Comparative Effectiveness of Tofacitinib and Adalimumab in Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Real-World Clinical Context Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, is a putative choice in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA). The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of tofacitinib with adalimumab, in AxSpA, in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: In this multicentric medical records review study, adult patients with active AxSpA treated with either tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously fortnightly were recruited. Effectiveness was measured with Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). Drug-cost analysis was calculated with Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER drug ). RESULTS: Among the 266 patients, 135 were treated with tofacitinib and 131 with adalimumab (follow-up: 6.5 ± 1.6 months). Mean improvement of BASDAI (3.39 ± 0.09 vs. 3.14 ± 1.16, respectively) and that of ASDAS (1.78 ± 0.68 vs. 2.07 ± 2.08, respectively) were comparable between the adalimumab and tofacitinib groups. A higher proportion of patients achieved BASDAI50 response in the second (49.5% vs. 31.6%) and fourth month (83.9% vs. 62.8%) and ASDAS low disease activity in the fourth month (71.6% vs. 47.9%) in the adalimumab group. All disease activity measurements were similar by the sixth month in both groups. A higher proportion of patients in the tofacitinib group than in the adalimumab group required change in therapy (14.8% vs. 7.6%, respectively). ICER drug for adalimumab compared with tofacitinib was US $188.8 per patient in the adalimumab group for each person-month with BASDAI <4. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib showed comparable effectiveness with adalimumab in patients with AxSpA at the sixth month, despite lesser response in the initial months, with favorable ICER drug .

Assessment of the Effects of Abrocitinib on the Pharmacokinetics of Probe Substrates of Cytochrome P450 1A2, 2B6 and 2C19 Enzymes and Hormonal Oral Contraceptives in Healthy Individuals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Abrocitinib is an oral small-molecule Janus kinase (JAK)-1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. In vitro studies indicated that abrocitinib is a weak time-dependent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19/3A and a weak inducer of CYP1A2/2B6/2C19/3A. To assess the potential effect of abrocitinib on concomitant medications, drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies were conducted for abrocitinib with sensitive probe substrates of these CYP enzymes. The impact of abrocitinib on hormonal oral contraceptives (ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel), as substrates of CYP3A and important concomitant medications for female patients, was also evaluated. METHODS: Three Phase 1 DDI studies were performed to assess the impact of abrocitinib 200 mg once daily (QD) on the probe substrates of: (1) 1A2 (caffeine), 2B6 (efavirenz) and 2C19 (omeprazole) in a cocktail study; (2) 3A (midazolam); and (3) 3A (oral contraceptives). RESULTS: After multiple doses of abrocitinib 200 mg QD, there is a lack of effect on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, efavirenz and contraceptives. Abrocitinib increased the area under the concentration time curve from 0 to infinity (AUCinf) and the maximum concentration (Cmax) of omeprazole by approximately 189 and 134%, respectively. Abrocitinib increased the AUCinf of caffeine by 40% with lack of effect on Cmax. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the study results, abrocitinib is a moderate inhibitor of CYP2C19. Caution should be exercised when using abrocitinib concomitantly with narrow therapeutic index medicines that are primarily metabolized by CYP2C19 enzyme. Abrocitinib is a mild inhibitor of CYP1A2; however, the impact is not clinically relevant, and no general dose adjustment is recommended for CYP1A2 substrates. Abrocitinib does not inhibit CYP3A or induce CYP1A2/2B6/2C19/3A and does not affect the pharmacokinetics of contraceptives. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration IDs: NCT03647670, NCT05067439, NCT03662516.

Vasculitis-like herpes zoster in the course of treatment with tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis: An assessment of local viral distribution by RNA in situ hybridization.

A 67-year-old man had taken the janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, tofacitinib, for ulcerative colitis. He was referred to our department for a refractory ulcer on his lower leg. We suspected vasculitis and performed skin biopsy. Histopathological examination showed multinucleated giant cells in the epidermis and fibrinoid degeneration of small vessels in the upper dermis. Varicella zoster virus (VZV) DNA was detected by polymerase chain reaction and we diagnosed the patient with atypical vasculitis-like herpes zoster. The patient was treated with oral valacyclovir, but the rash persisted and took 2 months to heal. Immunostaining using anti-VZV antibody was positive mainly in epidermal keratinocytes, but was also observed to be positive in cells in the dermis. We further performed RNA in situ hybridization using a VZV ORF9 mRNA probe and clearly showed that the distribution of VZV mRNA extended into the dermis, including the dermal vessel walls and the eccrine sweat glands as well as the epidermis. The internal administration of JAK inhibitors may induce regional widespread VZV infection including vessels and involved in the formation of prolonged vasculitis-like manifestation. RNA in situ hybridization can be a potent tool for detecting the spread of VZV infection in the skin.

