Economic Burden Associated With Nasal Polyposis Recurrence Among Commercially Insured Patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs among commercially insured patients with nasal polyposis (NP) with and without recurrence after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective matched cohort study. SETTING: Adults with initial ESS or an NP excision after a new NP diagnosis were identified in Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart Database (October 1, 2014-December 31, 2019). METHODS: The index date was the date of NP recurrence, identified with a claims-based algorithm for the recurrent cohort, or a random date for the nonrecurrent cohort. Patients in both cohorts were matched 1:1 on baseline characteristics (12 months preindex) via propensity scores and exact matching factors. Annual HRU and costs (2019 US$) were compared between the matched cohorts at 12 months postindex. RESULTS: NP recurrence was identified among 3343 of 16,693 patients with initial ESS; after matching, each cohort comprised 1574 patients (median age, 54 years; 40% female) with similar baseline health care costs (recurrent, $34,420; nonrecurrent, $33,737). At 12 months postindex, the recurrent cohort had higher HRU, including 36% and 51% more outpatient and emergency department visits, respectively (all P < .01). Mean health care costs were $9676 higher in the recurrent cohort ($24,039) relative to the nonrecurrent cohort ($14,363, P < .01). The mean cost difference between cohorts was driven by $8211 in additional outpatient costs, as well as $6062 in additional NP-related outpatient costs, in the recurrent cohort (all P < .01). CONCLUSION: NP recurrence is associated with a substantial economic burden, which appears to be driven by outpatient services.

Content Validity of Sjögren's Syndrome Symptom Diary and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue in Patients with Sjögren's.

INTRODUCTION: Sjögren's Syndrome Symptom Diary (SSSD) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) are patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments assessing Sjögren's symptoms. Original SSSD items have demonstrated content validity, however qualitative evidence supporting the updated 'tiredness' item and two new supplementary items is lacking. Although well established and validated in other rheumatic diseases, there is no qualitative evidence supporting content validity of FACIT-F in Sjögren's. This study addressed these evidence gaps to support use of SSSD and FACIT-F as clinical trial endpoints, in clinical practice and in other research settings. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with patients with Sjögren's (n = 12) and expert Sjögren's physicians (n = 10). Patient interviews explored content validity (e.g., understanding and relevance) of the new and updated SSSD items, perceptions of item and total score meaningful change on SSSD, and understanding and relevance of FACIT-F items. Physician interviews explored opinions on various SSSD scoring approaches. RESULTS: The new and updated SSSD items and FACIT-F demonstrated good content validity. Most patients considered a two-point improvement on most SSSD items meaningful, as well as a one- or two-point total score improvement. Most physicians reported tracking changes in patient responses to individual items as the most appropriate SSSD scoring approach. CONCLUSIONS: SSSD and FACIT-F are content valid in a Sjögren's population, meeting an important criterion to support their use as clinical trial endpoints, but also their use in clinical practice and other research settings. Qualitative data exploring meaningful change will be valuable in supporting psychometrically derived responder definitions.

Sjögren's Syndrome Symptom Diary (SSSD) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) are questionnaires completed by individuals with Sjögren's to assess the severity of their symptoms. It is important to show that these questionnaires are well understood and relevant to the individuals who complete them. Therefore, interviews were conducted with individuals with Sjögren's to explore their understanding and relevance of new and updated SSSD questions. Similarly, the interviews explored whether the FACIT-F questionnaire was well understood and relevant to individuals with Sjögren's, as this has not been explored before. Interviews were also conducted with expert Sjögren's physicians to explore the best approach to scoring SSSD (e.g., calculating a total score or looking at scores on individual items). The new and updated SSSD questions and the FACIT-F questionnaire were well understood and considered relevant by most individuals with Sjögren's. This suggests these questionnaires are appropriate for use in Sjögren's clinical trials, clinical practice, and other research settings. Most individuals with Sjögren's considered an improvement of two points on individual SSSD questions to be important, as well as a one- or two-point improvement in their total SSSD score. Most physicians agreed on the best approach to scoring SSSD.

