Economic burden during remission and after relapse among older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia without hematopoietic stem cell transplant: A retrospective study using the SEER-Medicare database.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with a substantial clinical and economic burden. This study characterized the magnitude of this burden following initial treatment with standard or less intensive therapies (hypomethylating agents [HMAs]) and throughout different treatment phases post-remission. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry (2007-2016) linked with Medicare beneficiary claims (2007-2015) was analyzed. Patients were ≥ 65 years old with AML who initiated chemotherapy or HMAs and achieved remission. Outcomes included baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and costs (2019 United States dollar). Economic impacts were stratified by treatment phase (initial treatment, early post-remission, late post-remission, and post-relapse). Early and late post-remission were defined as treatment initiated ≤ 60 days and > 60 days following initial treatment, respectively. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving only HMAs as initial treatment was also conducted. Overall, 530 patients were included (mean age: 74.1 years; 53.6 % male). In the overall analysis, 68.1 % of patients received post-remission treatment; 31.9% had no post-remission treatment. Mean monthly per patient healthcare costs by treatment phase were $45,747 (initial treatment), $30,248 (early post-remission), $23,173 (late post-remission), and $37,736 (post-relapse), driven predominantly by inpatient visits. The HMA subgroup analysis comprised 71 patients (mean age: 78.8 years; 50.7 % male); mean monthly per patient healthcare costs were highest post-relapse. The economic burden of AML among older patients is substantial across all treatment phases. AML treatments that induce and prolong remission may reduce HRU and the economic burden of disease.

Treatment patterns and overall survival of patients with double-class and triple-class refractory multiple myeloma: a US electronic health record database study.

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) resistant to multiple drug classes remain a high unmet need population. This longitudinal retrospective cohort study assessed real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in adults with RRMM. Patients who had three or more prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (double-exposed) were further categorized as refractory to a PI and an immunomodulatory agent (double-class refractory, n = 381) or additionally to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (triple-class refractory, n = 173). Treatment options are limited for patients with double-class or triple-class refractory disease. Retreatment is a part of standard of care. Bortezomib and lenalidomide had the highest retreatment rates among double-class and triple-class refractory patients. Survival outcomes remain poor among RRMM patients with median overall survival (OS) of 22.3 and 11.6 months for double-class refractory and triple-class refractory patients, respectively. This study highlights the need for novel efficacious therapies in this heavily pretreated RRMM population.

A Budget Impact Analysis of the Introduction of Copanlisib for Treatment of Relapsed Follicular Lymphoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Copanlisib was recently granted accelerated approval by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) after 2 previous systemic therapies. It is important to assess the effect that this and other changes in the treatment landscape of relapsed FL have on a payer's budget to inform formulary decisions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the budget impact associated with the addition of copanlisib to a formulary as third- or higher-line treatment for adult patients with relapsed FL who have received at least 2 previous systemic therapies, from the perspective of a U.S. third-party payer. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed over a 1-year horizon. The model considered a hypothetical population of 1 million people enrolled in a commercial health plan; patients with relapsed FL were identified based on epidemiology data. Treatments included copanlisib and approved and off-label therapies used for management of relapsed FL. Treatment distributions within the target population were based on a market research survey. Drug acquisition, administration, prophylaxis, and monitoring costs were based on prescribing information, clinical trials, literature, and expert opinion. All costs were inflated to 2017 U.S. dollars. Total costs were compared between 2 scenarios, 1 without and 1 with copanlisib on a formulary. A deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Within the 1 million-member health care plan, 18 patients had relapsed FL and had received at least 2 previous systemic therapies. Over 1 year, the addition of copanlisib and an increase in the use of obinutuzumab + bendamustine (from 9.0% without copanlisib to 13.1% with copanlisib) and lenalidomide + rituximab (from 0.3% to 12.0%) were estimated to increase drug acquisition costs by $238,536, drug administration and prophylaxis costs by $3,565, and monitoring costs by $539. The increase in total budget was $242,641, corresponding to $0.02 per member per month; 21.8% of this increase was attributable to copanlisib, 12.9% to obinutuzumab + bendamustine, and 65.3% to lenalidomide + rituximab. Results were generally robust in the DSA. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 1-year period, the model found that the addition of copanlisib to a formulary resulted in a small increase in total budget of $242,641, corresponding to $0.02 per patient per month and taking into account a concurrent increase in the use of obinutuzumab + bendamustine and lenalidomide + rituximab. Therefore, adding copanlisib to a formulary appears to be an affordable option for payers. Further studies should be conducted to more comprehensively assess the clinical and economic implications of adding copanlisib to the treatment armamentarium of relapsed FL. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. The study sponsor was involved in study design, data interpretation. and data review. All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript and maintained control over the final content. Appukkuttan, Yaldo, Gharibo, and Babajanyan report employment with Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals at the time of this study. Duchesneau, Zichlin, Bhak, and Duh report employment with Analysis Group, which received research funds from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals for work on this study. A synopsis of the current research was presented in poster format at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended 4-year follow-up and analysis of relative progression-free survival from the randomized ELOQUENT-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized phase 3 ELOQUENT-2 study (NCT01239797) evaluated the efficacy and safety of elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (ELd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Ld) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), and to date, has the longest follow-up of any monoclonal antibody in patients with RRMM. METHODS: In this extended 4-year follow-up of the ELOQUENT-2 trial, the coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate as well as the secondary endpoint of overall survival were assessed. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing Ld-based triplet regimens to guide treatment selection, 4 randomized controlled trials-ELOQUENT-2, ASPIRE, TOURMALINE-MM1, and POLLUX-were indirectly compared to provide insight into the relative efficacy of these regimens in RRMM. RESULTS: Data at 4 years were consistent with 2- and 3-year follow-up data: ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 29% versus Ld (hazard ratio, 0.71) while maintaining safety. The greatest PFS benefit among the assessed subgroups was observed in patients at the median time or further from diagnosis (≥3.5 years) with 1 prior line of therapy, who had a 44% reduction in the risk of progression/death, and in patients in the high-risk category, who had a 36% reduction in favor of ELd. This regimen also showed a relative PFS benefit that was maintained beyond 50 months. CONCLUSIONS: The sustained PFS benefit and long-term safety of ELd at 4 years, similar to those observed at 2 and 3 years, support ELd as a valuable therapeutic option for the long-term treatment of patients with RRMM.

