Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma.

Importance: In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved. Results: Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.

Budget impact analysis of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer from a US payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women and has the highest mortality rate of gynecological cancers. Niraparib was recently approved by the FDA for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with advanced epithelial OC in complete or partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) regardless of biomarker status. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the direct economic impact on US payers of adding niraparib as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced OC. METHODS: The model considered 2 scenarios: a current scenario in which niraparib does not have regulatory approval for first-line maintenance therapy and a future scenario in which niraparib has regulatory approval for first-line maintenance therapy. The budget impact was calculated as the difference in cost between the 2 scenarios. The budget impact model (BIM) considered 2 different US health care payer perspectives: a commercial health plan and a Medicare plan. Both payer perspectives were assumed to have a hypothetical 1 million affiliates that were covered. Epidemiological data was used to estimate the eligible incident population of patients with OC. Active surveillance, bevacizumab (as a monotherapy), and olaparib (as a monotherapy restricted to patients with the breast cancer gene [BRCA] mutation) were included in the model as alternative maintenance treatment options (maintenance treatment options required 1% market share for inclusion). Cost categories considered in the BIM included diagnostic testing, treatment acquisition and administration, treatment-emergent adverse events, and subsequent therapy. Results were presented as an incremental budget impact to payers over 3 years. RESULTS: For a commercial health plan of 1 million affiliates, the estimated impact of adding niraparib as a first-line maintenance treatment option for advanced epithelial OC was calculated as $87,906, $93,106, and $87,037 for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average budget impact per member per month was $0.007. For a Medicare health plan of 1 million affiliates, the estimated impact was calculated as $206,785, $219,017, and $204,739 for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average budget impact per member per month was $0.018. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that budget impact was most sensitive to the treatment duration and market share of niraparib, the non-treatment-specific data on overall survival rates, and the treatment duration of bevacizumab. Treatment of drug-specific adverse events had little impact on the budget model. CONCLUSIONS: The model estimated a minimal budget impact to both a commercial or Medicare health plan following the introduction of niraparib as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced epithelial OC who are in complete or partial response to first-line PBC regardless of biomarker status. DISCLOSURES: This study was financially supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Liu, Hawkes, Maiese, and Hurteau are employees of GlaxoSmithKline. Travers was employed by GlaxoSmithKline at the time of this study. Spalding and Walder are employees of FIECON Ltd., which was contracted by GlaxoSmithKline to develop the budget impact model used in this study.

A Prospective Economic Analysis of Early Outcome Data From the Alliance A041202/ CCTG CLC.2 Randomized Phase III Trial Of Bendamustine-Rituximab Compared With Ibrutinib-Based Regimens in Untreated Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: The Alliance A041202/CCTG CLC.2 trial demonstrated superior progression-free survival with ibrutinib-based therapy compared to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis of Canadian patients to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with these therapies. METHODS: Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months. Health state utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D instrument with Canadian tariffs applied to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were applied to resource utilization data (expressed in 2019 US dollars). We examined costs and QALYs associated ibrutinib, ibrutinib with rituximab (IR), and BR therapy. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were enrolled; two patients were excluded from the analysis. On-protocol costs (associated with protocol-specified resource use) were higher for patients receiving ibrutinib (mean $189,335; P < 0.0001) and IR (mean $219,908; P < 0.0001) compared to BR (mean $51,345), driven by higher acquisition costs for ibrutinib. Total mean costs (over 2-years) were $192,615 with ibrutinib, $223,761 with IR, and $55,413 with BR (P < 0.0001 for ibrutinib vs. BR and P < 0.0001 for IR vs. BR). QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR; therefore, a formal cost-utility analysis was not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Direct medical costs are higher for patients receiving ibrutinib-based therapies compared to chemoimmunotherapy in frontline chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with the cost of ibrutinib representing a key driver.

