Optimal Care for Kidney Health: Development of a Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Value Pathway.

The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a mandatory pay-for-performance program through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that aims to incentivize high-quality care, promote continuous improvement, facilitate electronic exchange of information, and lower health care costs. Previous research has highlighted several limitations of the MIPS program in assessing nephrology care delivery, including administrative complexity, limited relevance to nephrology care, and inability to compare performance across nephrology practices, emphasizing the need for a more valid and meaningful quality assessment program. This article details the iterative consensus-building process used by the American Society of Nephrology Quality Committee from May 2020 to July 2022 to develop the Optimal Care for Kidney Health MIPS Value Pathway (MVP). Two rounds of ranked-choice voting among Quality Committee members were used to select among nine quality metrics, 43 improvement activities, and three cost measures considered for inclusion in the MVP. Measure selection was iteratively refined in collaboration with the CMS MVP Development Team, and new MIPS measures were submitted through CMS's Measures Under Consideration process. The Optimal Care for Kidney Health MVP was published in the 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule and includes measures related to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker use, hypertension control, readmissions, acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, and advance care planning. The nephrology MVP aims to streamline measure selection in MIPS and serves as a case study of collaborative policymaking between a subspecialty professional organization and national regulatory agencies.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Receiving First-Line Systemic Treatment (the IMPACT UC I Study).

BACKGROUND: The IMPACT UC I study assessed real-world treatment patterns, outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receiving first-line (1L) systemic treatment after the FDA approval of 1L immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study used 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims from 1/1/2015 to 6/30/2019 to identify patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with UC with evidence of metastatic disease, continuously enrolled for 6 months before and after initial diagnosis. Patients were grouped by 1L treatment: cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy, or nonplatinum-containing therapy. Unadjusted time on 1L treatment (TOT), overall survival (OS), HCRU, and total healthcare costs were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 18 888 patients with mUC, 8630 (45.7%) had received identified 1L systemic treatment; platinum-containing chemotherapy was the most common (cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, 37.6%; carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, 30.2%). Cisplatin- and carboplatin-containing chemotherapy had the shortest time-to-treatment initiation (median, 1.7-3.0 months) and longest TOT (median, 4.0-4.3 months). Median OS was longest with cisplatin-containing chemotherapy (20.0 months) and shortest with ICI monotherapy (7.6 months). Cisplatin- and carboplatin-containing chemotherapy were associated with highest HCRU; total healthcare costs were approximately 2-fold higher with ICI monotherapy vs other 1L treatments ($10 359 vs $5042-$5709 per patient per month). CONCLUSION: 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy resulted in the longest median OS and highest HCRU, whereas 1L ICI treatment had the shortest median OS and the highest costs. Over 50% of patients diagnosed with advanced UC (aUC) received no systemic therapy, highlighting the importance of optimal 1L treatment decisions in aUC.

Semiquantitative sensitization safety assessment of extractable and leachables associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products.

Extractable and leachables (E&Ls) associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products should be assessed for patient safety. One essential safety endpoint is local or systemic sensitization. However, there are no regulatory guidelines for quantitative sensitization safety assessment of E&Ls. A semiquantitative sensitization safety assessment workflow is developed to refine the sensitization safety assessment of E&Ls associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products. The workflow is composed of two sequential steps: local skin sensitization and systemic sensitization safety assessment. The local skin sensitization step has four tiers. The output from this step is the acceptable exposure level for local sensitization (AELls) and this safety threshold can be used for local sensitization safety assessment. From the derived AELls, the systemic sensitization safety assessment at step 2 proceeds in 2 tiers. The output from this workflow is the derivation of acceptable exposure level for systemic sensitization (AELss). When the estimated human daily exposure (HDE) is compared with the AELss, the margin of exposure is calculated to determine the sensitization safety of E&Ls following parenteral administration. The current work represents an initial effort to develop a scientifically robust process for sensitization safety assessment of E&Ls associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products.

Keys to Driving Implementation of the New Kidney Care Models.