Real-World Economic Outcomes During Time on Treatment Among Patients Who Initiated Sunitinib or Pazopanib as First Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis of Medicare Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: The median age at renal cell carcinoma (RCC) diagnosis is 64 years. However, few studies have assessed the real-world time on treatment (TOT), health resource utilization (HRU), costs, or treatment compliance associated with targeted therapy use among patients in this age group with RCC. OBJECTIVE: To assess the HRU, costs, and compliance during TOT among Medicare patients aged ≥ 65 years with advanced RCC (aRCC) who initiated first targeted therapy with pazopanib or sunitinib. METHODS: Patients with aRCC were identified in the 100% Medicare + Part D databases administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Eligible patients initiated first targeted therapy with sunitinib or pazopanib (index drug) on or after their first diagnosis of secondary neoplasm between October 19, 2009, and January 1, 2014, and were aged ≥ 65 years as of 1 year before first targeted therapy initiation (index date). Included patients were stratified into pazopanib and sunitinib cohorts based on first targeted therapy and matched 1:1 on baseline characteristics using propensity scores. TOT was defined as the time from the index date to treatment discontinuation (prescription gap > 90 days) or death. Compliance was defined as the ratio of drug supply days to TOT. Monthly all-cause costs and costs associated with RCC diagnosis (medical and pharmacy in 2015 U.S. dollars) and HRU (inpatient [admissions, readmissions, and days], outpatient, and emergency room visits) were assessed in the 1-year post-index period during TOT. Matched cohorts' TOT was compared using Kaplan-Meier analyses and univariable Cox models, and compliance, HRU, and costs were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Of 1,711 included patients, 526 initiated pazopanib and 1,185 initiated sunitinib. Before matching, more patients in the pazopanib cohort were white, diagnosed in 2010-2014 versus 2006-2009, and had lung metastases compared with the sunitinib cohort (all P < 0.05). The pazopanib cohort also had higher mean outpatient visits and costs but lower mean total all-cause pharmacy costs, than the sunitinib cohort (all P < 0.05). After matching, the pazopanib and sunitinib cohorts had similar characteristics (mean age 75 years, 58% male, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 9.2 in both cohorts) and median TOT (4.8 and 4.1 months, respectively). Among the 522 matched pairs, pazopanib was associated with significantly lower total all-cause health care costs ($8,527 vs. $10,924, respectively [mean difference = $2,397]); total medical costs ($3,991 vs. $5,881, respectively, [$1,890]); and inpatient costs ($2,040 vs. $3,731, respectively, [$1,692]; all P < 0.01) compared with sunitinib. Patients receiving pazopanib had significantly fewer inpatient admissions (0.179 vs. 0.289, respectively) and days (1.063 vs. 1.904, respectively; both P < 0.01) than patients receiving sunitinib. Mean treatment compliance was lower for the pazopanib versus sunitinib cohort (0.91 vs. 0.94, respectively; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients with aRCC from a TOT perspective, first targeted therapy with pazopanib was associated with significantly lower all-cause health care costs and HRU, but lower compliance, compared with sunitinib. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The sponsor was involved in all stages of the study's conduct and reporting. Vogelzang has been a consultant for Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Medivation, Eisai, Exelixis, and Roche; has spoken at Novartis, Astellas, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Dendreon, Bayer/Algeta, GSK, and Veridex/Janssen; and has received research support from Novartis, Bayer, Exelixis, Progenics, Bavarian Nordic, and Viamet. Pal has been a consultant for Novartis, Pfizer, Aveo, Dendreon, and Myriad and has spoken at Novartis, Pfizer and Medivation. Agarwal has been a consultant or advisor for Novartis, Pfizer, Exelixis, Cerulean Pharma, Medivation, Eisai, and Argos Therapeutics. Swallow, Peeples, Zichlin, and Meiselbach are employees of Analysis Group, which received consultancy fees from Novartis for this project. Li was an employee of Analysis Group during the conduct of this study. Ghate is an employee of Novartis and owns stock/stock options. Perez was an employee of Novartis during the conduct of this study. A synopsis of the economic outcomes was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017 in Denver, Colorado, during March 27-30, 2017. A synopsis of the clinical outcomes was presented at the 22nd ISPOR Annual International Meeting in Boston, Massachusetts, during May 20-24, 2017.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Elderly Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Starting Pazopanib or Sunitinib Treatment: A Retrospective Medicare Claims Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Studies indicate similar survival and toxicity between pazopanib and sunitinib, but few have examined real-world outcomes among elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The purpose of this retrospective claims analysis was to assess real-world overall survival (OS), healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and healthcare costs (both all-cause and associated with RCC diagnosis) among elderly advanced RCC patients starting pazopanib or sunitinib treatment. METHODS: Advanced RCC patients aged 65 years or older who started first-line treatment with pazopanib or sunitinib (index drug; the initiation date was the index date) were identified from the 100% Medicare database plus Part D linkage (January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014). Patients were stratified by index drug and matched 1:1 with use of propensity scores based on baseline characteristics. OS was assessed from the index date to death and compared by Kaplan-Meier analyses and univariable Cox models; patients were censored at the end of eligibility/data. Monthly HRU and costs from an intent-to-treat perspective were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced after matching (both N = 522). Treatment with pazopanib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared with treatment with sunitinib (18.2 months vs 14.6 months, respectively; log-rank p = 0.015). Pazopanib was associated with significantly lower monthly all-cause costs compared with sunitinib ($8845 vs $10,416, respectively), as well as lower inpatient costs associated with RCC diagnosis ($1542 vs $2522), fewer monthly inpatient admissions (0.179 vs 0.262), and shorter length of inpatient stay (1.375 days vs 1.883 days; all p ≤ 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly Medicare patients with advanced RCC, first-line pazopanib tretament was associated with significantly longer OS, as well as lower healthcare costs and HRU, compared with first-line sunitinib treatment.