Adverse Events and Economic Burden Among Patients Receiving Systemic Treatment for Mantle Cell Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Limited published real-world data describe adverse events (AEs) among patients treated for mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL). The aim of this retrospective study was to describe treatment patterns, AEs, and associated healthcare costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had two or more claims coded for MCL diagnosis, the first claim date (07/01/2012-05/31/2017) was the index date. Patients with pre-index MCL diagnosis or systemic treatment, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were excluded. Cohorts by regimen were followed for up to three lines of therapy. RESULTS: Patients (n=395; median age 72 years; 31% female) were observed over a total of 576 lines of therapy, the most common being bendamustine plus rituximab; rituximab monotherapy; R-CHOP; and ibrutinib. The most frequent AEs were hypertension (40.5%), anemia (37.7%), and infection (36.1%). However, hepatotoxicity ($19,645), stroke ($18,893), and renal failure ($9,037) were associated with the highest medical costs per patient per month. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving common systemic treatments for MCL, AEs occurred frequently; some imposed substantial inpatient care costs.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12-24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. METHODS: We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. RESULTS: At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Importance: There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS). Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186 777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17 000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629 347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557 865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with first-line ibrutinib compared to chemoimmunotherapy treatment among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization and costs of Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who received ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in first line (1 L). METHODS: Fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) claims data were used to identify adults with a CLL/SLL diagnosis initiating 1 L ibrutinib single agent or CIT between 4 March 2016 and 30 September 2017 (index date). HRU and costs (Medicare spending) were evaluated during 1 L Oncology Care Model (1 L OCM) episodes (the first six months post-index) and over the observed 1 L duration. Patients' baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Mean monthly cost differences (MMCDs) obtained from ordinary least square regressions were used to compare costs between ibrutinib and CIT cohorts. RESULTS: In the Medicare FFS dataset (ibrutinib: n = 2014; CIT: n = 2050), ibrutinib patients incurred significantly higher monthly pharmacy costs (1 L OCM: MMCD = $4878, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD= $4892, p < .0001) that were fully offset by lower monthly medical costs (1 L OCM: MMCD= -$8289, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$5888, p < .0001), yielding a monthly total healthcare cost reduction (1 L OCM: MMCD=-$3411, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$996, p < .0001) relative to CIT patients. In the MA dataset (ibrutinib: n = 293; CIT: n = 303), ibrutinib was also associated with a monthly total healthcare cost reduction (1 L OCM: MMCD=-$10,459; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$5492). CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare patients with CLL/SLL, 1 L ibrutinib single agent was associated with total monthly cost savings relative to 1 L CIT, driven by lower monthly medical costs that fully offset higher monthly pharmacy costs.

Time to Next Treatment, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Costs Associated with Ibrutinib Use Among U.S. Veterans with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is the most common adult leukemia, accounting for ≈ 37% of all leukemias in the United States. Limited real-word evidence is available on the outcomes of ibrutinib use among previously untreated patients in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) population diagnosed with CLL/SLL. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate time to next treatment (TTNT) among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL who initiated ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in first line (1L) and 1L ibrutinib versus ibrutinib in later lines (2L+) and (b) compare health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs between the 1L ibrutinib and CIT cohorts. METHODS: Adults with CLL/SLL and claims for 1L single-agent ibrutinib or CIT (index date = first prescription claim date) were included from Veterans Health Administration Data (April 1, 2013-March 31, 2018). A subset of the CIT 1L cohort with evidence of ibrutinib in 2L/3L was defined as the ibrutinib 2L+ cohort. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate TTNT, and generalized linear models were used to determine all-cause per patient per month (PPPM) HRU and costs during 1L among propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts. RESULTS: After PSM, 614 patients were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 1L CIT cohorts, and 149 were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts. The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly longer TTNT compared with each of the 1L CIT and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts (P <0.0001 and P =0.0001, respectively) and was less likely to have a next line of treatment than the CIT 1L cohort (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.42-0.65; P < 0.0001) and the 2L+ ibrutinib cohort (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.22-0.69; P = 0.0012). The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly fewer inpatient visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.28-0.52; P ≤ 0.05) and outpatient visits PPPM (RR =0.72; 95% CI = 0.68-0.77; P ≤ 0.5) compared with the CIT 1L cohort. Additionally, the 1L ibrutinib cohort had $7,308 significantly lower monthly medical costs (95% CI = -$9,892 to -$4,895; P ≤ 0.05) versus the 1L CIT cohort, resulting in comparable monthly total health care cost (medical and pharmacy) between real-world 1L patients treated by ibrutinib and CIT (-$2,160; 95% CI = -$4,840-$347; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL, 1L ibrutinib use was associated with significantly longer TTNT versus that of 1L CIT. Similarly, early treatment with ibrutinib was associated with longer TTNT as compared to ibrutinib use in later lines of therapy. Moreover, 1L ibrutinib was associated with lower HRU and medical costs compared with 1L CIT, completely offsetting the higher pharmacy costs related to 1L ibrutinib treatment. DISCLOSURES: This research was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. The analyses were performed by STATinMED Research. Huang is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs and may own company stock. Sundaram was an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs at the time this study was conducted. Borra and Janjan are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to the study sponsor. Wang, Li, and Shrestha were employees of STATinMED Research at the time this study was conducted.

