Cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance treatment for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib monotherapy in the first-line maintenance setting vs. surveillance in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A three-state (progression free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model over a 50-year lifetime horizon was developed. Piecewise models were applied to data from the phase III trial SOLO1 to extrapolate survival outcomes. Health state utilities and adverse event disutilities were obtained from literature and SOLO1. Treatment costs, adverse event costs, and medical costs associated with health states were obtained from publicly available databases, SOLO1, and real-world data. Time on treatment was estimated using the data from SOLO1. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY) gained were estimated. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, olaparib was associated with an additional 3.63 LYs and 2.93 QALYs, and an incremental total cost of $152,545 vs. surveillance. Incremental cost per LY gained and per QALY gained for olaparib were $42,032 and $51,986, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below $100,000 across a range of inputs and scenarios. In the PSA, the probability of olaparib being cost-effective at a $100,000 per QALY threshold was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to surveillance, olaparib increases both the LYs and QALYs of women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and with a germline or somatic BRCA mutation. Olaparib offers a cost-effective maintenance option for these women from a US third-party payer perspective.

Movement of Poly-ADP Ribose (PARP) Inhibition into Frontline Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Metabolic Stability Assessment of New PARP Inhibitor Talazoparib Using Validated LC-MS/MS Methodology: In silico Metabolic Vulnerability and Toxicity Studies.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib (BMN673) is a new poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has been FDA approved for patients suffering from metastatic breast cancer with germline BRCA mutations. METHOD AND RESULTS: In the current study, an accurate and efficient liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analytical methodology was developed for TZB estimation in addition to its metabolic stability assessment. TZB and lapatinib (LAP) (which is chosen as an internal standard; IS) were separated using reversed phase elution system (Hypersil C18 column) with an isocratic mobile phase. The linearity range of the established method was 5-500 ng/mL (r2 ≥ 0.999) in the human liver microsomes (HLMs) matrix. Different parameters were calculated to confirm the method sensitivity (limit of quantification was 2.0 ng/mL), and reproducibility (intra- and inter-day precision and accuracy were below 3.1%) of our methodology. For evaluation of TZB metabolic stability in HLM matrix, intrinsic clearance (9.59 µL/min/mg) and in vitro half-life (72.7 mins) were calculated. TZB treatment discontinuations were reported due to adverse events and dose accumulation, so in silico metabolic vulnerability (experimental and in silico) and toxicity assessment (in silico) of TZB were performed utilizing P450 Metabolism and DEREK modules of StarDrop software. CONCLUSION: TZB is slowly metabolized by the liver. TZB was reported to be minimally metabolized by the liver that approved our outcomes. We do recommend that plasma levels be monitored in cases when talazoparib is used for a long period of time, since it is possible for TZB to bioaccumulate after multiple doses to toxic levels. According to our knowledge, the current method is considered the first LC-MS/MS methodology for evaluating TZB metabolic stability. Further drug discovery studies can be done depending on this concept allowing the designing of new series of compounds with more safety profile through reducing side effects and improving metabolic behavior.

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease. METHODS: Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non­platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations. RESULTS: Non­platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non­platinum-based regimens. CONCLUSION: High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care.

Budget impact analysis of niraparib and olaparib for maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer in the US.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the budget impact of niraparib and olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer from a US third party payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A budget impact model was constructed to assess the additional per member per month (PMPM) costs associated with the introduction of niraparib and olaparib, two poly ADP-ribose polymerase ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors recently approved to be used in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients with and without a gBRCA mutation. The model assessed both pharmacy costs and medical costs. Pharmacy costs included adjusted drug costs, coinsurance, and dispensing fees. Medical costs included costs associated with disease monitoring and management of adverse events from the treatment. Epidemiological data from the literature were used to estimate the target population size. The analysis used 1-year time frame, and patients were assumed on treatment until disease progression or death. All costs were computed in 2017 USD. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the model robustness. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan of 1,000,000 members, 206 patients were estimated to be potential candidates for niraparib or olaparib maintenance treatment after applying all epidemiological parameters. At listed 30-day supply WAC prices of $14,750 for niraparib and $13,482 for olaparib, budget impacts of these two drugs were $0.169 PMPM and $0.156 PMPM, respectively, most of which were contributed by pharmacy costs. Sensitivity analyses suggested that assumptions around market share, platinum-sensitive rate after first treatment, and WAC prices affected results the most. LIMITATIONS: In this model, it was assumed that adopting niraparib and olaparib would not affect utilization of existing medications. Also, the estimated clinical parameters from clinical trials could differ from real-world data.

Economic impact of olaparib on maintenance treatment of patients with BRCA-mutation positive, platinum-sensitive relapsing high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic impact of the introduction of olaparib in  the Spanish National Health System as maintenance monotherapy in patients  with BRCA-mutation positive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHOD: A budget impact model was developed from the Spanish NHS perspective and a time horizon of 5 years for four treatment lines. The model included prevalent and incident patients estimated according to Spanish epidemiological data. Patients moved between treatment lines according to the progression-free survival and overall survival curves  obtained from the respective clinical trials. Only direct costs (€ 2017) were considered: pharmacological, administration, adverse effects and genetic tests. The robustness of the model was verified by a univariate  sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The use of olaparib meant that, after 5 years, 6% fewer patients progressed to later lines compared to scenario without olaparib,  remaining longer in the second line and delaying the initiation of subsequent lines. The total estimated budgetary impact ranged between € 1.6  and € 5.4 million (1-5 years). The economic impact associated to the  introduction of olaparib is partially offset by the lower cost of chemotherapy, related adverse events, and palliative care in patients with  olaparib than in patients without it. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with BRCA-mutation positive high-grade serous ovarian cancer increases progression-free  survival and delays the use of subsequent chemotherapy, with an budgetary  impact for the Spanish National Health System of 5.4 million euros after 5 years.

