"Having cancer is very expensive": A qualitative study of patients with ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patient barriers and facilitators to PARP inhibitor (PARP-I) maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. PARP-I improves survival in ovarian cancer, but these multi-year therapies cost around $100,000 annually and are under-prescribed. METHODS: We recruited patients with ovarian cancer treated with PARP-I maintenance therapy at an academic health system for a semi-structured interview. Patient demographics, including genetics and PARP-I cost, were self-reported. We assessed patient experiences with barriers and facilitators of PARP-I usage. Two team members used a thematic approach to analyze and identify key themes. RESULTS: In May 2022, we interviewed 10 patients (mean age = 65 years; 80% White; 60% with a germline genetic mutation). Patients paid on average $227.50 monthly for PARP-I, straining resources for some participants. While sampled patients were insured, all patients identified having no or inadequate insurance as a major barrier to PARP-I. At the same time, all participants prioritized clinical effectiveness over costs of care. Patients identified PARP-I delivery from specialty pharmacies, separate and different from other medications, as a potential barrier, but each had been able to navigate delivery. Patients expressed significant initial side effects of PARP-I as a potential barrier yet reported clinician communication and prompt dose reduction as facilitating continuation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified cost, restrictive pharmacy benefits, and initial side effects as barriers to PARP-I usage. Having insurance and a supportive care team were identified as facilitators. Enhancing communication about PARP-I cost and side effects could improve patient experience and receipt of evidence-based maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in France.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biomarker Testing to Guide First-Line PARP Inhibitor Maintenance for Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Response to First-Line Platinum Chemotherapy in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance treatments are available for platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer. Olaparib (O) is available for BRCA mutation patients or in combination with bevacizumab (O+B) for patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD+); niraparib (N) is available for all patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of biomarker testing and maintenance treatments (mTx) with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer in the USA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten strategies were evaluated (S1-S10), representing biomarker testing (none, BRCA or HRD), and mTx (O, O+B, N or B). PAOLA-1 data were used to build a model estimating progression-free survival (PFS), second PFS (PFS2) and overall survival for O+B. PFS was modelled through mixture cure models; PFS2 and overall survival were modelled by standard parametric models. Hazard ratios of PFS for O+B versus B, N and O were obtained from the literature to estimate PFS for B, N and O. PFS2 and OS for B, N and O were informed by PFS benefits. RESULTS: S2 (no testing, B) had the lowest cost while S10 (HRD testing, O+B for HRD+ and B for HRD-) had the highest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). All niraparib strategies were dominated. S2, S4 (BRCA testing, O for BRCA+ and B for BRCA-), S6 (BRCA testing, olaparib plus bevacizumab for BRCA+ and bevacizumab for BRCA-) and S10 were the non-dominated strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,095/QALY, $33,786/QALY and $52,948/QALY for S4 versus S2, S6 versus S4 and S10 versus S6, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Homologous recombination deficiency testing followed by O+B for HRD+ and B for HRD- is a highly cost-effective strategy for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer. A HRD biomarker-guided approach provides most QALYs with good economic value.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of niraparib maintenance therapy in Chinese patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib versus routine surveillance as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer in China. METHOD: A three-state partitioned survival model that adopted a lifetime horizon with a 4-week cycle length was developed. Efficacy data were derived from the NORA study. Cost and utility data were obtained from published studies and online databases. The cost and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. In this analysis, the primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were set at 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product per capita of China in 2022 ($12,741 to $38,233/QALY). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, niraparib was not found to be cost-effective, with an ICER of $42,888/QALY compared with routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the ICER value was most sensitive to the cost of subsequent treatment in placebo group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that at the WTP thresholds, the probability of niraparib being cost-effective was 2.9% to 50.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib improves the survival benefit of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients. However, it seems to be less cost-effective, as it has higher costs than routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. Reasonable dose reduction according to the patient's actual situation or lowering the price of niraparib can improve its cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors for the maintenance treatment after responding to first- and second-line chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer.

