) for comparing an expanded CS with ADT + AAP with a restricted CS without ADT + AAP was $123 179/quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework provides decision makers with policy-relevant tools, enabling them to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative policies of expanding versus restricting patients' and physicians' first-line treatment choices.

Real-world treatment patterns and economic burden of post-cataract macular edema.

BACKGROUND: Post-cataract macular edema (PCME) is a condition that can occur in patients following cataract surgery without risk factors and complications. Although 80% of patients experience spontaneous resolution after 3 to 12 months, in persistent cases, it can lead to permanent vision loss if left untreated. There are currently no standardized treatment guidelines for PCME, and there have been limited studies showing the impact of PCME on annual Medicare spending and ophthalmology-related outpatient visits per case compared to those without the complication. This study aims to evaluate real-world treatment patterns and the economic burden of patients with PCME. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis identified patients from the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Patients with (n = 2430) and without (n = 7290) PCME 1 year post cataract surgery were propensity score matched 1:3 based on age, geographic region, diabetes presence, cataract surgery type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Treatment pattern analysis for each PCME patient summarized the distribution of medications across lines of therapy. Economic burden analysis compared the mean number and costs of eye-related outpatient visits, optical coherence tomography imaging scans, and ophthalmic medications between the 2 groups using linear regression models. RESULTS: Treatment pattern analysis found 27 different treatment combinations across 6 treatment lines. The most common first-line treatments were topical steroid drops (372 [30%]), topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug drops (321 [27%]), and intraocular or periocular injectable steroids (189 [15%]). Compared to match controls, PCME patients averaged 6 additional eye-related outpatient office visits (95% CI: 5.7-6.2) resulting in an additional $3,897 (95% CI: $3,475 - $4,319) in total costs. Patients filled 3 more ophthalmology-related outpatient prescription medications (95% CI: 2.8-3.2), adding $371 in total cost (95% CI: $332 - $410). CONCLUSIONS: PCME treatment patterns showed wide clinical variability in treatments and time, specifically regarding injectable treatments and combination therapy. Additionally, significantly higher healthcare resource use and economic burden were found for both patients and payers when comparing PCME patients to non-PMCE controls. These results highlight the need for treatment standardization and demonstrate that interventions targeted at preventing PCME may be valuable.

Health care resource utilization and costs among patients with multiple myeloma with exposure to double-class or triple-class multiple myeloma treatments: A retrospective US claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advancements in the therapeutic landscape, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable. There are multiple treatment options available with a novel mechanism of action, but there is limited evidence describing the economic burden among patients with MM exposed to different drug classes and combinations and across different health care settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe all-cause and MM-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients with MM exposed to different drug classes and combinations (ie, double-class and triple-class-exposed) and characterize the economic burden in different health care settings among these patients with MM. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the IBM MarketScan databases. The study included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with MM between December 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. The study sample comprised double-class-exposed (DCE) and triple-class-exposed (TCE) cohorts, categorized based on their earliest exposure to different combinations of immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, or targeted monoclonal antibody. Patients with at least 1 subsequent line of therapy following the categorization were included, and the start date of the first subsequent line of therapy was the index date. The primary outcomes were all-cause and MM-related HCRU and costs during the follow-up period. Costs were stratified across 8 care settings defined by place of service. The Kaplan-Meier sample average technique was used to estimate the cumulative mean outcomes, accounting for differential follow-up periods. The outcomes were reported as per patient per month (PPPM). 18 years) diagnosed with MM between December 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. The study sample comprised double-class-exposed (DCE) and triple-class-exposed (TCE) cohorts, categorized based on their earliest exposure to different combinations of immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, or targeted monoclonal antibody. Patients with at least 1 subsequent line of therapy following the categorization were included, and the start date of the first subsequent line of therapy was the index date. The primary outcomes were all-cause and MM-related HCRU and costs during the follow-up period. Costs were stratified across 8 care settings defined by place of service. The Kaplan-Meier sample average technique was used to estimate the cumulative mean outcomes, accounting for differential follow-up periods. The outcomes were reported as per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: The study included 1,521 patients with MM, of whom 1,016 (66.8%) were DCE and 505 (33.2%) were TCE. The mean total all-cause health care costs were $20,338 PPPM, and approximately 85% of the total all-cause costs were MM-related. The mean all-cause and MM-related total costs were driven by overall drug costs primarily attributed to MM treatment and administration costs. The TCE cohort was associated with more HCRU and incurred higher costs than the DCE cohort across all categories. The hospital-based ambulatory setting had the highest all-cause and MM-related costs during the follow-up period: $7,302 (95% CI = $6,801-$7,784) PPPM and $6,695 (95% CI = $6,239-$7,136) PPPM, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that the economic burden following exposure to multiple drug classes and combinations is substantial, especially among the TCE cohort and in the ambulatory setting. These findings highlight the need for more effective treatments that can mitigate the economic burden of patients with MM. Future research on the HCRU and costs related to recently approved MM treatments with novel mechanisms is warranted. DISCLOSURES: At the time of this study, Dr Yang was a postdoctoral fellow and the fellowship was supported by GSK. Dr Boytsov is a full-time employee of GSK. Dr Carlson discloses consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, and Genentech. Dr Barthold reports no disclosures.