Objetivo: Estimar el impacto económico de la introducción de olaparib en el  Sistema Nacional de Salud como monoterapia de mantenimiento en pacientes  con cáncer de ovario seroso de alto grado y mutación BRCA.Método: Se desarrolló un modelo de impacto presupuestario desde la  perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud y un horizonte temporal de cinco años a lo largo de cuatro líneas de tratamiento. El modelo incluye pacientes  prevalentes e incidentes estimadas a partir de datos epidemiológicos españoles.  Las pacientes se mueven entre las líneas de tratamiento en función de las curvas de supervivencia libre de progresión y supervivencia global obtenidas de los  respectivos ensayos clínicos. Solo se consideraron costes directos (€ 2017):  farmacológicos, de administración, efectos adversos y test genéticos. La  robustez del modelo se ha comprobado a través de un análisis de sensibilidad  univariante.Resultados: El uso de olaparib conllevó que, tras cinco años, un 6% menos de  pacientes progresaran a líneas posteriores, en comparación al escenario sin  olaparib, permaneciendo más tiempo en segunda línea y retrasando el inicio de  líneas subsiguientes. El impacto presupuestario total estimado osciló entre 1,6 y  5,4 millones de euros (1-5 años). Este impacto económico se ve parcialmente  compensado por los costes de la quimioterapia, el manejo de sus efectos  adversos y los cuidados paliativos, los cuales producen ahorros para el Sistema  Nacional de Salud.Conclusiones: Olaparib como tratamiento de mantenimiento en pacientes con  cáncer de ovario seroso de alto grado y mutación del gen BRCA aumenta la  supervivencia libre de progresión y retrasa la utilización de quimioterapia  posteriores, con un impacto presupuestario para el Sistema Nacional de Salud de  5,4 millones de euros tras 5 año.

Olaparib for Maintenance Treatment of BRCA 1 or 2 Mutated, Relapsed, Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Peritoneal Cancer in People Whose Relapsed Disease has Responded to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of olaparib (AstraZeneca) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of olaparib for the maintenance treatment of BRCA1/2 mutated (BRCAm), platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer in people whose relapsed disease has responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical evidence related to one phase II, double-blind randomised controlled trial that recruited 265 patients with PSR serous ovarian cancer (OC) regardless of BRCAm status. Patients received olaparib 400 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) or matched placebo. In the whole population, the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) was met (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.49, p < 0.01) for olaparib versus placebo. The BRCAm subgroup analysis (added after the study commenced but 1 month before the primary analysis was undertaken) reported an HR for PFS of 0.18 (95 % CI 0.10-0.31, p < 0.0001) for olaparib versus placebo, though interaction tests appeared inconclusive. Overall survival was not statistically significant in the whole group (HR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.64-1.21; p = 0.44) or the BRCAm subgroup (0.73; 95 % CI 0.45-1.17; p = 0.19), though treatment switching may have confounded results. The exclusion of data from sites allowing crossover resulted in an HR for overall survival (OS) of 0.52 (95 % CI 0.28-0.97, p = 0.039) in the BRCAm group. Health-related quality-of-life measures were not significantly different between groups. All post hoc exploratory outcomes (time to treatment discontinuation/death, time to first subsequent therapy/death, and time to second subsequent therapy/death) were statistically significantly better in the olaparib arm in the whole population and the BRCAm subgroup analyses. Adverse events were more frequent for olaparib but were largely minor or manageable. The company's semi-Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of olaparib versus routine surveillance in patients with BRCAm PSR OC from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. The model suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for olaparib versus routine surveillance is expected to be approximately £49,146 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG did not consider the company's cost-effectiveness estimates to be credible. Additional ERG analyses suggested that the ICER is likely to be more than £92,214 per QALY gained. Additional analyses provided by the company in patients who received three or more lines of chemotherapy suggested a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile for olaparib. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended olaparib for this subgroup provided the cost of olaparib for people who continue to receive treatment after 15 months will be met by the company.

Double-blind assessment of azelastine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Azelastine is a chemically novel multifunctional antiallergy investigational drug capable of inhibiting mast-cell activation and the synthesis and/or release of chemical mediators of the upper and lower airway inflammatory response. In previous controlled clinical trials, azelastine was shown to be effective in treating the symptoms of both seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis. The objective of this 8-week double-blind trial was to evaluate further azelastine's efficacy and safety in improving the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis over a prolonged period of treatment. One hundred ninety-nine patients with symptomatic perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive in a double-blind fashion azelastine, 2 mg bid, clemastine fumarate, 1.34 mg bid, or placebo bid for 8 weeks. Patients treated with azelastine had superior mean percent improvements in the total symptom complex score (nose blows, sneezes, stuffy nose, runny nose, itchy nose, and itchy eyes/ears/throat) versus placebo at each evaluation point and overall across all 8 weeks (P < .01) of the trial. Improvements in the individual symptoms of rhinitis were statistically significant (P < or = .04) for nose blows, sneezes, runny nose, itchy nose, and itchy eyes, ears, and throat. Treatment with azelastine also resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in nasal congestion. Improvement in congestion was accompanied by a decreased requirement for backup decongestant medication. The adverse experiences were generally mild and well tolerated. Azelastine provided effective prolonged relief of the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis with no adverse effects that would limit its long-term use.