Contemporary nephrology practice is heavily weighted toward in-center hemodialysis, reflective of decisions on infrastructure and personnel in response to decades of policy. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative seeks to transform care for patients and providers. Under the initiative's framework, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has launched two new care models that align patient choice with provider incentives. The mandatory ESRD Treatment Choices model requires participation by all nephrology practices in designated Hospital Referral Regions, randomly selecting 30% of all Hospital Referral Regions across the United States for participation, with the remaining Hospital Referral Regions serving as controls. The voluntary Kidney Care Choices model offers alternative payment programs open to nephrology practices throughout the country. To help organize implementation of the models, we developed Driver Diagrams that serve as blueprints to identify structures, processes, and norms and generate intervention concepts. We focused on two goals that are directly applicable to nephrology practices and central to the incentive structure of the ESRD Treatment Choices and Kidney Care Choices: (1) increasing utilization of home dialysis, and (2) increasing the number of kidney transplants. Several recurring themes became apparent with implementation. Multiple stakeholders from assorted backgrounds are needed. Communication with primary care providers will facilitate timely referrals, education, and comanagement. Nephrology providers (nephrologists, nursing, dialysis organizations, others) must lead implementation. Patient engagement at nearly every step will help achieve the aims of the models. Advocacy with federal and state regulatory agencies will be crucial to expanding home dialysis and transplantation access. Although the models hold promise to improve choices and outcomes for many patients, we must be vigilant that they not do reinforce existing disparities in health care or widen known racial, socioeconomic, or geographic gaps. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative has the potential to usher in a new era of value-based care for nephrology.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has evolved from 2015 onward, since the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Considering this shift, there have been limited prior analyses that assess the economic burden of NSCLC within the current treatment landscape. OBJECTIVE: To present an analysis of health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC in the United States between 2010 and 2019. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who initiated first-line (1L) systemic treatment between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2019, were included from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database using a previously developed claims-based predictive model algorithm. Mean total HCRU and costs and mean per-person-per-year (PPPY) HCRU and costs were estimated for 2 follow-up periods: the time during the entire follow-up period and the time during the 1L treatment period. Distribution of treatment classes (defined as chemotherapy, ICIs, targeted therapies, and others) were also analyzed by index year. RESULTS: 27,257 patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean duration of follow-up for all patients was 16.6 months (median 10.6 months), and the median time to discontinuation of 1L treatment was 2.8 months. The number of outpatient visits accounted for the majority of HCRU across the entire study follow-up (mean 97.7 in total and 147.1 PPPY) and for the 1L treatment period (mean 46.3 in total and 167.5 PPPY). The total mean cost across the entire study follow-up was $158,908 ($250,942 PPPY). For the 1L treatment period, the total mean cost was $72,760 ($271,590 PPPY). Total mean outpatient costs for systemic anticancer treatment were $61,797 for the entire study follow-up ($85,609 PPPY) and $27,138 during the 1L treatment period ($92,412 PPPY). Total costs increased over the study duration, which were mainly due to increasing outpatient costs for systemic therapy. In both follow-up periods, inpatient costs, other outpatient costs (nonsystemic therapy-related costs), and pharmacy costs remained relatively stable but still accounted for more than 60% of the total costs. Analysis of treatment classes over time showed that chemotherapy was the most frequently used treatment, regardless of line of therapy. A trend was observed for increased ICI use from 2015 onward. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the improvement in treatment options, a high economic burden associated with the treatment of NSCLC still exists. The total costs have been increasing, mainly driven by outpatient costs for systemic therapy, which might reflect the greater use of ICIs for advanced NSCLC. Costs for inpatient services, other outpatient services, and pharmacy services remained stable but still accounted for the majority of the economic burden. Further studies are required to assess the impact of innovative treatments on the disease management costs of advanced NSCLC. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the healthcare business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945) as part of an alliance between the healthcare business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Pfizer. Zhang, Liu, and Yang are employees of EMD Serono. Beachler, Dinh, and Jamal-Allial are employees of HealthCore Inc., which received funding from the healthcare business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Pfizer for the implementation of this study. Masters and Kolitsopoulos are employees of Pfizer. Lamy was an employee of the healthcare business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, at the time this study was conducted.

Diagnostic and economic value of biomarker testing for targetable mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: a literature review.

We aimed to assess the diagnostic and economic value of next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing, and of liquid biopsy (LBx) versus tissue biopsy (TBx) in non-small-cell lung cancer biomarker testing through literature review. Embase and MEDLINE were searched to identify relevant studies (n = 43) from 2015 to 2020 in adults with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. For NGS versus single-gene testing, concordance was 70-99% and sensitivity was 86-100%. For LBx versus TBx, specificity was 43-100% and sensitivity was ≥60%. Turnaround times were longer for NGS versus single-gene testing (but not vs sequential testing) and faster for LBx versus TBx. NGS was cost-effective, and LBx reduced US per-patient costs. NGS versus single-gene testing and LBx versus TBx were concordant. NGS and LBx may be cost-effective for initial screening.

Plain language summary Patients with lung cancer with specific genetic mutations can benefit from medications that are specific to those mutations, known as targetable mutations. There are many methods to test for specific genetic mutations in patients with lung cancer. To detect genetic mutations, doctors can test the blood or urine, or they can test biopsy tissue; a small piece of the tumor removed from the lung. These tests can either look for mutations in one specific gene at a time, or they can use technology that reads the entire DNA sequence to observe multiple genes at once. In this review, we examined scientific reports to answer important questions about using genetic testing to find targetable mutations in patients with lung cancer. How accurate are different genetic tests? How fast can doctors get results from different genetic tests? How much do different genetic tests cost? We found that reading the entire DNA sequence was as accurate as testing one specific gene. Reading the entire DNA sequence takes more time than testing one specific gene, but it might reduce overall costs. Testing blood or urine was not as accurate as testing tissue, but it took less time for doctors to receive genetic test results and reduced costs.

Effects of early vs delayed progression on clinical and economic outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line therapy: results from the IMPACT RCC claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: A key therapeutic goal of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment is delayed disease progression. The degree to which early therapeutic success affects downstream outcomes is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and economic impact of early vs delayed disease progression in patients with mRCC treated with first-line (1L) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) followed by second-line (2L) therapy in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database. METHODS: Adult patients newly diagnosed with mRCC who were treated with a TKI as 1L therapy and who progressed to 2L therapy from October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2018, were identified from the US VHA database. Patients were stratified by median time from initiation of 1L therapy to initiation of 2L therapy into early (median time or sooner)and delayed (longer than the median) progression cohorts. Clinical outcomes (time to 2L therapy discontinuation, time to third-line [3L] treatment initiation, and overall survival) were assessed descriptively, and health care resource utilization and costs were compared between patients in the early and those in the delayed progression cohorts. Survival analyses (Kaplan-Meier curves) were used to estimate descriptively the median time to discontinuation, time to next line of treatment, and time to death for each cohort. Multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for the influence of differences in cohort characteristics, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to descriptively assess the impact of predictive factors on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 289 patients were included in the analysis: 145 in the early progression cohort and 144 in the delayed progression cohort. Baseline characteristics were similar between the early and delayed progression cohorts. Median time from 1L therapy initiation to 2L therapy discontinuation was 7.9 months in the early progression cohort and 18.0 months in the delayed progression cohort, whereas time from 1L therapy initiation to 3L therapy initiation was 9.4 and 21.8 months, respectively; overall survival was 19.7 and 36.4 months, respectively. Descriptive analysis revealed generally lower risks for 2L therapy discontinuation (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.31-0.52), 3L therapy initiation (HR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.32-0.55), and death (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33-0.64) for those with delayed progression. After adjustment for possible confounding factors, comparative analysis during the follow-up period showed that delayed progression was associated with a shorter median all-cause hospital length of stay (0.4 days vs 0.8 days for early progression; P = 0.0004), fewer pharmacy visits (3.57 vs 4.08 visits; P = 0.0266), and lower total health care costs ($10,342 vs $13,388; P = 0.0347) per patient per month. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mRCC, early progression after 1L therapy initiation is associated with generally worse clinical outcomes and statistically significantly greater health care resource utilization and costs than delayed progression. This finding highlights the importance of initiating therapy with an optimal 1L treatment regimen that has been proven to delay disease progression. DISCLOSURES This study was sponsored by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA, and Pfizer Inc. EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer Inc. were involved in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Liu and Bhanegaonkar are employed by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA. Kasturi was employed by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA, at the time of this study. Kim and Krulewicz are employed by Pfizer Inc. Dieyi is an employee of STATinMED Research, which received consulting fees from EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer Inc. Hutson has received grants from Pfizer Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Inc., and Eisai Co., Ltd., outside of this work. Data from this analysis were presented at the Virtual International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2020 conference, May 18-20, 2020; the virtual American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, May 29-31, 2020; and AMCP Nexus 2020 Virtual, October 20-23, 2020.