Quantifying the value of older adult-specific clinical trials: Post-lumpectomy irradiation among older adults with early-stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Although there is increasing interest in conducting cancer clinical trials in older adults, the benefit of such trials is unclear. We aimed to quantify the real-world clinical and economic effects of two phase 3 trials (CALGB 9343 and PRIME II) which showed that post-lumpectomy radiation therapy (RT) improves loco-regional recurrence but makes no improvement in overall survival among older women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a health-transition model to quantify the incremental clinical and economic outcomes between scenarios with vs. without older adult-specific trial results from a societal perspective between 2004 and 2018. The transition probabilities in the model were mainly derived from the 10-year results of CALGB 9343. The total number of the affected patient population in the US and the change in the probability of omitting post-lumpectomy RT due to the CALGB 9343 and PRIME II results were derived from a retrospective analysis of the SEER registry data for patients with ESBC. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to calculate the 95% credible interval (CR) of the incremental clinical and economic outcomes between the two scenarios. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2018, 32,936 (95% CR: 31,512, 34,357) fewer patients received post-lumpectomy RT among those aged 70 years or older diagnosed with ESBC in the US and there was a decrease cost of $419 M USD (95% CR: -$238 M, -$689 M) in scenarios with vs. without older adult-specific trial results. The difference in projected life years (1083 years, 95% CI: -2542, 7985) and QALYs (866 years, 95% CI: -2561, 7780) were not significant. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 k/QALY, the probability of older adult-specific trial results generating a positive net monetary benefit was 98%. DISCUSSION: The CALGB 9343 and PRIME II trial results were associated with a substantial cost-saving in the US society. Our results suggest that older adult-specific clinical trials that demonstrate no survival benefit of an intervention in older adults could be correlated with a significant monetary benefit. Further case studies are needed for different types of older adult-specific trials to understand the value of older adult-specific trials comprehensively.

How does cumulative evidence from older adult-specific trials influence clinical practice? A difference-in-differences analysis in early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing focus on conducting cancer clinical trials in older adults, it is unclear whether such evidence influences practice patterns. We aimed to estimate the impact of cumulative evidence from older adult-specific trial results from the CALGB 9343 and PRIME II trials that found post-lumpectomy irradiation has little benefit among older adults with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with ESBC between 2000 and 2018 were identified from the SEER registry data. We examined the incremental immediate effect, incremental average yearly effect, and cumulative effect of a series of CALGB 9343 and PRIME II results on the utilization level of post-lumpectomy irradiation. We conducted difference-in-differences analyses, comparing those aged 70 or older vs. <65 years old. RESULTS: The initial 5-year CALGB 9343 results in 2004 led to a significant immediate (-0.038, 95% CI: -0.064, -0.012) and average yearly decrease (-0.008, 95% CI: -0.013, -0.003) in the probability of irradiation use among those aged 70 or older compared to those below 65 years of age. 11-year CALGB 9343 results in 2010 significantly accelerated the average yearly effect by 1.7 percentage points (95% CI: -0.030, -0.004). The other later results did not significantly change the time trend. The cumulative effect of all results between 2004 and 2018 was -26.3 percentage points (95% CI: -0.29, -0.24). CONCLUSION: Cumulative evidence from older adult-specific trials in ESBC led to decreasing use of irradiation over time among elderly patients. The rate of decrease after the initial results was accelerated by long-term follow-up results.