Assessment of Alectinib vs Ceritinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Phase 2 Trials and in Real-world Data.

Importance: Quantitative assessment of bias from unmeasured confounding and missing data can help evaluate uncertainty in findings from indirect comparisons using real-world data (RWD). Objective: To compare the effectiveness of alectinib vs ceritinib in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients with ALK-positive, crizotinib-refractory, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to assess the sensitivity of these findings to unmeasured confounding and missing data assumptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study compared patients from 2 phase 2 alectinib trials and real-world patients. Patients were monitored from June 2013 to March 2020. Comparisons of interest were between alectinib trial data vs ceritinib RWD and alectinib RWD vs ceritinib RWD. RWD treatment groups were selected from nationally representative cancer data from US cancer clinics, the majority from community centers. Participants were ALK-positive patients aged 18 years or older with advanced NSCLC, prior exposure to crizotinib, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (PS) of 0 to 2. Data analysis was performed from October 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: Initiation of alectinib or ceritinib therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was OS. Results: In total, there were 355 patients: 183 (85 men [46.4%]) in the alectinib trial, 91 (43 men [47.3%]) in the ceritinib RWD group, and 81 (38 men [46.9%]) in the alectinib RWD group. Patients in the alectinib trial were younger (mean [SD] age, 52.53 [11.18] vs 57.97 [11.71] years), more heavily pretreated (mean [SD] number of prior therapy lines, 1.95 [0.72] vs 1.47 [0.81]), and had more favorable baseline ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 165 patients [90.2%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) than those in the ceritinib RWD group. The alectinib RWD group (mean [SD] age, 58.69 [11.26] years) had more patients with favorable ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 49 patients [92.4%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) and more White patients (56 patients [72.7%] vs 53 patients [62.4%]) compared with the ceritinib group. Compared with ceritinib RWD, alectinib-exposed patients had significantly longer OS in alectinib trials (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75; P < .001) and alectinib RWD (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.63; P < .001) after adjustment for baseline confounders. For the worst-case HR estimate of 0.59, residual confounding by a hypothetical confounder associated with mortality and treatment by a risk ratio greater than 2.24 was required to reverse the findings. Conclusions were robust to plausible deviations from random missingness for missing ECOG PS and underrecorded comorbidities and central nervous system metastases in RWD. Conclusions and Relevance: Alectinib exposure was associated with longer OS compared with ceritinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, and only substantial levels of bias examined reversed the findings. These findings suggest that quantitative bias analysis can be a useful tool to address uncertainty of findings for decision-makers considering RWD.

Multivariate Assessment for Bioequivalence Based on the Correlation of Random Effect.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Bioequivalence tests are fundamental step in assessing the equivalence in bioavailability between a test and reference product. In practice, two separate linear mixed models (LMMs) with random subject effects, which have an area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and the peak concentration (Cmax) as the responses, have become the gold standard for evaluating bioequivalence. Recently, Lee et al developed a multivariate hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) for several responses that modeled correlations among multivariate responses via correlated random effects. The objective of this study was to apply this multivariate analysis to the bioequivalence test in practice and to compare the performance of multivariate HGLM and separate LMMs. METHODS: Three pharmacokinetic datasets, fixed-dose combination (naproxen and esomeprazole), tramadol and fimasartan data were analyzed. We compared the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of a test product to a reference product using the multivariate HGLM and two conventional separate LMMs. RESULTS: We found that the 90% CIs for the GMRs of both AUC and Cmax from the multivariate HGLM were narrower than those from the separate LMMs: (0.843, 1.152) vs (0.825, 1.177) for Cmax of esomeprazole in fixed-dose combination data; (0.805, 0.931) vs (0.797, 0.941) for Cmax in tramadol data; (0.801, 1.501) vs (0.762, 1.578) for Cmax and (1.163, 1.332) vs (1.009, 1.341) for AUC in fimasartan data, consistent with the random subject effects from two separate LMMs being highly correlated in the three datasets (correlation coefficient r = 0.883; r = 0.966; r = 0.832). CONCLUSION: This multivariate HGLM had good performance in the bioequivalence test with multiple endpoints. This method would provide a more reasonable option to reduce the 90% CI by adding correlation parameters and thus an advantage especially in evaluating the bioequivalence of highly variable drugs with broad 90% CIs.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12-24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. METHODS: We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. RESULTS: At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tofacitinib compared with adalimumab and etanercept in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis; Iranian experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Tofacitinib (TFC) in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not responded well to methotrexate from the Iranian payer's perspective. METHODS: An individual microsimulation Markov model was developed to compare TFC with etanercept (ETN) and Adalimumab (ADA) over a life-time horizon. Treatment efficacy was estimated based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response improvement criteria in 6 months. Changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were mapped onto utility values to calculate outcomes in terms of QALYs. Direct medical costs were taken from national databases. Uncertainty in model parameters was evaluated by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that TFC was cost-effective in both scenarios. Although TFC was associated with lower QALYs than ETN (6.664 versus 6.876), it was also associated with lower costs over a life-time horizon ($42,565.04 versus $58,696.29). Additionally, TFC was found to be the dominant strategy with a lower cost ($50,299.91 versus $51,550.29) and higher QALYs gained (6.900 versus 6.687) compared to ADA. CONCLUSION: TFC was found to be cost-effective in patients with severe RA who do not respond well to methotrexate compared to ADA, ETN in Iran.