Budget impact of tepotinib in the treatment of adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring METex14 skipping alterations in the United States.

AIMS: To estimate the budget impact of adding tepotinib to United States (US) health plans for treating adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition exon 14 (METex14) skipping alterations. METHODS: The base-case analysis was conducted from the perspective of a hypothetical Medicare plan of 1 million members. Scenarios were analysed for other US health plans. Treatments included tepotinib, capmatinib, crizotinib, and standard of care (SoC). Patients eligible for tepotinib were estimated from published epidemiological data and literature, and real-world evidence. Clinical inputs were derived from the phase II VISION trial, US prescribing information, and published literature. Tepotinib uptake and projected testing rates for METex14 skipping alterations were based on market research. Unit costs (2020 US dollars (USD)) and resource utilization associated with drug acquisition and administration, treatment monitoring, disease and adverse event (AE) management, and subsequent treatment were derived primarily from public sources. RESULTS: In the base-case, 38-65 patients were eligible for tepotinib each year over the three-year time horizon. The cumulative net budgetary impact of tepotinib was -$692,541 (-2.6%); $26,531,670 in the scenario without tepotinib and $25,839,129 in the scenario with tepotinib. A negligible net budget impact was observed per member per month (PMPM) at $0.2457 and $0.2393, respectively, before and after tepotinib's introduction. Results were most sensitive to variability in unit costs of capmatinib and tepotinib and their corresponding median treatment durations. Sensitivity and scenario analyses support the conclusion that introducing tepotinib will have minimal budgetary impact for Medicare health plans. Similar results were obtained for other US health plans. LIMITATIONS: Assumptions and expert opinion were applied to address data gaps in key model inputs. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated budgetary impact of tepotinib for the treatment of adult patients with mNSCLC harboring METex14 skipping alterations is minimal from the perspective of US health plans.

The Impact of Adverse Events on Health Care Resource Utilization, Costs, and Mortality Among Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the association between adverse events (AEs) suspected to be immune-related and health care resource utilization, costs, and mortality among patients receiving programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death ligand 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy for urothelial carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, or Merkel cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment information from U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees in the Optum Research Database from March 1, 2014, through April 30, 2019. Claims were linked with mortality data from the Social Security Death Index and the National Death Index. Eligible patients had at least one ICI claim between September 1, 2014, and April 30, 2019. RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounding variables, we found patients with AEs had more than double the risk of an inpatient stay (hazard ratio [HR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-2.5) and an 80% higher risk of an emergency visit (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1) than patients without AEs. Adjusted 6-month total costs were $24,301 higher among patients with an AE versus those without ($99,037 vs. $74,736; 95% CI, $18,828-29,774; p < .001). Mean ± SD AE-related medical costs averaged $2,359 ± $7,496 per patient per month, driven by inpatient visits, which accounted for 89.9% of AE-related costs. Adjusted risk of mortality was similar in patients with and without AEs. CONCLUSION: Patients with AEs had higher risks of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and higher health care costs, driven by inpatient stays, than patients without AEs. The adjusted risk of mortality was similar between the two cohorts. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) who had adverse events (AEs) had significantly higher health care costs and utilization, driven by inpatient stays, compared with patients who did not. Given this high cost associated with AEs and the differences in the side effect profile of ICIs versus traditional chemotherapy, it is important for physicians to be cognizant of these differences when treating patients with ICIs. Ongoing evaluation, earlier recognition, and more effective, multidisciplinary management of AEs may improve patient outcomes and reduce the need for costly inpatient stays.

Real-world symptoms, disease burden, resource use and quality of life in US patients with advanced renal cell cancer.