The introduction of inhibitors of poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) for the treatment of women with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC) has radically changed the treatment in maintenance setting after responding to first- and second-line chemotherapy. The aim of this paper was to assess the pharmacological costs of PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib and veliparib) in maintenance treatment after responding to first-line chemotherapy in EOC. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the ratio between the difference of the costs in the intervention and in the control groups (pharmacy costs) and the difference between the effect in the intervention and in the control groups (progression-free survival (PFS)). We have considered the pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Three different populations were considered: the overall population, patients with germline BRCA mutation (gBRCA) and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) patients non-gBRCA mutation. Three thousand four hundred and twenty patients and 1209 patients were considered in maintenance treatment after responding to first- and second-line chemotherapy in EOC, respectively. At the actual price, the treatment with PARP inhibitors is not cost-effective in maintenance treatment after responding to first-line and second-line chemotherapy in EOC. A reduction in pharmacological costs is mandatory.

Olaparib as first line in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian carcinoma: Is it cost-effective in Spain?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib after being funded by the Spanish National Health Service (SNHS) as first-line monotherapy maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) and BRCA mutations in Spain. METHODS: A semi-Markov model with one-month cycles was adapted to the Spanish healthcare setting, using the perspective of the SNHS, and a time horizon of 50 years. Two scenarios were compared: receiving olaparib vs. no maintenance treatment. The model comprised four health states and included the clinical results of the SOLO1 study, along with the direct healthcare costs associated with the use of first-line and subsequent treatment resources (2020 €). A discount rate of 3% was applied for future cost and quality-of-life outcomes. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was also carried out and a cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was considered. RESULTS: The introduction of olaparib as a first-line maintenance treatment for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations implied a cost of €131,614.98 compared to €102,369.54 without olaparib (difference: €29,245.44), with an improvement of 2.00 QALYs (5.56 and 3.57, respectively). Therefore, olaparib is cost-effective for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €14,653.2/QALY. The results from the PSA showed that 92.1% of the simulations fell below the €25,000/QALY threshold. The model showed that olaparib could improve the overall survival by 2 years, vs. no maintenance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib as first-line maintenance treatment is cost-effective in advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations in Spain.

Patients' and oncologists' preferences for second-line maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Aim: To understand the preferences of US patients and oncologists for PARP inhibitors as second-line maintenance (2LM) for epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted to assess the preferences of treatment attributes. Results: The most valued attributes were risk of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; patients, n = 204) and progression-free survival (PFS; oncologists, n = 151). To accept a 37% increased risk of grade 3/4 AEs, PFS would need to increase by 27.9 months (patients) and 6.3 months (oncologists). The least valued attributes were dosing form/frequency (patients) and grade 3/4 anemia risk (oncologists). Conclusion: Patients' and oncologists' willingness to make benefit-risk trade-offs in the 2LM setting suggests that the PFS gains observed in selected studies of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in BRCA-mutated disease are worth the toxicity risk.

Plain language summary Maintenance therapy is a treatment option intended to keep ovarian cancer from coming back or getting worse for as long as possible after responding to chemotherapy. PARP inhibitors are a new type of maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. This study aimed to understand the patients' and physicians' preferences for the benefits and risks associated with different PARP inhibitors used as maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. Participants were asked to compare various treatment options based on their different safety profiles, effectiveness and form of medication (e.g., three capsules by mouth once a day versus two tablets by mouth twice a day), and then choose the treatment they most preferred. Through this exercise, the treatment features that mattered most to patients and physicians were identified. The most important treatment feature for patients was decreasing the chance of experiencing a serious side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization. In contrast, physicians valued lengthening the time that a cancer remains stable and does not worsen. To accept a 37% higher chance of experiencing a side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization, patients expect their cancer to remain stable and not worsen for an additional 28 months. This was a large difference from the 6 months that the physicians would consider as acceptable. The least important treatment features for patients are the amount of pills required per dose, the form of the given medication (e.g., tablet vs capsule) and the schedule of taking the treatment. On the other hand, physicians were least concerned about lowering the risk of experiencing low blood counts that, requiring medical intervention.