Tofacitinib for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: Analysis of Infection Rates from the Ulcerative Colitis Clinical Programme.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule JAK inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. We report integrated analyses of infections in the Phase [P]2 and P3 OCTAVE programmes. METHODS: Three cohorts were analysed: Induction [P2/3 induction studies]; Maintenance [P3 maintenance study]; and Overall [all tofacitinib-treated patients in induction, maintenance, or ongoing, open-label, long-term extension studies; as of May 2019]. Proportions and incidence rates [IRs; unique patients with events/100 patient-years] of serious infections [SIs], herpes zoster [HZ] [non-serious and serious], and opportunistic infections [OIs] are reported [censored at time of event]. RESULTS: In the Induction Cohort [N = 1220], no patients receiving placebo and eight [0.9%] receiving tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily [BID] developed SIs. Maintenance Cohort [N = 592] SI IRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) were 1.94 [0.23-7.00] for placebo and 1.35 [0.16-4.87] and 0.64 [0.02-3.54] for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID, respectively; HZ IRs were 0.97 [0.02-5.42], 2.05 [0.42-6.00], and 6.64 [3.19-12.22], respectively. In the Overall Cohort [N = 1157; 82.9% predominantly received tofacitinib 10 mg BID], SI, HZ, and non-HZ OI IRs were 1.70 [1.24-2.27], 3.48 [2.79-4.30], and 0.15 [0.04-0.38], respectively. No SIs resulted in death. CONCLUSIONS: During induction, SIs were more frequent with tofacitinib versus placebo. SIs were generally infrequent in the Maintenance and Overall Cohorts, with rates comparable between treatment groups. Maintenance Cohort HZ IR was numerically higher with tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus 5 mg BID. Overall Cohort HZ IRs remained stable over time. Non-HZ OIs and viral infections were rare.

Population-based utilization and costs associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for first-line treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia among elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Following approval of imatinib, a breakthrough tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), survival significantly improved by more than 20% since 2001 among treated chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients. Subsequently, more expensive second-generation TKIs with varying selectivity profiles have been approved. Population-based studies are needed to evaluate the real-world utilization of TKI therapies, particularly given their escalating costs and recommendations for maintenance therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utilization patterns of first-line TKIs, overall and by specific agent, among elderly CML patients in the United States, and the cost implications. METHODS: CML patients aged 65 years and older at diagnosis between 2007 and 2015 were identified from population-based cancer registries in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. The percentage of CML patients receiving imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib within the first year of diagnosis was calculated along with time to first-line treatment initiation. Bivariate comparisons and Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with TKI initiation. Average monthly patient responsibility, including patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, stratified by Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) status were also calculated. RESULTS: Among the 1,589 CML patients included, receipt of any TKI within 1 year of diagnosis increased from 66.2% to 78.9%. In 2015, the distribution of first-line TKI therapies was 41.3% imatinib, 28.3% dasatinib, and 9.3% nilotinib. Almost 60% of patients initiated TKI treatment within 3 months of diagnosis. Multivariable analysis indicated that TKI use in the first year was lower among the very elderly (aged > 75 years vs. 65-69 years: HR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.63-0.83), patients with more comorbidities (Hierarchical Condition Category risk score > 2 vs. HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.62-0.88), and patients ineligible for LIS (HR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.65-0.87). Average monthly patient OOP cost was significantly lower for LIS-eligible versus LIS-ineligible patients: imatinib (2016: $12 vs. $487), dasatinib (2016: $34 vs. $557), and nilotinib (2016: $1 vs. $526). CONCLUSIONS: TKI use has increased significantly since 2007. While imatinib remained the most frequently prescribed first-line agent, by 2015 newer TKIs represented one third of the market share. Utilization patterns indicated persistent age, comorbidity, and financial barriers. TKI use is indicated for long-term therapy, and increased adoption of newer, more expensive agents raises concerns about the sustained affordability of CML treatment, particularly among unsubsidized patients. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. There are no reported conflicts of interest.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the biological drugs, the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis is still a challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of biological drugs and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in the Spanish context. METHODS: A Markov model was built to simulate the progression of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in a cohort of patients. The model used a time horizon of 10 years. The perspective chosen was the National Health Service, with a discount rate of 3%, and a threshold of €30,000/quality adjusted life-year (QALY). It carried out a one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The comparison of infliximab with adalimumab and golimumab estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €43,928.07/QALY and €31,340.69/QALY, with a difference of - 0.43 and - 0.82 QALY, respectively. Vedolizumab vs infliximab achieved an ICER of €122,890.19/QALY with a gain of 0.46 QALY. The comparison of infliximab with tofacitinib yielded an estimated ICER of €270,503.19/QALY, with a slight gain in QALY (0.16). The one-way sensitivity analysis showed a robust study. CONCLUSION: For a threshold of €30,000/QALY, adalimumab was the most cost-effective treatment versus infliximab for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

Assessment of Clinical Drug-Drug Interactions of Elagolix, a Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist.

Elagolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist indicated for the management of endometriosis-associated pain and in combination with estradiol/norethindrone acetate indicated for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine leiomyomas (fibroids) in premenopausal women. Elagolix coadministered with estradiol/norethindrone acetate is in late-stage development for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids. Based on the in vitro profile of elagolix metabolism and disposition, 9 drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies evaluating the victim and perpetrator characteristics of elagolix were conducted in 144 healthy volunteers. As a victim of cytochrome P450 (CYPs) and transporter-mediated DDIs, elagolix area under the curve (AUC) increased by ∼2-fold following coadministration with ketoconazole and by ∼5- and ∼2-fold with single and multiple doses of rifampin, respectively. As a perpetrator, elagolix decreased midazolam AUC (90% confidence interval) by 54% (50%-59%) and increased digoxin AUC by 32% (23%-41%). Elagolix decreased rosuvastatin AUC by 40% (29%-50%). No clinically significant changes in exposure on coadministration with sertraline or fluconazole occurred. A elagolix 150-mg once-daily regimen should be limited to 6 months with strong CYP3A inhibitors and rifampin because of the potential increase in bone mineral density loss, as described in the drug label. A 200-mg twice-daily regimen is recommended for no more than 1 month with strong CYP3A inhibitors and not recommended with rifampin. Elagolix is contraindicated with strong organic anion transporter polypeptide B1 inhibitors (eg, cyclosporine and gemfibrozil). Consider increasing the doses of midazolam and rosuvastatin when coadministered with elagolix, and individualize therapy based on patient response. Clinical monitoring is recommended for P-glycoprotein substrates with a narrow therapeutic window (eg, digoxin). Dose adjustments are not required for sertraline, fluconazole, bupropion (or any CYP2B6 substrate), or elagolix when coadministered.

Effect of Elagolix Exposure on Clinical Efficacy End Points in Phase III Trials in Women With Endometriosis-Associated Pain: An Application of Markov Model.

Elagolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the management of moderate-to-severe pain associated with endometriosis and in combination with estradiol/norethindrone acetate approved for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine leiomyomas (fibroids) in premenopausal women. The objective of this work was to characterize the relationships between elagolix exposures and clinical efficacy response rates for dysmenorrhea (DYS) and nonmenstrual pelvic pain (NMPP) in premenopausal women enrolled in the pivotal phase III studies with moderate-to-severe pain associated with endometriosis. Relationships between elagolix average concentrations (Cavg ) and efficacy responses (DYS and NMPP) were characterized using a nonlinear mixed-effects discrete-time first order Markov modeling approach. Only age was statistically significant for NMPP but not considered clinically relevant. This work indicates that the selection of elagolix dose is not determined based on tested patient demographics, baseline, or endometriosis disease severity measures in covariate analysis. In other words, the work suggests no preference of one regimen over the other to treat endometriosis-associated pain (DYS or NMPP) for any patient subpopulation based on tested covariate groups.