Aim: To assess symptoms, healthcare resource utilization and health-related quality of life in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) clinical practice. Materials & methods: The USA point-in-time survey of physicians and patients was conducted between February and September 2019. Results: Data were available for 227 patients. Mean (standard deviation) number of symptoms was 3.4 (3.2); differences were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk categories (p < 0.001), with fewer symptoms in favorable-risk patients. Disease burden, measured by greater healthcare resource utilization and worse health-related quality of life, was high, particularly in International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium intermediate- or poor- versus favorable-risk patients. In total, 45 patients (21.6%) were hospitalized due to aRCC within a 6-month period, 35 (16.8%) had one hospitalization and ten (4.8%) experienced ≥2 hospitalizations due to aRCC. Mean (standard deviation) 19-Item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score was 53.6 (13.2) for this population, significantly lower than the reference value (59.8; p < 0.001). Conclusion: A clear need exists for improved disease management in patients with aRCC.

Lay abstract Late-stage/advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) is kidney cancer that has spread to other body parts. aRCC is expensive to treat and affects patients in many ways. New treatments have become available, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immuno-oncology therapies. The type of treatment recommended depends on the patient's International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk score. This is a way of classifying patients as having a good, intermediate or poor survival risk. We asked physicians questions about their patients such as their age, how long they had aRCC, their treatment and symptoms, and asked patients how aRCC affected their lives, including how often they visited doctors and hospitals. aRCC had the greatest effect on patients with poor-risk scores. Those patients had more symptoms and worse quality of life than patients with intermediate or good risk scores. Treatment also affected patients' lives, although not as much as risk score. Patients with aRCC need better treatment options to help improve their quality of life.

Health Preference Research in Europe: A Review of Its Use in Marketing Authorization, Reimbursement, and Pricing Decisions-Report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data. METHODS: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions. RESULTS: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences. CONCLUSION: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.

Hospitalization and emergency department utilization in patients with advanced melanoma receiving pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab plus nivolumab in US academic centers.

Background: Both pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are FDA-approved immunotherapy regimens for advanced melanoma (AM). Each regimen has different toxicity profiles potentially impacting healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This study compared real-world hospitalization and emergency department (ED) utilization within 12 months of therapy initiation of each regimen.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in AM patients ≥18 years old initiating PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between January 1, 2016-December 30, 2017. Patients were identified from 12 US-based academic and satellite centers. All-cause hospitalization ED visits were identified. These events were used to calculate rates per 1,000 patient months. Utilization between groups was compared using multivariate logistic regression.Results: In total, 400 patients were included (200 PEMBRO, 200 IPI + NIVO). PEMBRO vs IPI + NIVO patients had poorer Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) performance status, 29% 2-4, vs 12% (p < .001); more diabetes, 21% vs 13% (p = .045); were more often PD-L1 expression positive, 77% vs 63% (p = .011); and less likely BRAF mutant, 35% vs 50% (p = .003). The proportion with more than one hospitalization over 12 months was 17% PEMBRO vs 24% IPI + NIVO. Less than 2% had more than one admission and none had more than two. Unadjusted mean (SD) hospitalizations per 1,000 patient-months were 16 (37) and 20 (38), PEMBRO and IPI + NIVO, respectively. Adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization was 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3-0.9; p = .027) for PEMBRO vs IPI + NIVO. ED visits occurred in 18% vs 21%, PEMBRO and IPI + NIVO, respectively, 0.7 (p = .186).Conclusions: PEMBRO patients had a significantly lower probability of hospitalization through 12 months vs IPI + NIVO. The probability of ED visits did not differ.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of resected high-risk stage III melanoma in the United States.