Movement of Poly-ADP Ribose (PARP) Inhibition into Frontline Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

Niraparib maintenance in frontline management of ovarian cancer: a cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Niraparib maintenance after frontline chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer extends progression free survival. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. METHODS: Decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus niraparib maintenance following chemotherapy for five groups: all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients (overall), those with homologous recombination deficiency, those harboring BRCA mutations (BRCA), homologous recombination deficiency patients without BRCA mutations (homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA), and non-homologous recombination deficiency patients. Drug costs were estimated using average wholesale prices. Progression free survival was estimated from published data and used to estimate projected overall survival. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios per quality adjusted life year were calculated. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of niraparib were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality adjusted life year saved. RESULTS: For the overall group, the cost of observation was US$5.8 billion versus $20.5 billion for niraparib maintenance, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $72 829. For the homologous recombination deficiency group, the observation cost was $3.0 billion versus $14.8 billion for niraparib maintenance (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $56 329). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for the BRCA, homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA, and non-homologous recombination deficiency groups were $58 348, $50 914, and $88 741, respectively. For the overall and homologous recombination deficiency groups, niraparib remained cost effective if projected overall survival was 2.2 and 1.5 times progression free survival, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, maintenance therapy with niraparib was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was improved when analyzing those patients with homologous recombination deficiency and BRCA mutations. Efforts should continue to optimize poly-ADP-ribose polymerase utilization strategies.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

Real-World Treatment Patterns, Adverse Events, Resource Use, and Costs Among Commercially Insured, Younger Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the USA: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst a changing treatment landscape, real-world evidence on the burden of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden among treated patients with CLL. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus. Patients at least 18 years old with CLL treatment between November 1, 2013 and May 31, 2018 were identified; index date was first observed CLL treatment. Patients had at least one CLL diagnosis pre-index and a second diagnosis anytime during the study period, at least 1-year pre- and at least 30-day post-index continuous enrollment and no pre-index CLL treatment. Analyses focused on patients receiving one of the four most common regimens observed. Outcomes included treatment patterns, frequency of incident AEs, and healthcare resource use and costs. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear modelling were used to evaluate risk of hospitalization and all-cause costs per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: A total of 1706 patients were included in the study (median [interquartile range] age 58 [55-62] years, 66% male, median Charlson Comorbidity Index 2 [2-3], median follow-up 16 [8-28] months). Common regimens, irrespective of treatment line, were bendamustine-rituximab (B-R, 27%), ibrutinib monotherapy (I, 27%), rituximab monotherapy (R, 19%), and fludarabine combined with cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR, 16%); 59% had at least one incident AE (B-R, 62%; I, 60%; R, 25%; FCR, 79%). Mean total all-cause healthcare cost over follow-up was $13,858 ± 14,626 PPPM. Increased number of AEs was associated with increased odds of hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-3.4) and increased mean cost PPPM (cost ratio = 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.2). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the treatment toxicity and associated economic burden among patients with CLL in the USA. As novel therapies are increasingly used, further research examining outcomes will inform the risks, benefits, and value of novel agents to prescribers and patients.

Costs and Health Outcomes Associated with Tofacitinib Treatment for Active Psoriatic Arthritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory condition associated with significant direct and indirect costs. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. Economic evaluations, alongside clinical data, help inform papers and formulary decisions in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes and costs of including tofacitinib in treatment strategies for PsA from a third-party U.S. payer perspective, using a health economic model. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate treatment sequences (up to 4 lines of advanced PsA therapy) with or without tofacitinib. Patients included in the model had active PsA and a previous inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy. The analysis time horizon was 2 years; decision points for continuing/switching treatments occurred quarterly, based on clinical response (assessed using the primary rheumatoid measure of efficacy, American College of Rheumatology [ACR]20 response only) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Costs included those related to ADRs and drug acquisition, monitoring, and administration. Other endpoints of PsA, such as assessment of enthesitis and dactylitis, were not integrated into the model. RESULTS: Treatment strategies including tofacitinib were associated with cost savings versus strategies without tofacitinib across all modeled scenarios, with an estimated 2-year cost saving of up to $8,454,858, based on 1 million insurants. Similarly, costs per member per month and per ACR20 responder were lower for sequences including tofacitinib versus sequences without. These savings arose because of lower ADR and drug acquisition/administration costs for sequences including tofacitinib. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that including tofacitinib in the treatment of active PsA in csDMARD-IR or TNFi-IR patients is a cost-saving alternative to sequences without tofacitinib, potentially reducing costs for PsA advanced therapies by up to $8.4 million over 2 years for payers insuring 1 million individuals. DISCLOSURES: This work was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Bungey is an employee of Decision Resources Group, which received financial support from Pfizer Inc to develop the treatment-cost model used in the development of this manuscript. Chang-Douglass was an employee of Decision Resources Group at the time of the analysis. During development of this publication, Chang-Douglass started a role at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The publication only reflects her views and does not reflect the views of NICE. Hsu, Cappelleri, Young, and Woolcott are employees of Pfizer Inc and own stock or stock options in Pfizer Inc. The data reported in this manuscript have been previously presented at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Scientific Meeting; October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, IL, and the AMCP Annual Meeting and Expo; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer, with or without brain metastases, receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors.