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

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

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective.Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually.Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%.Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Cost Effectiveness of Midostaurin in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed FLT3-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of midostaurin + cytarabine + daunorubicin (midostaurin arm) versus placebo + cytarabine + daunorubicin (placebo arm) in the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are eligible for standard cytarabine + daunorubicin chemotherapy, from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A lifetime partitioned survival model with four health states (active disease, complete remission [CR], relapse, and death) was constructed. Efficacy inputs (time to CR or death, time to relapse or death, and overall survival) were estimated using data from the RATIFY trial (NCT00651261). Costs (inflated to 2016 US dollars) included treatment, drug monitoring, stem cell transplantation (SCT), adverse events costs, and medical costs associated with health states. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY) gained were estimated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (and PSA) were performed to assess model robustness. RESULTS: In the base case, patients in the midostaurin arm incurred higher total direct costs over a lifetime compared with the placebo arm ($4,043,470 vs. $3,959,741), resulting in an incremental cost of $83,729; however, the midostaurin arm had better effectiveness, with 1.59 more LYs and 1.37 more QALYs. These led to a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,596 per LY, or $61,167 per QALY. Results were robust in the DSA. In the PSA, the probability of the midostaurin arm being cost-effective compared with the placebo arm was 65.9%, at a willingness to pay of $150,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that midostaurin is a cost-effective treatment for adult patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML, from a US third-party payer perspective.

Postsurgical treatment landscape and economic burden of locoregional and distant recurrence in patients with operable nonmetastatic melanoma.

Surgery is the mainstay treatment for operable nonmetastatic melanoma, but recurrences are common and limit patients' survival. This study aimed to describe real-world patterns of treatment and recurrence in patients with melanoma and to quantify healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with episodes of locoregional/distant recurrences. Adults with nonmetastatic melanoma who underwent melanoma lymph node surgery were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan database (1 January 2008 to 31 July 2017). Locoregional and distant recurrence(s) were identified on the basis of postsurgery recurrence indicators (i.e. initiation of new melanoma pharmacotherapy, new radiotherapy, or new surgery; secondary malignancy diagnoses). Of 6400 eligible patients, 219 (3.4%) initiated adjuvant therapy within 3 months of surgery, mostly with interferon α-2b (n=206/219, 94.1%). A total of 1191/6400 (18.6%) patients developed recurrence(s) over a median follow-up of 23.1 months (102/6400, 1.6% distant recurrences). Among the 219 patients initiated on adjuvant therapy, 73 (33.3%) experienced recurrences (distant recurrences: 13/219, 5.9%). The mean total all-cause healthcare cost was $2645 per patient per month (PPPM) during locoregional recurrence episodes and $12 940 PPPM during distant recurrence episodes. In the year after recurrence, HRU was particularly higher in patients with distant recurrence versus recurrence-free matched controls: by 9.2 inpatient admissions, 54.4 inpatient days, 8.8 emergency department admissions, and 185.9 outpatient visits (per 100 person-months), whereas all-cause healthcare costs were higher by $14 953 PPPM. It remains to be determined whether the new generation of adjuvant therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents, will increase the use of adjuvant therapies, and reduce the risk of recurrences and associated HRU/cost.

Burden of Infections Among Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Receiving Dasatinib or Nilotinib: A Real-World Retrospective Healthcare Claims Study in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have been demonstrated to prolong survival in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). However, TKIs may be associated with an increased risk of infections. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with CML receiving dasatinib or nilotinib, with a focus on infection-related economic outcomes. METHODS: Two large administrative databases were used to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with CML who initiated dasatinib or nilotinib as first- (1L) or second-line (2L) therapy and were classified into the following 1L (dasatinib 1L/nilotinib 1L cohorts) or 2L (dasatinib 2L/nilotinib 2L) cohorts based on the initiated 1L/2L TKI therapy. Infection-related HRU and healthcare costs were compared between cohorts, separately for 1L and 2L. RESULTS: Cohorts included 1156 patients in the dasatinib 1L and 677 patients in the nilotinib 1L cohorts, 322 patients in the dasatinib 2L, and 207 in the nilotinib 2L cohorts. In 1L and 2L, infection-related HRU was higher for dasatinib than nilotinib cohorts. Infection-related inpatient (IP) days constituted a larger proportion of all-cause IP days in the 1L/2L dasatinib than 1L/2L nilotinib cohorts (dasatinib 1L/2L: 53%/58%; nilotinib 1L/2L: 50%/46%). Compared to the nilotinib cohort, the dasatinib cohort had higher all-cause total costs per patient per year by US$17,901 in 1L and $28,625 in 2L. Of the total cost difference, infection-related were $6048 (34%) in 1L and $28,192 (99%) in 2L, largely driven by IP cost differences (1L/2L: 96%/98%). CONCLUSIONS: Dasatinib was associated with higher HRU and healthcare costs compared to nilotinib, particularly related to infections. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation.