Brolucizumab vs aflibercept and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide and is the most common cause of blindness in developed countries. Despite antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy demonstrating improvements in visual and anatomical outcomes, unmet needs remain. Brolucizumab-dbll (ie, brolucizumab), a VEGF inhibitor for treatment of neovascular (wet) AMD and recently approved by the FDA for its treatment of wet AMD, attempts to mitigate treatment burden through less frequent injections. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab compared with aflibercept and ranibizumab, given similar costs per injection and the potential for longer dosing intervals based on phase 3 clinical trial data. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to model the treatment of wet AMD patients with brolucizumab vs aflibercept and vs ranibizumab over a lifetime time horizon (base case) and 5-year time horizon (scenario analysis). The Markov model consisted of 3 primary health states: on treatment, off treatment, and death. Markov substates (5 total) described visual acuity (VA) ranging from no vision impairment to blindness. These VA-based substates were defined by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) values measured using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Fixed-dosing regimens for each therapy were included in the model: dosing every 4 weeks (q4w) for the first 3 months followed by dosing q8w/q12w for brolucizumab, dosing q4w for the first 3 months followed by dosing q8w for aflibercept, and q4w for ranibizumab. RESULTS: In the base case, brolucizumab was less costly than aflibercept ($63,614 vs $72,189), and brolucizumab generated 0.0079 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than aflibercept (4.580 vs 4.572). Lower total costs with brolucizumab were driven by reduced drug costs ($56,432 vs $64,057), reduced administration costs ($6,013 vs $6,825), and reduced monitoring costs ($1,168 vs $1,306). When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab over a 5-year time horizon, brolucizumab was less costly than aflibercept ($44,644 vs $50,772) and generated an additional 0.0049 QALYs (2.953 vs 2.948). Additionally, brolucizumab was less costly than ranibizumab ($63,614 vs $128,163) and generated 0.0078 more QALYs than ranibizumab (4.580 vs 4.572) in the base case. Lower total costs with brolucizumab were driven by reduced drug costs ($56,432 vs $114,516), reduced administration costs ($6,013 vs $11,541), and reduced monitoring costs ($1,168 vs $2,107). When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab over a 5-year time horizon, brolucizumab was less costly than ranibizumab ($44,644 vs $89,665), and brolucizumab generated an additional 0.0046 QALYs (2.953 vs 2.948). CONCLUSIONS: Brolucizumab can be cost saving and cost-effective compared with aflibercept and ranibizumab in the treatment of wet AMD. DISCLOSURES: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation provided funding to Xcenda for the cost-effectiveness analysis and preparation of this manuscript. Carlton is an employee of Xcenda. Agashivala is employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Yu was an employee of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation at the time of this study. Hassan reports personal fees from iOPEN, BVI/Visitrec, ArcticDx, Bayer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Broadspot, BMC, Katalyst Surgical, Alcon, Vitreq, Surgicube, personal Ocugenix, Regeneron, Allergan, Oculus Surgical, Novartis, Genentech, and Eyepoint, unrelated to this work. Wykoff reports personal fees from Corcept Therapeutics, DORC, EyePoint, Gyroscope, IVERIC Bio, Merck, Notal Vision, ONL Therapeutics, Oxurion, Palatin, PolyPhotonix, Takeda, Thea Open Innovation; grants from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Aldeyra, Gemini Therapeutics, Graybug Vision, IONIS Pharmaceutical, LMRI, Mylan, Neurotech Pharmaceuticals, Outlook Pharmaceuticals, Samsung Bioepis, Senju, Taiwan Liposome Company, Xbrane BioPharma, Santen; and grants and personal fees from Adverum, Allergan, Apellis, Chengdu Kanghong Biotechnologies (KHB), Clearside Biomedical, Genentech, Kodiak Sciences, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Opthea, Recens Medical, Regenxbio, Roche, and Regeneron, unrelated to this work. This research was presented as a virtual poster at the AMCP 2020 Annual Meeting, April 2020.

Development of a claims-based algorithm to identify potentially undiagnosed chronic migraine patients.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a claims-based algorithm to identify undiagnosed chronic migraine among patients enrolled in a healthcare system. METHODS: An observational study using claims and patient survey data was conducted in a large medical group. Eligible patients had an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth Revision (ICD-9/10) migraine diagnosis, without a chronic migraine diagnosis, in the 12 months before screening and did not have a migraine-related onabotulinumtoxinA claim in the 12 months before enrollment. Trained clinicians administered a semi-structured diagnostic interview, which served as the gold standard to diagnose chronic migraine, to enrolled patients. Potential claims-based predictors of chronic migraine that differentiated semi-structured diagnostic interview-positive (chronic migraine) and semi-structured diagnostic interview-negative (non-chronic migraine) patients were identified in bivariate analyses for inclusion in a logistic regression model. RESULTS: The final sample included 108 patients (chronic migraine = 64; non-chronic migraine = 44). Four significant predictors for chronic migraine were identified using claims in the 12 months before enrollment: ≥15 versus <15 claims for acute treatment of migraine, including opioids (odds ratio = 5.87 [95% confidence interval: 1.34-25.63]); ≥24 versus <24 healthcare visits (odds ratio = 2.80 [confidence interval: 1.08-7.25]); female versus male sex (odds ratio = 9.17 [confidence interval: 1.26-66.50); claims for ≥2 versus 0 unique migraine preventive classes (odds ratio = 4.39 [confidence interval: 1.19-16.22]). Model sensitivity was 78.1%; specificity was 72.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The claims-based algorithm identified undiagnosed chronic migraine with sufficient sensitivity and specificity to have potential utility as a chronic migraine case-finding tool using health claims data. Research to further validate the algorithm is recommended.

Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements for Pharmaceutical Products in the United States: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Value for money is a growing necessity in today's U.S. health care system in which drug spending is expected to increase by an average rate of 6.7% yearly through 2025. In response to uncertainty about real-world clinical and economic outcomes for many drugs, health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) have implemented various contracts and arrangements with drug manufacturers that can collectively be described as performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs). Little is known about U.S.-specific PBRSAs for drugs. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of U.S.-specific PBRSAs for drugs to describe (a) trends over time and (b) key aspects including outcome measures and terms of arrangements between stakeholders. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE (January 1, 1946-April 1, 2017), Embase (January 1, 1988-April 1, 2017), and the grey literature (up to April 1, 2017) to identify publicly disclosed PBRSAs. Articles and conference abstracts were included if they were published in English and described a U.S.-specific PBRSA for a drug. Articles and conference abstracts were excluded if they only described a PBRSA similar to a money-back guarantee to patients. They were also excluded if they only described a PBRSA between a PBM and a health insurer in which the latter would receive a discount for patients nonadherent to a drug. Results were summarized as counts and percentages. RESULTS: From the literature review, 26 publicly disclosed PBRSAs were identified. Of these, 16 (62%) were announced or initiated from 2015 to 2017, and 10 (38%) were announced or initiated from 1997 to 2012. Thirteen (50%) PBRSAs involved cardiometabolic indications; 5 (19%) involved oncology indications; and 8 (31%) involved other indications. Categorized by health insurer or PBM, 10 (38%) PBRSAs involved large multistate insurers; 5 (19%) involved the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 7 (27%) involved regional insurers; 3 (12%) involved PBMs; and 1 (4%) involved multiple unspecified insurers. Regarding the most active drug manufacturers, Amgen initiated 5 (19%) PBRSAs and Novartis initiated 4 (15%). Relative to the initial FDA approval of a treatment, 15 (58%) PBRSAs were announced or initiated within 5 years, and 11 (42%) were announced or initiated more than 5 years later. For data collection, electronic medical record (EMR) data would have been an appropriate source for 12 (46%) PBRSAs; claims data would have been an appropriate source for 11 (42%) PBRSAs; and EMR and claims data would have been appropriate sources for 2 (8%) PBRSAs; no description of the outcome measures was available for 1 (4%) PBRSA. CONCLUSIONS: The number of publicly disclosed U.S.-specific PBRSAs for drugs has increased over the years. This review's findings confirm the interest of stakeholders in such arrangements and their confidence in the use of the selected outcome measures. Each PBRSA represents a timely collaboration among stakeholders to provide access to a drug while generating evidence to better elucidate its clinical and economic value. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this systematic review. Yu is an employee and shareholder of Allergan. Chin reports personal fees from Formulary Resources. Oh and Farias have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Yu, along with the other authors. All authors contributed to the collection and interpretation of the data. The manuscript was written by Yu, Chin, Oh, and Farias and revised by Yu and Chin, along with the other authors.

Healthcare burden of pulmonary hypertension owing to lung disease and/or hypoxia.

BACKGROUND: Group 3 pulmonary hypertension (PH) encompasses PH owing to lung diseases and/or hypoxia. Treatment patterns, healthcare resource use, and economic burden to US payers of Group 3 PH patients were assessed. METHODS: This retrospective observational study extracted data from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013 from two Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases. Adult Group 3 PH patients were identified based on claims for PH (ICD-9-CM 416.0/416.8), a related lung disease, and an echocardiogram or right heart catheterization (RHC). The index date was the date of the first PH claim; data were collected for 12 months pre- and post-index. A difference-in-difference approach using generalized estimating equations was done to account for baseline differences. RESULTS: Group 3 PH patients (n = 2,236) were matched 1:1 to controls on lung disease. PH patients had higher all-cause resource utilization and annual healthcare costs ($44,732 vs. $7,051) than controls. Costs were driven by inpatient admissions (35.4% of total costs), prescriptions (33.0%), and outpatient care (26.5%). Respiratory-related costs accounted for 11.4% of post-index annual costs for PH patients. PH diagnosis was not confirmed in the majority of PH patients (<7% RHC use) but nevertheless, 22% of PH patients post-index had claims for drugs approved for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). CONCLUSIONS: Group 3 PH poses a significant clinical and economic burden. Given the low use of RHC and the prevalence of PAH-indicated prescriptions that are not currently approved for Group 3 PH, this study suggests some Group 3 PH patients may not be receiving guideline-recommended treatment.

Indirect costs and workplace productivity loss associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The objective of this study was to examine indirect costs and workplace productivity loss (defined as an aggregate measure of absenteeism, short-term disability, and long-term disability days) associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) from a societal perspective in a commercially insured working-age United States population. The MarketScan(®) Commercial Claims and Encounters and Health and Productivity Management Databases (2007-2013) were used in this study, with controls matched 3:1 to NHL patients. In comparison to controls, NHL patients incurred significantly more workplace productivity loss (31.99 days; 95% CI: 25.24 days, 38.73 days; p < 0.001) and associated indirect costs ($6302.34; 95% CI: $4973.40, $7631.28; p < 0.001) in the 12-month post-diagnosis period when adjusting for covariates. NHL contributes significantly to losses in workplace productivity and higher associated indirect costs.