Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

Cost-effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service Perspective.

PURPOSE: A prior randomized controlled trial (COMPARZ [Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib]) found non-inferior progression-free survival for pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service perspective. METHODS: A partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was employed. The model time horizon was 5 years. For each treatment strategy, the model generated expected progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. Results were reported as incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact on results of methodological and parameter uncertainty. FINDINGS: In the base case, pazopanib was associated with higher QALYs and lower costs and dominated sunitinib. Using willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the net monetary benefits with pazopanib were €6508 and €7702 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 85% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 86% at a threshold of €30,000, and 81% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions. IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy.

Outcomes, utilization, and costs among thalassemia and sickle cell disease patients receiving deferoxamine therapy in the United States.

Deferoxamine mesylate (DFO) reduces morbidity and mortality associated with transfusional iron overload. Data on the utilization and costs of care among U.S. patients receiving DFO in typical clinical practice are limited however. This was a retrospective study using a large U.S. health insurance claims database spanning 1/97-12/04 and representing 40 million members in >70 health plans. Study subjects (n = 145 total, 106 sickle cell disease [SCD], 39 thalassemia) included members with a diagnosis of thalassemia or SCD, one or more transfusions (whole blood or red blood cells), and one or more claims for DFO. Mean transfusion episodes were 12 per year. Estimated mean DFO use was 307 g/year. Central venous access devices were required by 20% of patients. Cardiac disease was observed in 16% of patients. Mean total medical costs were $59,233 per year including $10,899 for DFO and $8,722 for administration of chelation therapy. In multivariate analyses, potential complications of iron overload were associated with significantly higher medical care costs. In typical clinical practice, use of DFO in patients with thalassemia and SCD receiving transfusions is low. Administration costs represent a large proportion of the cost of chelation therapy. Potential complications of iron overload are associated with increased costs.

Consequences and costs of noncompliance with iron chelation therapy in patients with transfusion-dependent thalassemia: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with thalassemia major require iron chelation therapy (ICT) to prevent complications from transfusional iron overload. Deferoxamine is effective, but requires administration as a slow continuous subcutaneous or intravenous infusion five to seven times per week. Deferiprone is a three-times-daily oral iron chelator, but has limited availability in the United States. Deferasirox is a once-daily oral iron chelator that was approved in the United States in 2005 for patients older than 2 years of age with transfusional iron overload. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Published evidence on rates of compliance with ICT and the association between compliance, and the incidence and costs of complications of iron overload, in patients with thalassemia major was reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were identified reporting data on compliance with ICT, including 7 that examined deferoxamine only, 6 that examined deferiprone only, and 5 that compared deferoxamine and deferiprone; no studies reporting compliance with deferasirox were identified. In studies of deferoxamine only, estimated mean compliance ranged from 59 to 78 percent. Studies of deferiprone generally reported better compliance, ranging from 79 to 98 percent. Results of comparative studies of deferoxamine and deferiprone suggest that compliance may be better with oral therapy. Numerous studies demonstrate that that poor compliance with ICT results in increased risk of cardiac disease and endocrinopathies, as well as lower survival. Although data on the costs of noncompliance are limited, a recent model-based study estimated the lifetime costs of inadequate compliance with deferoxamine to be $33,142. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate compliance with ICT in thalassemia major is common and results in substantial morbidity and mortality, as well as increased costs.

Cost effectiveness of once-daily oral chelation therapy with deferasirox versus infusional deferoxamine in transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients: US healthcare system perspective.

BACKGROUND: Deferasirox is a recently approved once-daily oral iron chelator that has been shown to reduce liver iron concentrations and serum ferritin levels to a similar extent as infusional deferoxamine. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of deferasirox versus deferoxamine in patients with beta-thalassaemia major from a US healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the total additional lifetime costs and QALYs gained with deferasirox versus deferoxamine in patients with beta-thalassaemia major and chronic iron overload from blood transfusions. Patients were assumed to be 3 years of age at initiation of chelation therapy and to receive prescribed dosages of deferasirox and deferoxamine that have been shown to be similarly effective in such patients. Compliance with chelation therapy and probabilities of iron overload-related cardiac disease and death by degree of compliance were estimated using data from published studies. Costs ($US, year 2006 values) of deferoxamine administration and iron overload-related cardiac disease were based on analyses of health insurance claims of transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients. Utilities were based on a study of patient preferences for oral versus infusional chelation therapy, as well as published literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were employed to examine the robustness of the results to key assumptions. RESULTS: Deferasirox resulted in a gain of 4.5 QALYs per patient at an additional expected lifetime cost of $US126,018 per patient; the cost per QALY gained was $US28,255. The cost effectiveness of deferasirox versus deferoxamine was sensitive to the estimated costs of deferoxamine administration and the quality-of-life benefit associated with oral versus infusional therapy. Cost effectiveness was also relatively sensitive to the equivalent daily dose of deferasirox, and the unit costs of deferasirox and deferoxamine, and was more favourable in younger patients. CONCLUSION: Results of this analysis of the cost effectiveness of oral deferasirox versus infusional deferoxamine suggest that deferasirox is a cost effective iron chelator from a US healthcare perspective.