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant pembrolizumab relative to observation alone following complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma with lymph node involvement, from a US health system perspective. Materials and methods: A Markov cohort model with four health states (recurrence-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with pembrolizumab vs observation over a lifetime (46-year) horizon. Using a parametric multi-state modeling approach, transition probabilities starting from recurrence-free were estimated based on patient-level data from KEYNOTE-054 (NCT02362594), a direct head-to-head phase 3 trial. Post-recurrence transition probabilities were informed by real-world retrospective data and clinical trials in advanced melanoma. Health state utilities and adverse event-related disutility were derived from KEYNOTE-054 trial data and published literature. Costs of drug acquisition and administration, adverse events, disease management, and terminal care were estimated in 2018 US dollars. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, adjuvant pembrolizumab and observation were associated with total QALYs of 9.24 and 5.95, total life-years of 10.54 and 7.15, and total costs of $489,820 and $440,431, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for pembrolizumab vs observation were $15,009/QALY and $14,550/life-year. Across the range of input values and assumptions tested in deterministic sensitivity analyses, pembrolizumab ranged from being a dominant strategy to having an ICER of $57,449/QALY vs observation. The ICER was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY in 90.2% of probabilistic simulations. Limitations: Long-term extrapolation of outcomes was based on interim results from KEYNOTE-054, with a median follow-up of 15 months. Conclusions: Based on common willingness-to-pay benchmarks, pembrolizumab is highly cost-effective compared with observation alone for the adjuvant treatment of completely resected stage III melanoma in the US.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs in First-Line Treatments for Patients with Metastatic Melanoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for patients with metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically with the introduction of novel therapies, such as targeted therapies and immunotherapies, in recent years. Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and cost data are needed to further evaluate these treatments in a value-based health care system. OBJECTIVE: To examine HCRU and total cost of care among U.S. metastatic melanoma patients treated with first-line systemic therapies, including immunotherapies, targeted therapies, and chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using a U.S. claims database. Adults with ≥ 2 claims for melanoma and ≥ 1 claim for metastasis between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2017, were identified. Patients had pharmacy and medical enrollment ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 3 months following first-line treatment start. Per patient per month (PPPM) HCRU and costs were calculated by first-line treatment drug class: PD-1 inhibitors, CTLA-4 inhibitors, CTLA-4 + PD-1 combination, BRAF monotherapy, BRAF + MEK combination, and chemotherapy. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for HCRU were estimated by logistic regressions and adjusted costs were estimated by generalized linear models using log-link with gamma distribution to control for differences in patient characteristics across groups. RESULTS: Among 1,599 metastatic melanoma patients (PD-1, n = 255; CTLA-4, n = 555; CTLA-4 + PD-1, n = 88; BRAF, n = 210; BRAF + MEK, n=102; chemotherapy=389), mean age ranged from 59-68 years, and the majority were male (62%). Any hospitalization during first-line treatment was less frequent among PD-1-treated patients (25.9%) compared with 34.7%-45.5% of all other groups (all P < 0.05). PPPM hospitalizations were lowest in PD-1 (0.06) compared with 0.09-0.16 across all other groups (all P < 0.05), and PPPM emergency department (ED) visits were lowest in PD-1 (0.09) compared with 0.13-0.18 across all other groups (all P < 0.05), except for BRAF + MEK (0.14, P = 0.08). CTLA-4, CTLA-4 + PD-1, and BRAF + MEK had increased odds of hospitalization compared to PD-1 (adjusted ORs = 2.10, 2.35, 2.15, respectively; all P < 0.05). Total adjusted PPPM costs were significantly lower for PD-1 ($13,059) compared with CTLA-4 ($25,583), CTLA-4 + PD-1 ($31,310), and BRAF + MEK ($21,517) and higher compared to BRAF ($8,158) and chemotherapy ($6,361). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalizations and ED visits represent important HCRU for metastatic melanoma patients and were lowest among PD-1-treated patients compared with any other systemic therapies (except for ED visits when compared with BRAF + MEK). Total monthly costs varied substantially across first-line regimens and were significantly lower in PD-1-treated patients compared with patients treated with CTLA-4, CTLA-4 + PD-1, and BRAF + MEK. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Klink, Feinberg, and Nero are employees of Cardinal Health Specialty Solutions, which received funding from Merck to conduct this study. Chmielsowki is a consultant to Merck but received no funding for the development of this manuscript. Ahsan and Liu are employees of Merck. Chmielowski reports advisory board/speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Iovance Biotherapeutics, HUYA Bioscience International, Compugen, Array BioPharma, Regeneron, Biothera, Janssen, and Novartis. Ahsan has a patent (US20160008380A1) pending.

Experience of establishing an acute geriatric outreach service versus subacute service to nursing homes.

To share our experience of establishing an acute outreach service to nursing homes and to evaluate the impact of such service on emergency department presentations, data were drawn from a pre-existing database from 2013 to 2017. Of the 986 acute patients treated in 12 nursing homes over a 23-month period, the acute geriatric outreach service was shown to be safe, with few adverse events (one allergic reaction) and 5.3% of patients required transfer to hospital. The acute service decreased emergency department presentation of nursing home patients by 10% compared to the subacute service (incidence rate ratio = 0.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.96; P = 0.001). Cost-benefit analysis showed for every $1 spent, a saving of $5 was realised.

