Osimertinib in Patients With Treatment-Naive EGFR-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Overall Survival, Post-progression Management and Budget Impact Analysis in Real-World.

INTRODUCTION: The observational multicenter prospective FLOWER study (NCT04965701) confirmed effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in the real-world (RW) management of untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients. METHODS: Herein, we report updated survival data, post-progression management, cost/effectiveness and budget impact (BI) of osimertinib compared with a RW population receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. RESULTS: Overall, 189 Caucasian patients receiving first-line osimertinib were included. After a follow-up of 20.7 months, 74(39.2%) patients discontinued osimertinib, median time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) was 27.9 months, overall survival 36.8 months. At progression, tissue biopsy was performed in 29 (56.9%), liquid biopsy in 15 (29.4%) and both in 7 (13.7%) cases. The most frequent resistant mechanism was MET amplification (N = 14, 29.8%). At data cutoff, 13 (6.9%) patients were continuing osimertinib beyond progression; 52 (67.5%) received second-line treatment; no further treatments were administered in 25 (32.5%) cases. Thirty-three (63.4%) patients received chemotherapy, 12(23.1%) TKIs combination. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed a total cost per patient based on RW mTTD of 98,957.34€, 21,726.28€ and 19,637.83€ for osimertinib, erlotinib and gefitinib, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/month for osimertinib was 359,806.0€/life-year-gained (LYG) and 197,789.77€/LYG compared to erlotinib and gefitinib. For osimertinib, the BI-gap between RW-TTD and theoretical-TTD was 16,501.0€ per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This updated analysis confirms the effectiveness of osimertinib in RW. Although the ICER of osimertinib seems not cost-effective, additional costs for the management of disease progression to old generation TKIs were not considered in this study. The BI-gap suggests RW mTTD as a more reliable measure for expense estimation.

Author Correction to: Prevalence of Use and Cost of Biological Drugs for Cancer Treatment: A 5-Year Picture from Southern Italy.

Unfortunately, many errors were identified in the published article. The original article was corrected.

Prevalence of Use and Cost of Biological and Non-Biological Targeted Therapies for Cancer Treatment: A 5-Year Picture from Southern Italy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Considering the clinical and economic burden of biological and non-biological targeted therapies in cancer treatment, it is necessary to explore how these drugs are used in routine care in Italy and how they affect the sustainability of the National Health Services. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of use and costs of biological and non-biological targeted therapies for cancer treatment in a general population of Southern Italy in the years 2010­2014. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study using data from the healthcare administrative databases of Messina Province for the years 2010-2014. In this study, users of biological and non-biological targeted therapies for cancer treatment were characterized and the prevalence of use and costs were calculated over time. The potential impact of biosimilars on the expenditure was also estimated. RESULTS: Of a population of 653,810 residents in the Messina area during the study years, 2491 (0.4%) patients received at least one study drug. The most frequently used were monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (n = 1607; 64.5%) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (n = 609; 24.4%). mAbs were mainly used by females (60.3%) for metastasis due to an unspecified primary tumor, lymphomas, or breast cancer (24.2, 16.7, and 13.7%, respectively). Most users of small molecules were males (56.3%) being treated for multiple myeloma, metastasis due to unspecified primary tumor, leukemia, and lung cancer (13.1, 12.6, 9.5, and 8.9%, respectively). During the study years, the prevalence of use doubled from 0.9 to 1.8 per 1000 inhabitants; likewise, the related expenditure grew from €6.6 to €13.6 million. Based on our forecasts, this expenditure will grow to €25 million in 2020. Assuming a 50% biosimilar uptake (trastuzumab and rituximab), a potential yearly saving of almost €1 million may be achieved. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, the use and costs of biological and non-biological targeted therapies in cancer patients dramatically increased in a large population from Southern Italy. This trend may be counterbalanced by adopting biosimilars once they are available. Claims databases represent a valid tool to monitor the uptake of newly marketed biological drugs and biosimilars as well as other non-biological targeted therapies.

How Much Are Biosimilars Used in Clinical Practice? A Retrospective Italian Population-Based Study of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents in the Years 2009-2013.

PURPOSE: To explore the prescription patterns of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in four large Italian geographic areas, where different health policy interventions to promote biosimilar use in routine care are undertaken. METHODS: A retrospective drug utilization study was conducted during the years 2009-2013. The data sources were the administrative databases of the Tuscany region and of the Caserta, Palermo, and Treviso Local Health Units (LHUs). The characteristics, prevalence, and switching patterns of different ESAs (biosimilars and reference products), stratified by indication for use, were calculated over time and across centers. RESULTS: Overall, 49,491 patients were treated with ESAs during the years 2009-2013 in the four centers. Of these, 41,286 patients (83.4 %) were naive users. The prevalence of ESA use increased from 2.9 to 3.4 per 1000 inhabitants in the years 2009-2011 but decreased thereafter (3.0 per 1000 in 2013). Moreover, the proportion of biosimilar users increased overall from 1.8 % in 2010 to 33.6 % in 2013, with larger increase in Treviso (from 0.0 to 45.0 %) and Tuscany (from 0.7 to 37.6 %) than in Caserta (from 7.5 to 22.9 %) and Palermo (from 0.0 to 27.7 %). Switching between different ESAs during the first year of therapy was frequent (17.0 %), much more toward reference products than toward biosimilars. CONCLUSION: Overall, the prevalence of ESA use decreased slightly, while use of biosimilar ESAs, especially in naive patients, increased significantly but to different extents in these four large Italian geographic areas. Switching between different ESAs during the first year of treatment was very frequent, which may affect pharmacovigilance monitoring. New strategies are necessary to further improve market penetration of low-cost medicines, such as biosimilars, and also to harmonize effective health policy interventions that aim to reduce pharmaceutical expenses and optimize patient benefit across all regions.