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK + NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1 year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1 year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p = 0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK + NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK + NSCLC with BM versus no BM.

Alvimopan Is Associated With a Reduction in Length of Stay and Hospital Costs for Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of alvimopan in patient undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. We hypothesize that alvimopan can decrease cost for RC by reducing length of stay (LOS). METHODS: We identified patients who underwent elective RC for bladder cancer from 2009 to 2015 in the Premier Healthcare Database, a nationwide, all-payer hospital-based database, and compared patients who received and did not receive alvimopan in the perioperative period. Hospitals that had no record of administering alvimopan for patients undergoing RC were excluded. The primary outcomes were LOS and the direct hospital costs. The secondary outcomes were 90-day readmission for ileus and major complications. RESULTS: After applying the inclusion criteria, the study cohort consisted of 1087 patients with 511 patients receiving perioperative alvimopan. Alvimopan was associated with a reduction in hospital costs by -$2709 (95% confidence interval: -$4507 to -$912, P = .003), decreased median LOS (7 vs 8 days, P < .001), and lower likelihood of readmission for ileus (adjusted odds ratio: 0.63, P = .041). While alvimopan use led to higher pharmacy costs, this was outweighed by lower room and board costs due to the reduced LOS. There was no significant difference between 2 groups regarding major complications. These results were robust across multiple adjusted regression models. CONCLUSION: Our data show that alvimopan is associated with a substantial cost-saving in patients undergoing RC, and suggest that routine use of alvimopan may be a potential cost-effective strategy to reduce the overall financial burden of bladder cancer.

How the Beneficial Effects of Alvimopan Differ With Surgical Approach for Radical Cystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the beneficial perioperative effects of alvimopan differ with surgical approach for patients who undergo open radical cystectomy (ORC) vs robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed all patients who underwent cystectomy with urinary diversion at our institution between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2018. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, comorbidities, surgical approach, alvimopan therapy, hospital length of stay (LOS), days until return of bowel function (ROBF), and complications. Outcomes and interactions were evaluated through regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 573 patients, 236 (41.2%) underwent RARC, 337 (58.8%) underwent ORC, and 205 (35.8%) received alvimopan. Comparison of 4 cohorts (ORC with alvimopan, ORC without alvimopan, RARC with alvimopan, and RARC without alvimopan) showed that patients who underwent ORC without alvimopan had the highest rate of postoperative ileus (25.6%, P = .02), longest median hospital LOS (7 days, P < .001), and longest time until ROBF (4 days, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, the interaction between surgical approach and alvimopan use was significant for the outcome of ROBF (estimate, 1.109; 95% confidence interval, 0.418-1.800; P = .002). In the RARC cohort, multivariable analysis showed no benefit of alvimopan with respect to ileus (P = .27), LOS (P = .09), or ROBF (P = .36). Regarding joint effects of robotic approach and alvimopan, RARC had no effect on gastrointestinal tract outcomes. CONCLUSION: We observed a diminished beneficial effect of alvimopan among patients undergoing RARC and a statistically significant benefit of alvimopan among patients undergoing ORC. The implications of these findings may permit more selective medication use for patients who would benefit the most from this drug.

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease. METHODS: Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non­platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations. RESULTS: Non­platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non­platinum-based regimens. CONCLUSION: High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care.

Cost Effectiveness of Ceritinib and Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib improved survival in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the long-term economic outcomes of using ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the Chinese healthcare setting. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with ceritinib, alectinib or crizotinib. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the hazard ratios of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib by pooling published trials. Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. The primary outputs included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Treatment with alectinib and ceritinib yielded an additional 1.00 and 1.09 QALYs and incremental costs of $62,232 and $15,165, resulting in an ICER of $62,231 and $13,905 per QALY compared with crizotinib, respectively. Parameters related to drug costs and progression-free survival were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ceritinib and alectinib had a 99.9% and 0% probability of being cost effective, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28,410/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that compared with crizotinib and alectinib, ceritinib is a cost-effective option for treatment-naïve patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.