Direct costs associated with adverse events of systemic therapies for advanced melanoma: Systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for advanced melanoma are associated with different adverse events (AEs), which may be costly to manage. This study aimed to evaluate direct costs associated with managing treatment-related AEs for advanced melanoma through a systematic literature review. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, BIOSIS, and EconLit medical literature databases to identify studies providing estimates of direct costs and health care resource utilization for the management of AEs of melanoma treatments, published between January 1, 2007, and February 23, 2017. Gray literature searches also were conducted. Studies reporting direct costs for patients with advanced melanoma that were published in English between 2007 and 2017 were eligible. Studies were systematically screened in 2 phases by 2 independent reviewers. Study design details and data on direct costs by country were extracted. RESULTS: Seven studies evaluating the cost of AEs in patients with advanced melanoma were included; most estimated the costs for grade 3 or 4 events. In a United States study, monthly AE costs constituted 36.9% of overall health care costs for dacarbazine, 30.3% for paclitaxel, 9.2% for temozolomide, 6.4% for vemurafenib, and 4.0% for ipilimumab. A multicountry study found the greatest cost per event to be for grade 3 or 4 AEs associated with ipilimumab, including colitis (A$1471 [Australia]-&OV0556;3313 [France]) and diarrhea (£2836 [United Kingdom]), and chemotherapy (neutropenia/leukopenia in Germany [&OV0556;1744] and Italy [&OV0556;804]). Across studies, cost drivers for the most expensive AEs to manage were requiring hospitalization or use of expensive outpatient medications and/or procedures (eg, erythropoietin and blood transfusions for anemia). Some currently available therapies were not available during the research period, and their associated AEs are not reflected. Results may not be comparable across countries. For some studies, resource-use estimates reflect practice patterns from a limited number of centers, limiting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Costs for managing each type of AE associated with the treatment of advanced melanoma are substantial. Effective treatments with improved safety profiles may help reduce total AE management costs.

