Practice efficiency and total cost of care with bispecifics and CAR-T in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an institutional perspective.

Aim: Novel treatment options for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma include T-cell targeting therapies. Practice efficiency and cost are important for informed treatment decisions.Materials/methods: An institutional decision-maker cost model was developed for 6-month, 1-year and median cycles of treatment time horizons comparing practice efficiency and costs of epcoritamab vs glofitamab and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel).Results: Overall, epcoritamab required the shortest personnel and chair time, except over 1 year (second shortest chair time). Across all time horizons, epcoritamab was cost-saving vs axi-cel and had similar costs to glofitamab on a per-month basis.Conclusion: Epcoritamab reduced personnel and chair time. Additionally, epcoritamab was cost-saving vs axi-cel and had similar costs to glofitamab on a per-month basis.

There are new ways to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which is a type of cancer called lymphoma. When new treatments are available it is important to see if they take more or less time to give to patients and how much they cost versus other treatments. This study looked at three drugs used to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, including epcoritamab, axi-cel and glofitamab. It estimated the time and cost with those treatments in patients who get them for 6 months, 1 year or for the most common length of time in the clinical trials. In most of the scenarios, epcoritamab had the least time needed for nurses or doctors and the least time needed for a patient to be in a chair in a clinic. When thinking about the cost per month, epcoritamab saved money versus axi-cel and was similar to glofitamab.

Cost-effectiveness of intensification with SGLT2 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Using a US payer perspective, this study aimed to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of adding sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors vs switching to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) among patients with type 2 diabetes who were not at glycated hemoglobin A1c target after dual therapy with metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. STUDY DESIGN: The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with the validated IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. Treatment effects were obtained from randomized clinical trials with economic data based on published literature. METHODS: Risk of treatment-emergent adverse events and complications were simulated using submodels informed by published risk equations adjusted for patient characteristics, physiological parameters, and history of complications. Outcomes included cumulative incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs. Scenario analyses were performed to assess robustness of results to variations in clinical and cost inputs and assumptions. RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, adding an SGLT2 inhibitor dominated the strategy of switching to a GLP-1 RA, improving survival by 0.049 LYs and 0.026 QALYs, and was associated with cost savings of $9511. The majority of the scenario analyses confirmed dominance of the DPP-4 inhibitor + SGLT2 inhibitor pathway vs the GLP-1 RA pathway. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis reinforced the base-case finding of cost savings while gaining QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Intensification with an SGLT2 inhibitor on top of a DPP-4 inhibitor demonstrated slightly better efficacy and cost savings compared with switching to a GLP-1 RA in patients not at glycemic goal with metformin and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Budget Impact of Oral Semaglutide Intensification versus Sitagliptin among US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled with Metformin.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin. METHODS: This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have many treatment options. Choices depend on factors such as cost, preference, and patient characteristics. Oral semaglutide was recently approved for the treatment of T2DM as the first oral therapy of its class. This study estimated the cost for patients treated with sitagliptin 100 mg, a commonly used T2DM treatment, versus oral semaglutide 14 mg for patients whose disease is not well controlled with metformin. Costs and effects were estimated over 5 years for each treatment strategy using predictive model equations and clinical trial data for the two treatments. These costs were considered for both a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million lives and the full US population. A patient treated with oral semaglutide 14 mg would expect to see 70.7% higher costs than a patient treated with sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years. For every 10% of patients who would switch from sitagliptin 100 mg to oral semaglutide 14 mg, costs would increase by 7.1%. Changing the cost of oral semaglutide 14 mg had the greatest impact on model results. The findings from the analysis were consistent across a range of alternate model inputs. Oral semaglutide 14 mg is more costly than sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe uncontrolled allergic asthma in the United States.