Asthma patients' and physicians' perspectives on the burden and management of asthma.

BACKGROUND: The 2021 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) report recommends as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol irrespective of severity, and maintenance and reliever treatment (MART) from GINA Step 3 as part of Treatment Track 1, partly based on the SYGMA studies. We investigated how current clinical practice in Australia, Canada, China and the Philippines relates to latest GINA recommendations. METHODS: Patients and physicians were recruited from online panels between July and August 2020 and invited to complete an online survey. INCLUSION CRITERIA: age ≥18 years, current/past physician diagnosis of asthma (patients); primary care (Canada also included respirologists/respiratory therapists), treating ≥4 patients with asthma per month, ≥3 years in clinical practice (physicians). RESULTS: Overall, 1216/70,183 patients and 803/8376 physicians replied and were eligible for inclusion. Only 8-15% of patients were using MART; 66-81% used regular maintenance therapy with/without an as-needed reliever. Across the four countries, physicians classified 48-63% of their patients as mild (GINA Steps 1-2) and 28-36% as moderate (GINA Steps 3-4). Generally, physicians rated symptom control over exacerbation reduction as their main treatment goal; patients also ranked symptom relief as very important. Approximately 9-29% of patients and 24-45% of physicians were unaware of MART, and among those who prescribed MART, 80-95% prescribed an additional (non-ICS) as-needed reliever. INTERPRETATION: Most physicians prioritized managing asthma symptoms over exacerbations. A lack of awareness and understanding of MART dosing exists among physicians. Practical strategies are required to implement GINA recommendations effectively in real-world clinical practice and to identify appropriate patients for MART.

Dual-combination maintenance inhaler preferences in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A patient-centered benefit-risk assessment.

BACKGROUND: A variety of dual-combination maintenance inhalers are used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Understanding patient preferences for treatment attributes may help select an optimal treatment from the patient perspective. METHODS: Patient preferences for maintenance inhaler device and medication attributes were elicited through a discrete choice experiment and used in benefit-risk assessments to calculate predicted choice probabilities (PrCPs) for 14 dual-combination maintenance inhalers in four treatment classes: lower- and higher-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) inhalers for asthma, and ICS/LABA and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA inhalers for COPD. RESULTS: For all treatment classes, reduced exacerbations and faster onset of action were the most important attributes. For all classes, patients were willing to tolerate an extra yearly exacerbation to decrease the medication's onset of action from 30 to 5 min. For patients with asthma using lower-dose ICS/LABA (n = 497), budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (80 µg/4.5 µg) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) had the highest PrCP (28.4%), and for those using a higher-dose ICS/LABA (n = 285), PrCPs were highest for mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (200 µg/5 µg) pMDI (27.0%) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (160 µg/4.5 µg) pMDI (26.9%). For patients with COPD using an ICS/LABA (n = 574), budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (160 µg/4.5 µg) pMDI had the highest PrCP (56.6%), and for those using a LAMA/LABA inhaler (n = 217), tiotropium/olodaterol (2.5 µg/2.5 µg) soft mist inhaler had the highest PrCP (42.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Patient preference data for maintenance inhaler attributes can be used to identify a preference order of inhalers in different treatment classes.