Patterns of care among patients receiving sequential targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective chart review in the USA.

OBJECTIVES: To assess real-world treatment patterns of targeted therapies after failure of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: A large, retrospective review of medical charts of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the USA was carried out. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize physicians' and patients' characteristics, treatment sequences, and reasons for treatment choices. P-values were calculated using χ2 -tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables. A descriptive comparison was carried out between current results and those of a previous treatment pattern study conducted in 2012 to identify changes in treatment patterns over time. RESULTS: Sunitinib and everolimus remained the most commonly-used first and second targeted therapies, respectively. Among patients who continued to a third targeted therapy, everolimus and axitinib were the most commonly-used treatments after second targeted therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, respectively. The use of pazopanib as first targeted therapy, and of axitinib and sorafenib as second targeted therapies, increased over time. Efficacy, treatment guidelines and a different mechanism of action were the main reasons given by physicians for choosing among second targeted therapies after failure of a first tyrosine kinase inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study document patterns of care during a period of rapid and ongoing therapeutic advancement in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Sequencing of therapies warrants ongoing analysis in light of new agents entering the advanced renal cell carcinoma treatment landscape.

Real-World Survival Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Among Patients Receiving First Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The real-world survival outcomes and prognostic factors among patients receiving first-line targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) are not well known. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with RCC and treated with first-line targeted therapy were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database (January 1, 1993 to December 31, 2012). The patients were grouped into early (2006-2009) or late (2010-2012) targeted therapy era cohorts by the year of the first-line targeted therapy initiation. Overall survival (OS) was measured from first-line targeted therapy initiation and compared between the 2 cohorts using Kaplan-Meier analyses. The prognostic factors for OS were assessed using a multivariable-adjusted Cox model. RESULTS: A total of 604 and 641 aRCC patients (mean age, 68 years; ∼60% male in both cohorts) initiated first-line targeted therapy during the early and late targeted therapy eras, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the late than in the early targeted therapy era. Higher tumor grades (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-2.00) and lung (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53), bone (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.66), and liver (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84) metastases were associated with significantly shorter OS. Previous nephrectomy (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.72) and pazopanib as first-line targeted therapy relative to sorafenib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.85) or sunitinib (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.95) were associated with significantly longer OS. CONCLUSION: The results of these real-world analyses suggest progress in aRCC management and identified positive (nephrectomy, pazopanib vs. sunitinib or sorafenib) and negative (higher tumor grade and lung, bone, or liver metastasis) prognostic factors among patients receiving first-line targeted therapy.