Objective: Uncontrolled asthma is associated with considerable clinical burden and costs to payers and patients. US economic models evaluating biologics using data from clinical trials demonstrate high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), but the cost-effectiveness based on real-world treatment patterns is unknown. This analysis used real-world evidence to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding omalizumab to standard of care (SOC).Methods: A Markov model was applied to track patients' health states in 2-week cycles, comparing costs and treatment effects of SOC alone versus SOC + omalizumab over a lifetime (US payer perspective). Outcomes included exacerbation events, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs, and an ICER. Patient characteristics, exacerbations, patient-reported outcomes, and work productivity were derived from the real-world PROSPERO (Prospective Study to Evaluate Predictors of Clinical Effectiveness in Response to Omalizumab) study. Published literature informed mortality, exacerbation-related disutility, and unit costs. Sensitivity analyses assessed model robustness.Results: Over a lifetime horizon, omalizumab was associated with an increase of 2.0 QALYs at a cost of $US 148,319 in patients with uncontrolled asthma (ICER of $75,319/QALY gained) and a reduction in exacerbations of 6.0 events/patient. Accounting for responder status improved the ICER ($70,505/QALY); incorporating indirect costs further reduced the ICER. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed that the base case outcome was robust to variation in inputs.Conclusions: Based on real-world outcomes, omalizumab may be cost-effective for uncontrolled asthma from the US payer perspective. Including broader evidence on treatment discontinuation, caregiver burden, and oral corticosteroid reduction from real-world studies may better reflect the effects and value of omalizumab for all healthcare stakeholders.

Urine circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection of acquired EGFR T790M mutation in non-small-cell lung cancer: An outcomes and total cost-of-care analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have proven effective in patients with the acquired EGFR T790M resistance mutation who progress on prior EGFR TKI therapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) on a 3rd-gen TKI was 9-10 months for T790M+ patients compared to 2.8 months for T790M- patients. PFS is similar regardless of the specimen used to assess T790M, such as tissue, plasma, or urine ctDNA. This study aimed to assess the total cost of care of a urine-testing strategy (UTS) versus a tissue-testing strategy (TTS) for T790M detection, in patients with EGFR-mutation positive lung adenocarcinoma and progression on prior TKI therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term outcomes and economic implications were assessed from a US payer perspective. Endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), medical resource use and related costs. DATA SOURCES: We included published randomized drug trials and Medicare fee schedules. A state-transition analysis and Markov model tracked patients from stable disease to progression and death. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of findings and identify factors that most influenced outcomes and costs. RESULTS: UTS increased the rate of detection of patients with T790M mutation eligible for treatment with 3rd generation TKI by 7% compared with TTS; urine ctDNA testing detected T790M mutation in some patients for whom biopsy could not be performed or when tissue testing yielded indeterminate results. Due to enhanced targeting of TKI therapy, UTS increased PFS and OS by 0.44 and 0.35 months, respectively. UTS yields a savings of $1243-$1680 per patient due to avoidance of biopsy, potential biopsy-associated complications, and tissue-based molecular testing in approximately 55.6% of patients. Probability of T790M detection by tissue and cost of biopsy procedure were the most influential factors. CONCLUSION: UTS prolonged PFS/OS due to increased detection of T790M mutation and decreased biopsies and complication-related costs.

Cost-effectiveness of combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder patients.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the lifetime outcomes and economic implications of combinatorial pharmacogenomic (CPGx) testing versus treatment as usual (TAU) psychopharmacologic medication selection for a representative major depressive disorder patient who has not responded to previous treatment(s). STUDY DESIGN: Markov state-transition analysis based on clinical studies. METHODS: Clinical validity and utility were based on published findings in prospective clinical studies of a commercially available CPGx test. Data for quality of life, direct costs, and indirect costs were extracted from meta-analyses of published literature on clinical studies and claims databases. Outcomes were assessed from a societal perspective, and included differences between the CPGx and the TAU strategies in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cumulative direct and indirect costs, and cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: CPGx improved the treatment response rate by 70% (1.7 times as high as that with TAU), increasing QALYs by 0.316 years. With these health benefits, CPGx is expected to save $3711 in direct medical costs per patient and $2553 in work productivity costs per patient over the lifetime. The cost-effectiveness of CPGx testing was robust over a wide range of variation in the input parameters, including the scenario when testing efficacy was set to its lower limit. CONCLUSIONS: CPGx testing has been shown by prospective studies to modify treatment decisions for patients nonresponsive to previous treatment(s), with increased rates of treatment response. These effects are projected to increase quality-adjusted survival, and to save both direct and indirect costs to individual patients and society generally.