Cost-effectiveness of maintenance hormonal therapy in patients with advanced low grade serous ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of using maintenance hormonal therapy in patients with low grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSC). METHODS: A simulated decision analysis with a Markov decision model over a lifetime horizon was performed using the base case of a 47-year old patient with stage IIIC, LGSC following first-line treatment with primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Two treatment strategies were analyzed - maintenance daily letrozole until disease progression and routine observation. The analysis was from the perspective of the healthcare payer. Direct medical costs were estimated using public data sources and previous literature and were reported in adjusted 2018 Canadian dollars. The model estimated lifetime cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), life years (LY), median overall survival (OS), and number of recurrences with each strategy. Cost-effectiveness was compared using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A strategy was considered cost-effective when the ICER was less than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 CAD per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of changing key clinical and cost variables. RESULTS: Maintenance letrozole was the preferred strategy with an associated lifetime cost of $69,985 CAD ($52,620 USD) and an observed improvement of 0.91 QALYs and 1.55 LYs. The ICER for letrozole maintenance therapy was an additional $11,037 CAD ($8298 USD) per QALY. The modeled median OS was 150 months with maintenance letrozole and 126 months in the observation strategy. The maintenance letrozole strategy resulted in 34% and 17% fewer first recurrences at 5-year and 10-year follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSION: Maintenance letrozole is a cost-effective treatment strategy in patients with advanced LGSC resulting in clinically-relevant improvement in QALYs, LYs, and fewer disease recurrences.

Variation in immunosuppression practices among pediatric liver transplant centers-Society of Pediatric Liver Transplantation survey results.

BACKGROUND: Variation in IS exists among pediatric liver transplant centers. While individual centers may publish their practice paradigms, current data on practices as a whole are lacking. This study sought to ascertain the IS protocols of pediatric liver transplant centers within the SPLIT to better understand variability and similarities among peer institutions. METHODS: A 27-item questionnaire was developed within the SPLIT Quality Improvement and Clinical Care Committee. The survey collected data regarding center demographics, IS practices, and treatment of acute cellular rejection. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (64%) SPLIT centers responded with 22 (79%) centers performing more than 10 transplants per year and 17 (61%) following more than 100 post-transplant recipients. All centers use a written protocol, and 25 (89%) have a dedicated transplant pharmacist/PharmD. Twenty-five (89%) centers use steroids for induction alone or in combination with thymoglobulin/interleukin-2 antibodies. All centers use tacrolimus for initial maintenance therapy. Most centers have specialized protocols for ABO-incompatible transplants, recipients with renal dysfunction, autoimmune liver diseases, and liver tumors. Treatment of rejection varied but was associated with escalation in IS. CONCLUSION: IS practices among pediatric liver transplant centers are similar including the use of written protocols, pharmacy involvement, steroids for induction, tacrolimus as initial IS, tacrolimus reduction/delay for renal dysfunction, and escalation of IS with rejection severity. However, other IS practices show wide variability including treatment for ABO-incompatible grafts and presumed rejection. This study serves as a foundation to guide prospective research linking IS practice to outcomes to determine best practice.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Importance: There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS). Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186 777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17 000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629 347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557 865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.