Cost Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab vs. Standard-of-Care Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic NSCLC that Expresses High Levels of PD-L1 in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with standard-of-care (SoC) platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that expresses high levels of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) [tumour proportion score (TPS) ≥50%], from a US third-party public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: We conducted a partitioned-survival model with a cycle length of 1 week and a base-case time horizon of 20 years. Parametric models were fitted to Kaplan-Meier estimates of time on treatment, progression-free survival and overall survival from the KEYNOTE-024 randomized clinical trial (patients aged ≥18 years with stage IV NSCLC, TPS ≥50%, without epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-activating mutations or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocations who received no prior systemic chemotherapy) and validated with long-term registry data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) utility data collected in the trial. Costs ($US, year 2016 values) for drug acquisition/administration, adverse events and clinical management were included. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. A series of deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, pembrolizumab resulted in an expected gain of 1.31 life-years (LYs) and 1.05 QALYs and an incremental cost of $US102,439 compared with SoC. The incremental cost per QALY gain was $US97,621/QALY and the incremental cost per LY gain was $US78,344/LY. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab is projected to be a cost-effective option compared with SoC platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in adults with metastatic NSCLC expressing high levels of PD-L1.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Versus Ipilimumab in Ipilimumab-Naïve Patients with Advanced Melanoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials have shown that pembrolizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival compared with ipilimumab in ipilimumab-naïve patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. However, there has been no published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for this indication. OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in ipilimumab-naïve patients with unresectable or meta-static melanoma from a U.S. integrated health system perspective. METHODS: A partitioned-survival model was developed, which divided overall survival time into progression-free survival and postprogression survival. The model used Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival and overall survival from a recent randomized phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006) that compared pembrolizumab and ipilimumab. Extrapolation of progression-free survival and overall survival beyond the clinical trial was based on parametric functions and literature data. The base-case time horizon was 20 years, and costs and health outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. Clinical data-including progression-free survival and overall survival data spanning a median follow-up time of 15 months, as well as quality of life and adverse event data from the ongoing KEYNOTE-006 trial-and cost data from public sources were used to populate the model. Costs included those of drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and disease management of advanced melanoma. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost difference per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was the main outcome, and a series of sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In the base case, pembrolizumab was projected to increase the life expectancy of U.S. patients with advanced melanoma by 1.14 years, corresponding to a gain of 0.79 discounted QALYs over ipilimumab. The model also projected an average increase of $63,680 in discounted perpatient costs of treatment with pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab. The corresponding ICER was $81,091 per QALY ($68,712 per life-year) over a 20-year time horizon. With $100,000 per QALY as the threshold, when input parameters were varied in deterministic one-way sensitivity analyses, the use of pembrolizumab was cost-effective relative to ipilimumab in most ranges. Further, in a comprehensive probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the ICER was cost-effective in 83% of the simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ipilimumab, pembrolizumab had higher expected QALYs and was cost-effective for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a U.S. integrated health system perspective. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by funding from Merck & Co., which reviewed and approved the manuscript before journal submission. Wang, Pellissier, Xu, Stevinson, and Liu are employees of, and own stock in, Merck & Co. Chmielowski has served as a paid consultant for Merck & Co. and received a consultant fee for clinical input in connection with this study. Chmielowski also reports receiving advisory board and speaker bureau fees from multiple major pharmaceutical companies. Wang led the modeling and writing of the manuscript. Chmielowski, Xu, Stevinson, and Pellissier contributed substantially to the modeling design and methodology. Liu led the data collection work and contributed substantially to writing the manuscript. In conducting the analysis and writing the manuscript, the authors followed Merck publication polices and the "cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials-good research practices and the CHEERS reporting format as recommended by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for the treatment of previously treated PD-L1 positive advanced NSCLC patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-squamous cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 positive tumors (total proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%). The analysis was conducted from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned-survival model was developed using data from patients from the KEYNOTE 010 clinical trial. The model used Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the trial for patients treated with either pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 with extrapolation based on fitted parametric functions and long-term registry data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived based on EQ-5D data from KEYNOTE 010 using a time to death approach. Costs of drug acquisition/administration, adverse event management, and clinical management of advanced NSCLC were included in the model. The base-case analysis used a time horizon of 20 years. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Base case results project for PD-L1 positive (TPS ≥50%) patients treated with pembrolizumab a mean survival of 2.25 years. For docetaxel, a mean survival time of 1.07 years was estimated. Expected QALYs were 1.71 and 0.76 for pembrolizumab and docetaxel, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained with pembrolizumab vs docetaxel is $168,619/QALY, which is cost-effective in the US using a threshold of 3-times GDP per capita. Sensitivity analyses showed the results to be robust over plausible values of the majority of inputs. Results were most sensitive to extrapolation of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab improves survival, increases QALYs, and can be considered as a cost-effective option compared to docetaxel in PD-L1 positive (TPS ≥50%) pre-treated advanced NSCLC patients in the US.

Budget Impact Analysis of Peritoneal Dialysis versus Conventional In-Center Hemodialysis in Malaysia.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the 5-year health care budget impact of variable distribution of adult patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) and in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) on government funding in Malaysia. METHODS: An Excel-based budget impact model was constructed to assess dialysis-associated costs when changing dialysis modalities between PD and ICHD. The model incorporates the current modality distribution and accounts for Malaysian government dialysis payments and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent costs. Epidemiological data including dialysis prevalence, incidence, mortality, and transplant rates from the Malaysian renal registry reports were used to estimate the dialysis patient population for the next 5 years. The baseline scenario assumed a stable distribution of PD (8%) and ICHD (92%) over 5 years. Alternative scenarios included the prevalence of PD increasing by 2.5%, 5.0%, and 7.5% or decreasing 1% yearly over 5 years. All four scenarios were accompanied with commensurate changes in ICHD. RESULTS: Under the current best available cost information, an increase in the prevalent PD population from 8% in 2014 to 18%, 28%, or 38% in 2018 is predicted to result in 5-year cumulative savings of Ringgit Malaysia (RM) 7.98 million, RM15.96 million, and RM23.93 million, respectively, for the Malaysian government. If the prevalent PD population were to decrease from 8% in 2014 to 4.0% by 2018, the total expenditure for dialysis treatments would increase by RM3.19 million over the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Under the current cost information associated with PD and HD paid by the Malaysian government, increasing the proportion of patients on PD could potentially reduce dialysis-associated costs in Malaysia.