Economic Analysis of Kiva VCF Treatment System Compared to Balloon Kyphoplasty Using Randomized Kiva Safety and Effectiveness Trial (KAST) Data.

BACKGROUND: Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are the most common osteoporotic fractures and cause persistent pain, kyphotic deformity, weight loss, depression, reduced quality of life, and even death. Current surgical approaches for the treatment of VCF include vertebroplasty (VP) and balloon kyphoplasty (BK). The Kiva® VCF Treatment System (Kiva System) is a next-generation alternative surgical intervention in which a percutaneously introduced nitinol Osteo Coil guidewire is advanced through a deployment cannula and subsequently a PEEK Implant is implanted incrementally and fully coiled in the vertebral body. The Kiva System's effectiveness for the treatment of VCF has been evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial, the Kiva Safety and Effectiveness Trial (KAST). The Kiva System was non-inferior to BK with respect to pain reduction (70.8% vs. 71.8% in Visual Analogue Scale) and physical function restoration (38.1 % vs. 42.2% reduction in Oswestry Disability Index) while using less bone cement. The economic impact of the Kiva system has yet to be analyzed. OBJECTIVE: To analyze hospital resource use and costs of the Kiva System over 2 years for the treatment of VCF compared to BK. SETTING: A representative US hospital. STUDY DESIGN: Economic analysis of the KAST randomized trial, focusing on hospital resource use and costs. METHODS: The analysis was conducted from a hospital perspective and utilized clinical data from KAST as well as unit-cost data from the published literature. The cost of initial VCF surgery, reoperation cost, device market cost, and other medical costs were compared between the Kiva System and BK. The relative risk reduction rate in adjacent-level fracture with Kiva [31.6% (95% CI: -22.5%, 61.9%)] demonstrated in KAST was used in this analysis. RESULTS: With 304 vertebral augmentation procedures performed in a representative U.S. hospital over 2 years, the Kiva System will produce a direct medical cost savings of $1,118 per patient and $280,876 per hospital. This cost saving with the Kiva System was attributable to 19 reduced adjacent-level fractures with the Kiva System. LIMITATIONS: This study does not compare the Kiva System with VP or any other non-surgical procedures for the treatment of VCF. CONCLUSION: This first-ever economic analysis of the KAST data showed that the Kiva System for vertebral augmentation is hospital resource and cost saving over BK in a hospital setting over 2 years. These savings are attributable to reduced risk of developing adjacent-level fractures with the Kiva System compared to BK.

Outcome and economic implications of proteomic test-guided second- or third-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: extended analysis of the PROSE trial.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer accounts for a significant number of new cancer cases and deaths, with the majority of patients presenting with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitors are recommended as an alternative to chemotherapy for certain patients, challenges exist for clinical utilization. The objective of this analysis was to assess the outcome and economic implications of a clinically validated serum-based proteomic test to guide treatment decisions in patients with advanced NSCLC, who are EGFR-negative or status unknown, and have progressed following at least one chemotherapy regimen. METHODS: This analysis was conducted from a US payer perspective. Clinical outcomes were evaluated over the lifetime of a patient, based on data from randomized trials and clinical studies. The clinical endpoints included treatment utilization, adverse events, survival, and a composite measure of length and quality of life, referred to as the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs for testing, treatment, surveillance, and management of adverse events were analyzed based on publicly available costs of the related procedures. The economic endpoints were cumulative lifetime direct medical costs and cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: In the base case, treatment recommendation for 27.3% of the patient population changed from erlotinib to chemotherapy after using the proteomic test. Overall survival increased by 0.091 year and QALYs increased by 0.050 year. The total lifetime direct medical cost per patient decreased by $135 with test-guided treatment. The findings were robust over a wide range of variation in the input parameters. CONCLUSION: The serum-based proteomic test informed treatment selection for patients with advanced NSCLC who failed previous chemotherapy regimen(s), improving QALYs and saving costs.