Can we predict trial failure among older adult-specific clinical trials using trial-level factors?

INTRODUCTION: Conducting older adult-specific clinical trials can help overcome the lack of clinical evidence for older adults due to their underrepresentation in clinical trials. Understanding factors contributing to the successful completion of such trials can help trial sponsors and researchers prioritize studies and optimize study design. We aimed to develop a model that predicts trial failure among older adult-specific cancer clinical trials using trial-level factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified phase 2-4 interventional cancer clinical trials that ended between 2008 and 2019 and had the minimum age limit of 60 years old or older using Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov data. We defined trial failure as closed early for reasons other than interim results or toxicity or completed with a sample of <85% of the targeted size. Candidate trial-level predictors were identified from a literature review. We evaluated eight types of machine learning algorithms to find the best model. Model fitting and testing were performed using 5-fold nested cross-validation. We evaluated the model performance using the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Of 209 older adult-specific clinical trials, 87 were failed trials per the definition of trial failure. The model with the highest AUROC in the validation set was the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (AUROC in the test set = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53, 0.86). Trial-level factors included in the best model were the study sponsor, the number of participating centers, the number of modalities, the level of restriction on performance score, study location, the number of arms, life expectancy restriction, and the number of target size. Among these factors, the number of centers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.94), study being in non-US only vs. US only (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.82), and life expectancy restriction (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.04, 4.73) were significantly associated with the trial failure. DISCUSSION: We identified trial-level factors predictive of trial failure among older adult-specific clinical trials and developed a prediction model that can help estimate the risk of failure before a study is conducted. The study findings could aid in the design and prioritization of future older adult-specific clinical trials.

Does Clinical Evidence of Heterogeneity Impact Treatment Selection? A Case Study of Abiraterone for Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Two pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrate that abiraterone acetate + prednisone (AAP) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly extends the survival of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) compared with ADT alone. Their subgroup analyses indicate that the survival benefit is significant for younger men but not older men. We aimed to assess whether publication of the RCTs was associated with differential real-world AAP utilization by age groups. METHODS: Using TriNetX electronic medical records data collected from 43 healthcare organizations across the United States, we performed a difference-in-differences event study among men with newly diagnosed mHSPC observed from June 2014 to June 2019. Eligible subjects were identified based on a comprehensive published algorithm. We analyzed the change in utilization rate of AAP before versus after publication of the RCTs among men aged <70 years versus ≥70 years, adjusting for demographic factors and clinical conditions. RESULTS: Our study included 6,888 men with newly diagnosed mHSPC with 12,738 observations, of whom 46% were aged <70 years. The prepublication trends of AAP utilization were similar between the age groups, whereas publication of the RCTs was associated with a 3.5% higher adjusted uptake rate of AAP among younger men (95% CI, 1.2%-5.8%) relative to older men. This estimate reflects an uptake rate nearly 3 times higher than would have been expected had younger men followed the same utilization trends as older men. The estimates remained consistent throughout the postpublication period. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that publication of the RCTs was associated with faster uptake of AAP among younger versus older men with newly diagnosed mHSPC, despite the absence of clinical guidance for differential treatment selection. This finding highlights the importance of confirmatory studies among older men, considering the uncertainties of subgroup analyses in RCTs.

Comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus entrectinib for the treatment of metastatic NTRK gene fusion cancers.

Aim: To extrapolate clinical trial results to estimate and compare expected progression-free and overall life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) for larotrectinib and entrectinib in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and brain metastases prior to treatment with larotrectinib or entrectinib. Methods: A naive direct comparison of larotrectinib versus entrectinib was made using partitioned survival modeling methods from clinical trial data. Results: Larotrectinib resulted in an additional 1.58 LYs (1.17 QALYs), 5.81 LYs (2.02 QALYs) and 1.01 LYs in CRC, STS and baseline brain metastases, respectively, compared with entrectinib. Conclusion: Larotrectinib provided life expectancy and QALY gains compared with entrectinib. Additional studies will be beneficial as more patients are treated and survival data develop to better inform comparative effectiveness results.