Hydroxychloroquine and maintenance immunosuppression use in kidney transplant recipients: Analysis of linked US registry and claims data.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug with immunomodulatory effects used to treat systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and scleroderma. The antiviral effects of HCQ have raised attention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, although safety is controversial. We examined linkages of national transplant registry data with pharmaceutical claims and Medicare billing claims to study HCQ use among Medicare-insured kidney transplant recipients with SLE or scleroderma (2008-2017; N = 1820). We compared three groups based on immunosuppression regimen 7 months-to-1 year post transplant: (a) tacrolimus (Tac) + mycophenolic acid (MPA) + prednisone (Pred) (referent group, 77.7%); (b) Tac + MPA + Pred + HCQ (16.5%); or (c) other immunosuppression + HCQ (5.7%). Compared to the referent group, recipients treated with other immunosuppression + HCQ had a 2-fold increased risk of abnormal ECG or QT prolongation (18.9% vs. 10.7%; aHR,1.12 1.963.42 , p = .02) and ventricular arrhythmias (15.2% vs. 11.4%; aHR,1.00 1.813.29 , p = .05) in the >1-to-3 years post-transplant. Tac + MPA + Pred + HCQ was associated with increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias (13.5% vs. 11.4%; aHR,1.02 1.542.31 , p = .04) and pancytopenia (35.9% vs. 31.4%; aHR,1.03 1.311.68 , p = .03) compared to triple immunosuppression without HCQ. However, HCQ-containing regimens were not associated with an increased risk of death or graft failure. HCQ may be used safely in selected kidney transplant recipients in addition to their maintenance immunosuppression, although attention to arrhythmias is warranted.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing "PARP inhibitors-for-all" to the biomarker-directed use of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating universal PARP inhibitor (PARPi) frontline maintenance therapy for advanced stage ovarian cancer have reported progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. It is unclear whether PARPi maintenance therapy will universally enhance value (clinical benefits relative to cost of delivery). We compared a "PARPi-for-all" to a biomarker-directed frontline maintenance therapy approach as a value-based care strategy. METHODS: The cost of two frontline PARPi maintenance strategies, PARPi-for-all and biomarker-directed maintenance, was compared using modified Markov decision models simulating the study designs of the PRIMA, VELIA, and, PAOLA-1 trials. Outcomes of interest included overall costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported in US dollars per quality adjusted progression-free life-year (QA-PFY) gained. RESULTS: PARPi-for-all was more costly and provided greater PFS benefit than a biomarker-directed strategy for each trial. The mean cost per patient for the PARPi-for-all strategy was $166,269, $286,715, and $366,506 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models, respectively. For the biomarker-directed strategy, the mean cost per patient was $98,188, $167,334, and $260,671 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models. ICERs of PARPi-for-all compared to biomarker-directed maintenance were: $593,250/QA-PFY (PRIMA), $1,512,495/QA-PFY (VELIA), and $3,347,915/QA-PFY (PAOLA-1). At current drug pricing, there is no PFS improvement in a biomarker negative cohort that would make PARPi-for-all cost-effective compared to biomarker-directed maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the high costs of universal PARPi maintenance treatment, compared with a biomarker-directed PARPi strategy. Maintenance therapy in the front-line setting should be reserved for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations until the cost of therapy is significantly reduced.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in the UK.

BACKGROUND: As-needed budesonide/formoterol is effective in patients with mild asthma for whom low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy is appropriate. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this regimen versus maintenance low-dose ICS plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA). METHODS: A probabilistic Markov cohort model was developed that simulated time within/outside severe asthma exacerbations, conducted from a UK NHS perspective with a 70-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from the SYGMA 2 trial. Patients with mild asthma eligible for low-dose maintenance ICS therapy received as-needed budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg or twice-daily budesonide 200 µg maintenance therapy plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg. A severe exacerbation was defined as worsening asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid use alone/in combination with an emergency department visit, or hospitalisation for acute asthma. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 EQ-5D-5L data, and all-cause- and asthma-related mortality, reduction in utility of an exacerbation, and costs were based on published data. The base-case analysis discount rate was 3.5%. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and two scenario analyses. RESULTS: On average, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was associated with a £292.99 cost saving and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.001 versus ICS + SABA. At a willingness-to-pay of £20,000/QALY, as-needed budesonide/formoterol had >85% probability of being cost-effective versus ICS + SABA. Key drivers were budesonide/formoterol and budesonide maintenance annual exacerbation rates, mean daily budesonide/formoterol inhalations, and costs and outcomes discount rates. CONCLUSIONS: From a UK healthcare payer perspective, as-needed budesonide/formoterol is a cost-effective option for the treatment of mild asthma versus regular ICS.

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.

