Health Care Utilization and Costs Associated With Systemic First-Line Metastatic Melanoma Therapies in the United States.

PURPOSE: US Food and Drug Administration approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Our aim was to assess health care resource utilization and costs for patients with metastatic melanoma treated with systemic therapies in first line between January 2012 and December 2017. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic melanoma using MarketScan data. We included patients diagnosed with melanoma and secondary malignant neoplasm who used pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, BRAF-inhibitor (BRAF-i) plus MEK inhibitor (MEK-i), BRAF-i or MEK-i monotherapy, or chemotherapy in first line. We compared health care utilization and costs per patient per month (PPPM) using two-part and generalized linear models. RESULTS: We identified 1,870 patients, including 185 pembrolizumab, 103 nivolumab, 689 ipilimumab, 185 nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 214 BRAF-i plus MEK-i, 240 BRAF-i or MEK-i monotherapy, and 254 chemotherapy users. Highest PPPM rates of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and outpatient visits were observed in patients with ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy (adjusted difference v pembrolizumab [aDiff], 0.18, 0.12, and 0.88, respectively; all P < .001). Ipilimumab monotherapy users (aDiff, 0.07 and 0.93; all P < .001) and chemotherapy users (aDiff, 0.10 and 2.63; all P < .001) showed higher PPPM rates of hospitalizations and outpatient visits compared with pembrolizumab users, respectively. Utilization rates in nivolumab, BRAF-i plus MEK-i, and BRAF-i or MEK-i groups were similar to the pembrolizumab group. Highest PPPM total costs and drug-related costs were observed in the ipilimumab group ($80,139 US dollars [USD] and $70,051 USD; all P < .001), followed by the ipilimumab plus nivolumab ($71,689 USD and $56,217 USD; all P < .001) and the BRAF-i plus MEK-i group ($31,184 USD and $19,648 USD; all P < .001). PPPM costs in the nivolumab group were similar to the pembrolizumab group. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in health care resource utilization and costs were found across first-line metastatic melanoma regimens. Utilization rates were highest in patients using ipilimumab-containing therapies. High drug costs constituted a major fraction of total PPPM health care costs.

Dataset used in the economic evaluation trastuzumab-based regimens for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients in the Taiwanese healthcare setting.

The present data article aims to describe the input parameters for a Markov model assessing the cost-effectiveness of four treatment sequences for patients with HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer. The model input parameters include costs for physician visits, drugs, adverse event management, computed tomography (CT) scan, laboratory tests, echocardiogram, utilities, disutilities as well as the shape and scale parameters of a log-logistic distribution used for the transition probabilities.

Early Treatment Uptake and Cost Burden of Hepatitis C Therapies Among Newly Diagnosed Hepatitis C Patients with a Particular Focus on HIV Coinfection.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high efficacy and safety associated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), access to HCV treatment has been frequently restricted because of the high DAA drug costs. OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare HCV treatment initiation rates between HCV monoinfected and HCV/HIV coinfected patients before (pre-DAA period) and after (post-DAA period) all-oral DAAs became available; and to (2) estimate the HCV treatment costs for payers and patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the MarketScan® Databases (2009-2016) was conducted for newly diagnosed HCV patients. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of initiating HCV treatments during the pre-DAA and post-DAA periods. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare drug costs for dual, triple and all-oral therapies. RESULTS: A total of 15,063 HCV patients [382 (2.5%) HIV coinfected] in the pre-DAA period and 14,896 [429 (2.9%) HIV coinfected] in the post-DAA period were included. HCV/HIV coinfected patients had lower odds of HCV treatment uptake compared to HCV monoinfected patients during the pre-DAA period [OR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.78], but no significant difference in odds of HCV treatment uptake was observed during the post-DAA period (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.33). From 2009 to 2016, average payers' treatment costs (dual, $20,820; all-oral DAAs, $99,661; p < 0.001) as well as average patients' copayments (dual, $593; all-oral DAAs $933; p < 0.001) increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: HCV treatment initiation rates increased, especially among HCV/HIV coinfected patients, from the pre-DAA to the post-DAA period. However, payers' expenditures per course of therapy saw an almost fivefold increase and patients' copayments increased by 55%.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab-containing treatment sequences for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients have expanded markedly since trastuzumab approval in 1998. Several other regimens are now available, including pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel, T-DM1, capecitabine plus lapatinib, and trastuzumab plus lapatinib. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC according to the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration (TNHIA). METHODS: Costs (U.S. Dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years) of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC patients were examined using a Markov model over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities, disease progression, and probability of adverse events and survival were derived from clinical trial data. Costs and health utilities were estimated from TNHIA, Taipei Medical University Hospital, and the literature. Deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis examined parameter uncertainty and accounted for drug wastage in dosage and cost calculations. RESULTS: Sequence 3 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib) was the most cost-effective sequence followed by sequence 1 (1st line: pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: capecitabine plus lapatinib), and sequence 4 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus capecitabine), respectively. The model was sensitive to costs and transition probabilities, but not particularly sensitive to the wastage assumption. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the TNHIA, trastuzumab plus docetaxel as 1st line followed by T-DM1 and trastuzumab plus lapatinib as 2nd and 3rd line represents the most cost-effective strategy among the four sequences considered for treating HER-2-positive mBC patients.

Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements: U.S. Payer Experience.

BACKGROUND: As a result of global concern about rising drug costs, many U.S. payers and European agencies such as the National Health Service have partnered with pharmaceutical companies in performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs) by which manufacturers share financial risk with health care purchasing entities and authorities. However, PBRSAs present many administrative and legal challenges that have minimized successful contract experiences in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To (a) identify drug and disease characteristics and contract components that contribute to successful PBRSA experiences and the primary barriers to PBRSA execution and (b) explore solutions to facilitate contract negotiation and execution. METHODS: A 37-item, web-based survey instrument (Qualtrics), approximately 20 minutes in duration, was open during July and August 2016. The survey was emailed to 90 pharmacy and medical directors of various health care organizations. Statistical analysis included the Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square tests to examine differences among payer responses. Survey responses were anonymized and data were aggregated. RESULTS: Twenty-seven individuals completed the survey (30% completion rate). The majority of respondents worked for regional health plans (52%, n = 14), covering at least 1 million lives (63%, n = 17), with at least 7 years of managed care experience (81%, n = 22). A total of 51 PBRSAs were active among respondents at the time of the survey. Easily obtainable and evaluable drug data and medical data were the most important drug and disease attributes for successful PBRSAs, respectively. Pharmacy claims and patient demographic data were assessed as "very easy and inexpensive" to collect. Type and amount of manufacturer payment for drug outcome performance failure, endpoint measurement, and necessary clinical data for drug performance measurement were all critical factors for successful PBRSAs. Standardized contract templates and transparent contract financial risk evaluation and modeling ranked highest among methods of manufacturer facilitation of PBRSAs. This study was limited by sample size and survey questions were limited to explanation of PBRSAs at the disease state level. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of PBRSA experiences, respondents noted that drug use in chronic medical conditions and objective drug outcome performance measurements were favorable drug characteristics and serve as the primary source of satisfaction for these types of contracts. Third parties and manufacturers can facilitate the uptake and success of PBRSAs by developing standardized contracting templates in addition to other methods that increase their stake in the arrangement. Looking forward, mounting perceptions of success in this realm of contracting for pharmaceuticals may contribute in the quest for value-based payments in the U.S. health care system. DISCLOSURES: The construction of the survey and payment for survey respondents were supported by Charles River Associates. Parece is an employee of Charles River Associates. Goble and Ung are completing fellowship training sponsored by Novartis and Celgene, respectively, but do not have any conflicts of interest and did not receive any funding related to this study. Navarro reports consulting fees from Analysis Group, TEVA, and Amgen, unrelated to this study. Van Boemmel-Wegmann declares no conflict of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Navarro, Goble, Ung, and Parece. Navarro took the lead in data collection, along with Goble and Ung, and data interpretation was performed by van Boemmel-Wegmann, Goble, and Ung. The manuscript was written by Goble, Ung, Navarro, and van Boemmel-Wegmann and revised by all of the authors.