The potential long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs standard of care for treatment of metastatic TRK fusion thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is approved for patients with metastatic TRK fusion cancers, including differentiated thyroid (DTC), colorectal cancer (CRC), and soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Given the basket clinical trial design of larotrectinib, direct comparisons against standard of care in each of the mentioned cancers have not been assessed. Also, owing to the limited duration of follow-up in clinical trials, long-term outcomes for treatments are generally not known or estimated. OBJECTIVE: To compare expected life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients with metastatic DTC, CRC, and STS who are eligible to receive larotrectinib against patients with unknown NTRK gene fusion status receiving standard-of-care therapy. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to estimate the long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and standard of care for 3 tumor types. Larotrectinib survival data, assessed by independent review committee, were derived from an updated July 2020 analysis of 19, 8, and 23 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with metastatic TRK fusion DTC, CRC, and STS, respectively. The DTC survival data also included 2 patients aged less than 18 years for a total of 21 patients. Survival estimates for standard of care were derived from published clinical trials. Progressionfree and overall survival for all treatments were estimated using survival distributions (Exponential, Weibull, Log-logistic, and Lognormal) fit to the available data. The final exponential form was selected based on goodness-of-fit and clinical plausibility. QALYs were estimated by adjusting the time spent in the preprogression and postprogression health states by utility weights derived from publicly available literature. RESULTS: Patients receiving larotrectinib experienced more LYs and QALYs compared with those receiving standard-of-care treatments across all 3 assessed cancer types. In DTC, patients receiving larotrectinib had 7.15-8.26 additional LYs (5.87-6.12 QALYs); in CRC, patients receiving larotrectinib had 1.26-1.27 additional LYs (1.00 QALYs); and in STS, patients receiving larotrectinib had 5.56 additional LYs (1.99 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard of care in metastatic TRK wild-type cancers, larotrectinib is estimated to result in improved LY and QALY outcomes based on parametric extrapolations of intrial survival data. Because patient-level data were unavailable for adjusted analyses, a cross-trial comparison was performed. Given the limitations of this analytic approach and the small sample size for larotrectinib in trials, future studies should reassess the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs standard of care as treated patients accrue and long-term survival data mature. DISCLOSURES: K. Suh, J. Carlson, and S. Sullivan report consulting fees from Bayer US LLC. F. Xia and T. Williamson are employees of Bayer US LLC. This study was funded by Bayer US LLC. The sponsor had no role in the design of the study and did not have any role in the execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results.

Diagnosis and management of TRK fusion cancer.

The tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) family of proteins is encoded by neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) genes and has a role in the development and normal functioning of the nervous system. NTRK gene fusions have been identified as oncogenic drivers in a wide range of tumors in both adult and pediatric patients. There has recently been a paradigm shift in cancer treatment toward biomarker-based targeted therapies, as an increasing number of actionable targets are being identified across different tumors and/or tumor histologies. These targeted agents offer greater comparative effectiveness and safety vs historical nontargeted standard therapies. The development of drugs that specifically target oncogenic drivers of cancer has led to the emergence of screening technologies to identify the patients most likely to benefit from targeted therapy. This review describes the role of NTRK gene fusions in cancer and outlines the epidemiology of NTRK gene fusions, the therapeutic benefits of targeting TRK fusions with small molecule inhibitors, and recommendations for NTRK gene fusion testing in adult and pediatric patients with cancer, in order to guide treatment decisions.

Comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and entrectinib for TRK fusion cancer.

Larotrectinib and entrectinib are tumor-agnostic tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors that are indicated for the treatment of advanced or metastatic solid tumor cancers with neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions. Regulatory approval of both agents was based on data from single-arm phase 1/2 studies, including tumor-agnostic basket trials. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, there remains a paucity of data to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and entrectinib vs established standard-of-care treatments in cancers with NTRK gene fusions. Furthermore, no studies have directly compared the 2 agents. This article reviews what is known about the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and entrectinib vs standard therapies in TRK fusion cancer and examines the comparative effectiveness of the 2 TRK inhibitors. Historical and intrapatient comparisons suggest that TRK inhibitors improve disease response compared with preexisting treatments across most tumor histologies; indirect and limited comparisons of phase 1/2 data and preliminary simulation modeling suggest a potential advantage for larotrectinib over entrectinib in terms of clinical response and survival. Although limited, these data provide some insight into the position of these treatments in established treatment paradigms for TRK fusion cancer, a setting where real-world evidence will be slow to accrue due to the rare nature of these tumors but may be the only way in the future to answer the outstanding questions regarding these 2 agents. Meanwhile, we need to try to obtain the maximum benefit that can be achieved for our patients using the currently available knowledge.