Safety assessment of metarrestin in dogs: A clinical candidate targeting a subnuclear structure unique to metastatic cancer cells.

Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. Ninety percent of patients with stage IV pancreatic cancer die within one year of diagnosis due to complications of metastasis. A metastatic potential of cancer cells has been shown to be closely associated with formation of perinucleolar compartment (PNC). Metarrestin, a first-in-class PNC inhibitor, was evaluated for its toxicity, toxicokinetics, and safety pharmacology in beagle dogs following every other day oral (capsule) administration for 28 days to support its introduction into clinical trials. The study consisted of four dose groups: vehicle; 0.25, 0.75 and 1.50 mg/kg/dose. Metarrestin reached its maximum concentration in blood at 3 h (overall median Tmax) across all doses with a mean t1/2 over 168 h of 55.5 h. Dose dependent increase in systemic exposure (Cmax and AUClast) with no sex difference was observed on days 1 and 27. Metarrestin accumulated from Day 1 to Day 27 at all dose levels and in both sexes by an overall factor of about 2.34. No mortality occurred during the dosing period; however, treatment-related clinical signs of toxicity consisting of hypoactivity, shaking/shivering, thinness, irritability, salivation, abnormal gait, tremors, ataxia and intermittent seizure-like activity were seen in both sexes at mid and high dose groups. Treatment-related effects on body weight and food consumption were seen at the mid and high dose levels. Safety pharmacology study showed no treatment-related effects on blood pressure, heart rate, corrected QT, PR, RR, or QRS intervals, or respiratory function parameters (respiratory rate, tidal volume, minute volume). There were no histopathological changes observed, with the exception of transient thymic atrophy which was considered to be non-adverse. Based primarily on clinical signs of toxicity, the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) in dogs was considered to be 0.25 mg/kg metarrestin after every other day dosing for 28 days with a mean of male and female Cmax = 82.5 ng/mL and AUClast = 2521 h*ng/mL, on Day 27.

Budget impact analysis of treatment-free remission in nilotinib-treated Japanese chronic myeloid leukemia patients.

Treatment-free remission (TFR), in which patients discontinue pharmacotherapy and remain in molecular remission, is an emerging treatment goal for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Attainment of TFR requires an increased frequency of molecular monitoring, to ensure that patients maintain a deep molecular response. The objective of this analysis was to assess the economic impact of stopping nilotinib among Japanese TFR-eligible patients. A Markov model evaluated the economic impact of TFR among the study population, TFR-eligible CML patients diagnosed since 2012. The model compared patients who had discontinued tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment (ie, attempted TFR) with patients that continued TKI treatment. A 3-y time horizon was modeled from a Japanese public payer perspective. Costs associated with drug treatment, hospital/physician visits, and molecular monitoring were considered. TFR-eligible patients were calculated from Japanese CML incidence rates and efficacy was derived from nilotinib trials. Japanese co-payment maximums were utilized to assess the patient perspective. An estimated 761 and 140 patients were eligible for first- and second-line nilotinib, respectively, in 2019. Assuming that 100% of eligible patients complied, TFR was associated with cost savings of ¥7 625 174 640 (US$66 567 775) over 3 y. In scenarios with reduced willingness to attempt TFR, cost savings persisted. Achievement of TFR was estimated to markedly reduce out-of-pocket expenses for CML patients, regardless of the timing of relapse. Stopping nilotinib for TFR-eligible patients in Japan may result in significant cost savings to both payers and patients. Monitoring costs contributed little to overall annual costs and decreased over time.