Lenalidomide as maintenance treatment for patients with multiple myeloma after autologous stem cell transplantation: A pharmaco-economic assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM); however, relapse occurs. Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide (Len-Mt) extends survival and delays relapse and the subsequent initiation of costly second-line regimens. Here, we report the cost-effectiveness of Len-Mt following ASCT from a Dutch healthcare service perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and benefits for patients with NDMM. Efficacy was taken from a pooled meta-analysis of clinical trial data. Costs and subsequent therapy data were taken from sources appropriate for the Dutch market. RESULTS: Lenalidomide produced a quality-adjusted life year gain of 2.46 and a life year gain of 2.79 vs no maintenance treatment. The cost of lenalidomide was partially offset by savings of EUR 77 462 in subsequent treatment costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Len-Mt vs no maintenance treatment was EUR 30 143. Key model drivers included subsequent therapies, dosing schedule, and time horizon. CONCLUSION: Lenalidomide is cost-effective after ASCT vs no maintenance therapy in the Netherlands. By extending PFS, lenalidomide delays the cost burdens associated with relapse and subsequent treatment lines.

Cost-Effectiveness of Rifaximin Treatment in Patients with Hepatic Encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a complication of cirrhosis of the liver causing neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Clinical manifestations of overt HE result in increased health care resource utilization and effects on patient quality of life. While lactulose has historically been the mainstay of treatment for acute HE and maintenance of remission, there is an unmet need for additional therapeutic options with a favorable adverse event profile. Compared with lactulose alone, rifaximin has demonstrated proven efficacy in complete reversal of HE and reduction in the incidence of HE recurrence, mortality, and hospitalizations. Evidence suggests the benefit of long-term prophylactic therapy with rifaximin; however, there is a need to assess the economic impact of rifaximin treatment in patients with HE. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy in patients with overt HE. METHODS: A Markov model was developed in Excel with 4 health states (remission, overt HE, liver transplantation, and death) to predict costs and outcomes of patients with HE after initiation of maintenance therapy with rifaximin ± lactulose to avoid recurrent HE episodes. Cost-effectiveness of rifaximin was evaluated through estimation of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or life-year (LY) gained. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in results. RESULTS: The rifaximin ± lactulose regimen provided added health benefits despite an additional cost versus lactulose monotherapy. Model results showed an incremental benefit of $29,161 per QALY gained and $27,762 per LY gained with rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the rifaximin ± lactulose regimen was cost-effective ~99% of the time at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY/LY gained, which falls within the commonly accepted threshold for incremental cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefit of rifaximin, combined with an acceptable economic profile, demonstrates the advantages of rifaximin maintenance therapy as an important option to consider for patients at risk of recurrent HE. DISCLOSURES: This analysis was funded by Salix Pharmaceuticals, a division of Bausch Health US. Salix and Xcenda collaborated on the methods, and Salix, Xcenda, Jesudian, and Ahmad collaborated on the writing of the manuscript and interpretation of results. Bozkaya and Migliaccio-Walle are employees of Xcenda. Ahmad reports speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. Jesudian reports consulting and speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. The results from this model were presented at AASLD: The Liver Meeting 2014; November 7-11; Boston, MA.

A study of capecitabine metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to conventional chemotherapy as maintenance strategy in responders after induction therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to demonstrate that capecitabine metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to capecitabine conventional chemotherapy as maintenance treatment, in patients who have responded to 16-18 weeks first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: The study design is a prospective, randomized, open label, phase II clinical trial. Those patients with mCRC who respond well after 16-18 weeks of standard doublet chemotherapy as induction may be enrolled into this study, and randomly assigned to the capecitabine metronomic group or standard dosage group. The duration of disease control after randomization and progression-free survival after enrollment are the primary endpoints. Overall survival, safety, and quality of life are the secondary endpoints. The sample size required to achieve the research objectives of this project is 79 patients in each group. The study recently started on 1 January 2018, and will last for 36 months. DISCUSSION: This project is intended to study the efficacy and safety of capecitabine metronomic chemotherapy in the maintenance treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, and to explore the strategy of "low toxicity, high efficiency, economy, and individualization", which is suitable for China's national conditions and pharmacoeconomics. It has great prospects for clinical application and a clear socioeconomic value. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03158610. Registered on 15 May 2017.