JAK inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, 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, 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, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Herron-Smith, Nhan, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Atlas, Brouwer, Carlson, and Hansen received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements for devices and diagnostics in the United States: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Performance-based risksharing arrangements (PBRSAs) have continued to emerge and evolve over the last 2 decades. To date, most of the attention and available literature have focused on pharmaceuticals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current status and trends regarding the use of PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices in the United States. METHODS: We reviewed publicly available PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices using the University of Washington Performance Based Risk Sharing Database. We augmented the review using PubMed, Google, and payer and industry websites. Key words and phrases such as outcomes-based, value-based, coverage with evidence development, performance-based, and risk-sharing were used in combination with device or diagnostic. To characterize arrangements in terms of product and market attributes, we extracted data for each product, including arrangement descriptions, arrangement type, year, therapeutic area, product manufacturer, payer, and product type. Arrangements were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-two arrangements were identified between the years 2001 and 2019, with 30 (57.7%) for devices and 22 (42.3%) for diagnostic tests. Among these, 23 (44.2%) were coverage with evidence development (CED), only in research; 17 (32.7%) were performance-linked reimbursement (PLR); and 12 (23.1%) were CED, only with research. The majority of arrangements for devices were developed in cardiology (12, 40%), endocrinology (4, 13.3%), and radiology (3, 10%). Most of arrangements for identified diagnostic tests were in oncology (17, 77.3%). Over time, there has been a trend towards increasing adoption of PLR and CED, only with research, especially since 2014. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to comprehensively review PBRSA arrangements for diagnostics and devices in the United States. Our findings demonstrated that there is substantial PBRSA activity for devices and diagnostics, and the pace of PBRSA adoption appears to be increasing in terms of frequency and variety. These arrangements have implications for managed care into the future as the health care system shifts towards value-based care and value-based pricing to contain cost for payers and ensure value in the patient populations. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Budget impact analysis of the DiviTum TKa assay in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: DiviTum TKa, a blood-based biomarker assay developed to monitor and predict treatment response in hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer (HR + mBC), may decrease traditional disease monitoring assessments and avoid prolongation of futile treatments. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the diagnostic and treatment budget impact of the assay on a postmenopausal HR + HER2- mBC population in a one-million-member U.S. health plan. METHODS: We developed a budget impact model comparing inclusion and exclusion of DiviTum TKa to standard care under which DiviTum TKa (1) reduces the frequency of traditional mBC monitoring tools, and (2) predicts treatment futility in advance of radiological disease progression. Traditional disease monitoring assessment schedules were based on guidelines and expert opinions. DiviTum TKa's impact on therapy utilization was based on published literature and expert opinion. Modeled costs included DiviTum TKa, NCCN-recommended treatments, imaging, biomarker testing, and adverse events. We calculated total and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs with a 3-year time horizon. RESULTS: The inclusion of 416 DiviTum TKa assays ($166,400) was largely offset by 193 fewer CT scans, 88 fewer bone scans, and 55 fewer biomarker tests over 3 years, a savings of -$128,400, resulting in a PMPM of $0.001. In scenario analyses, adding DiviTum TKa resulted in additional treatment-related cost-savings (-$465,600), resulting in a PMPM cost-savings of -$0.013, or an average savings of -$7,400 per each patient initiating first-line cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus aromatase inhibitor therapy. Expected savings approached 3× the spend on the new test. Results were most sensitive to DiviTum TKa cost, population parameters, and treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical use of the DiviTum TKa assay is expected to decrease traditional imaging and monitoring and may reduce the overall cost of managing mBC if it leads to clinical decisions to avoid futile therapy. Post-coverage, real-world monitoring of palliative therapies among post-menopausal mBC populations is needed to better categorize cost savings over time.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYWhat is already known about this subject Current monitoring of therapy for hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer involves a combination of tumor marker testing, imaging, and other tools. Monitoring is variable in practice, and therefore relatively insensitive to evidence of tumor progression.What this study adds DiviTum TKa is a novel biomarker that may offer a more convenient and sensitive alternative to traditional monitoring of metastatic breast cancer. Factoring in cost offsets due to reduced monitoring and earlier discontinuation of futile therapies may be cost-saving to health plans that cover this technology.