A Budget Impact Model of the Addition of Telotristat Ethyl Treatment to the Standard of Care in Patients with Uncontrolled Carcinoid Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Carcinoid syndrome, a rare condition in patients with neuroendocrine tumours, characterised by flushing and diarrhoea, severely affects patients' quality of life. The current carcinoid syndrome standard of care includes somatostatin analogues, but some patients experience uncontrolled symptoms despite somatostatin analogue therapy. Telotristat ethyl is a novel treatment approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US FDA that significantly reduces bowel movement frequency in patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. OBJECTIVE: We developed a model to evaluate the 5-year budget impact of introducing telotristat ethyl to standard care in Swedish patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. METHODS: Treatment response in the 12-week phase III TELESTAR trial (NCT01677910) informed telotristat ethyl efficacy; subsequently, health states were captured by a Markov model using 4-week cycles. TELESTAR open-label extension data informed telotristat ethyl discontinuation. The number of treatment-eligible patients was estimated from literature reviews reporting the prevalence, incidence and mortality of carcinoid syndrome. A Swedish database study informed real-world costs related to carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease costs. Telotristat ethyl market share was assumed to increase annually from 24% (year 1) to 70% (year 5). RESULTS: Over the 5-year model horizon, 44 patients were expected to initiate telotristat ethyl treatment. The cumulative net budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to current standard of care was €172,346; per-year costs decreased from €66,495 (year 1) to €29,818 (year 5). Increased drug costs from adding telotristat ethyl were offset by reduced costs elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: The expected budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to the standard of care in Sweden was relatively low, largely because of the rarity of carcinoid syndrome.

Cost-Neutral Optimization of Pazopanib Exposure by Splitting Intake Moments: A Prospective Pharmacokinetic Study in Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pazopanib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor used in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma and soft-tissue sarcoma. At the approved dose of 800 mg once daily (QD), 16-20% of patients are being underdosed and at risk of decreased efficacy. This study aimed to show whether splitting intake moments, as a cost-neutral alternative to a dose increase, leads to an increased exposure. METHODS: We performed a cross-over trial comparing the pharmacokinetics of pazopanib 800 mg QD with pazopanib 400 mg twice daily. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed at steady-state for both dosing schedules. RESULTS: Nine evaluable patients were included. At the 800 mg QD dosing schedule, median minimum plasma concentration (Cmin), area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24h), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were 23.2 mg/L (interquartile range 18.5-27.6), 773 mg h/L (557-1009), and 40.6 mg/L (36.4-56.4) compared with 41.6 mg/L (30.5-55.8, p = 0.004), 942 mg h/L (885-1419, p = 0.027), and 50.2 mg/L (46.8-72.5, p = 0.074) at 400 mg twice daily. One patient experienced a grade 3 event (i.e., diarrhea). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that splitting intake moments of pazopanib leads to a 79% increase in Cmin, with acceptable tolerability. Therefore, this new dosing schedule offers a cost-neutral opportunity to optimize treatment in patients with low exposure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL6137 ( http://www.trialregister.nl ).

Real-world healthcare resource utilization in patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: differences between patients treated with first-line ibrutinib or bendamustine + rituximab.

Objective: This study evaluated the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients diagnosed with an indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) and treated with either first-line ibrutinib monotherapy (IbM) therapy or bendamustine plus rituximab combination therapy (BR).Methods: Treatment-naïve iNHL patients in the IBM MarketScan Research Databases were identified based on the first prescription of either IbM or BR therapy between 02/01/2014 and 08/30/2017.Results: A greater proportion of IbM patients (n = 207) had at least one inpatient admission (IP) or emergency room visit (ER), both all-cause and iNHL-related, than BR (n = 1337) patients. In addition, the mean number of IP admissions and ER visits was significantly higher in the IbM cohort. No differences in total costs were found. Outpatients costs were higher in IbM patients and medical costs were higher in BR patients.Conclusions: These real-world findings highlight the importance of considering the healthcare resource utilization and the associated costs of iNHL patients which may be associated with their first-line therapy.

Patient Preferences for Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize patients' preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify English-language studies of adult patients with RA that measured patients' preferences for DMARD or health states and treatment outcomes relevant to DMARD decisions. Study quality was assessed using a published quality assessment tool. Data on the importance of treatment attributes and associations with patient characteristics were summarized across studies. RESULTS: From 7951 abstracts, we included 36 studies from a variety of countries. Most studies were in patients with established RA and were rated as medium- (n = 19) or high-quality (n = 12). The methods to elicit preferences varied, with the most common being discrete choice experiment (DCE; n = 13). Despite the heterogeneity of attributes in DCE studies, treatment benefits (disease improvement) were usually more important than both non-serious (6 of 8 studies) and serious adverse events (5 of 8), and route of administration (7 of 9). Among the non-DCE studies, some found that patients placed high importance on treatment benefits, while others (in patients with established RA) found that patients were quite risk averse. Subcutaneous therapy was often but not always preferred over intravenous therapy. Patient preferences were variable and commonly associated with the sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results showed that many patients place a high value on treatment benefits over other treatment attributes, including serious or minor side effects, cost, or route of administration. The variability in patient preferences highlights the need to individualize treatment choices in RA.