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.

Exploring Medication Adherence with P2Y12 Inhibitors Using Conditional and Unconditional Quantile Regression Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Previous research assessing medication adherence with P2Y12 inhibitors has shown good adherence rates, ranging from 78% to 92%. Studies that used administrative claims data defined adherence using an arbitrary cut point of ≥ 80% medication possession ratio (MPR) or proportion of days covered (PDC). While this method is used frequently, it does not allow the researcher to observe how each factor impacts adherence along the entire distribution. The objective of the study was to use conditional quantile regression (CQR) and unconditional quantile regression (UQR) to assess heterogenous effects of adherence to P2Y12 inhibitors and covariates of interest and compare these results to those from a traditional logistic regression framework. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study used the commercial claims and encounters databases from IBM® MarketScan® from 2010 to 2017. We included patients who had an incident percutaneous coronary intervention, used a drug-eluting stent, and filled an incident prescription for a P2Y12 inhibitor. Adherence was measured for 185 days using PDC. Adherence to branded clopidogrel, generic clopidogrel, branded prasugrel, and branded ticagrelor was assessed, along with factors that could impact adherence, using logistic regression, CQR, and UQR. We found that while adherence to the antiplatelets was generally high, prasugrel and ticagrelor had significantly lower PDC compared to branded clopidogrel, especially around the 30th percentile. Across all quantiles in both the CRQ and UQR frameworks, comorbidities such as diabetes and depression and living in the southern region had significant negative effects on adherence, although the relative impact differed across quantiles. CONCLUSIONS: Using CQR and UQR allowed for heterogenous assessment of covariates along the adherence distribution, which is not possible with the traditional logistic regression method. The UQR framework revealed patients who initiate prasugrel or ticagrelor generally have lower adherence compared to those treated with branded clopidogrel, especially around the 30th quantile. Using these methods in other types of data sets, such as electronic health records, could help strengthen our results to develop policies to improve antiplatelet adherence in a targeted population.

Economic Burden of Metastatic Ovarian Cancer in a Commercially Insured Population: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the tenth most common type of cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer death among females in the United States. The majority of incident ovarian cancer cases are diagnosed in individuals aged < 65 years, but limited evidence exists regarding the economic burden of ovarian cancer in this age group. OBJECTIVES: To (a) estimate the annual all-cause direct total cost of metastatic ovarian cancer and (b) compare it to the cost of individuals without cancer in the working age commercially insured U.S. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. Patients were included if they met the following criteria: ≥ 1 medical claim with a secondary malignancy diagnosis in the primary position between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015 (earliest date of diagnosis defined as the index date); aged ≥ 18 years on the index date; ≥ 12 months of continuous enrollment before the index date; ≥ 1 month of continuous enrollment after the index date; and ≥ 1 inpatient medical claim or ≥ 2 outpatient medical claims ≥ 30 days apart, with an ovarian cancer diagnosis in any claim position within 60 days before or 30 days after the index date. Patients were excluded if they had ≥ 1 medical claim with a cancer diagnosis except for ovarian cancer in any claim position during the 12-month pre-index period. Controls were randomly selected and matched to metastatic ovarian cancer patients based on age, region, index date, number of months of continuous enrollment after the index date, and propensity score. Annual all-cause direct total costs and ovarian cancer-related direct total costs were estimated and compared for each cohort by using the Kaplan-Meier sample average technique to account for censoring after the index date. RESULTS: 2,991 metastatic ovarian cancer patients and 2,991 matched controls were included in this study. Patients in the metastatic ovarian cancer cohort had a mean (SD) age of 54.4 (8.5) years, and controls had a mean (SD) age of 54.2 (8.4) years. The mean (95% CI) annual all-cause total costs in the 12-month post-index period were $140,124 ($134,025-$146,267) for metastatic ovarian cancer patients and $35,161 ($31,338-$39,529) for controls; the resulting mean (95% CI) difference in annual all-cause total costs was $104,964 ($99,732-$110,042). In comparison with the annual all-cause total costs, the mean (95% CI) annual ovarian cancer-related total costs in the 12-month post-index period were $86,971 ($82,349-$91,508) for metastatic ovarian cancer patients and $0 ($0-$0) for controls. CONCLUSIONS: Working age patients with metastatic ovarian cancer have significantly higher costs compared with those without cancer. These findings contribute to the understanding of the burden of illness in a patient population where limited evidence currently exists on the economic consequences of the disease. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose. This study was presented at the 2019 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, LA.

The Potential Long-Term Comparative Effectiveness of Larotrectinib and Entrectinib for Second-Line Treatment of TRK Fusion-Positive Metastatic Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib and entrectinib are FDA-approved therapies for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase gene fusion (TRK fusion-positive) whose cancer has metastasized and progressed. Early evidence indicates that these targeted therapies may offer dramatic survival benefits versus traditional cytotoxic regimens, but it remains uncertain how larotrectinib and entrectinib compare with each other. OBJECTIVE: To simulate and compare expected life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for both TRK inhibitors. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to project the long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus entrectinib in second-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Larotrectinib survival data were derived from a 13-month follow-up of 12 patients with TRK fusion-positive NSCLC in the NCT02122913 (phase 1) and NCT02576431 (NAVIGATE) trials. Entrectinib survival data were derived from a 13-month follow-up of 10 patients with TRK fusion-positive NSCLC in the ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1, and STARTRK-2 trials. For larotrectinib and entrectinib progression-free survival and overall survival (OS), in-trial survival was extrapolated using parametric curve fits. Exponential fits were selected for all survival models based on minimal Bayesian information criteria and clinical plausibility. Lifetime survival curves were used to estimate expected mean/median survival. QALYs were estimated by applying preprogression and postprogression health state utilities derived from the literature. RESULTS: In the base case, treatment with larotrectinib and entrectinib resulted in 5.4 and 1.2 median preprogression life-years and 7.0 and 1.8 median total life-years, respectively. Mean preprogression life-years (QALYs) were 7.5 (5.0) and 1.9 (1.2), and mean total life-years (QALYs) were 9.2 (5.8) and 4.4 (2.4), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among TRK inhibitors for metastatic NSCLC, larotrectinib is estimated to provide improved life-year and QALY outcomes versus entrectinib based on parametric extrapolations of in-trial survival data. Our analysis is limited by lack of NSCLC-specific data on entrectinib OS, the small samples of patients with NSCLC in the trials, and a cross-trial comparison. Future studies should re-evaluate the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus entrectinib as more patients are treated and as long-term survival data mature. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by Bayer Healthcare, which reviewed the manuscript drafts, and employees contributed to the manuscript as coauthors. Xia and Williamson are employees of Bayer Healthcare. Roth, Carlson, and Sullivan are consultants to Bayer Healthcare and retain rights to all final revisions to the manuscript. Carlson also reports fees from Adaptive Biotechnologies, unrelated to this work. Roth reports consulting fees from BMS, unrelated to this work.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of low-dose direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for the prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that low-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including rivaroxaban and apixaban, may help reduce the incidence of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed from the health sector perspective using a Markov state-transition model in patients with cancer who are at intermediate-to-high risk for VTE. Transition probability, relative risk, cost, and utility inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of the RCTs and relevant epidemiology studies. Differences in cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per patient were calculated over a lifetime horizon. One-way, probabilistic, and scenario sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In patients with cancer at intermediate-to-high risk for VTE, treatment with low-dose DOAC thromboprophylaxis for 6 months, compared with placebo, was associated with 32 per 1000 fewer VTE and 11 per 1000 more major bleeding episodes over a lifetime. The incremental cost and QALY increases were $1445 and 0.12, respectively, with an ICER of $11,947 per QALY gained. Key drivers of ICER variations included the relative risks of VTE and bleeding as well as drug cost. This strategy was 94% cost effective at the threshold of $50,000 per QALY. The selection of patients with Khorana scores ≥3 yielded the greatest value, with an ICER of $5794 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose DOAC thromboprophylaxis for 6 months appears to be cost-effective in patients with cancer who are at intermediate-to-high risk for VTE. The implementation of this strategy in patients with Khorana scores ≥3 may lead to the highest cost-benefit ratio.