Clinical and economic analysis of patients with acute myeloid leukemia by FLT3 status and midostaurin use at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: Identification of cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities has become vital for the appropriate treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). One of the most common molecular alterations in AML is the constitutive activation by internal tandem duplication of FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3). METHODS: This observational, retrospective, cohort study at the Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) had two time periods: 1) a historical pre-midostaurin time period which consisted of the FLT3 mutated (FLT3m) and FLT3 wild type (FLT3wt) cohorts from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016, and 2) a post-midostaurin cohort which consisted of the FLT3 mutated midostaurin-user cohort (early mido) from May 01, 2017 to December 31, 2018. RESULTS: In total, 39 patients were included in the FLT3m cohort, 61 in the FLT3wt cohort, and seven in the early mido cohort. FLT3m patients spent fewer days in the hospital during the first consolidation regimen and received fewer consolidation cycles compared to FLT3wt patients. Overall survival (OS) was similar between FLT3m and FLT3wt patients. For patients without hematopoietic stem cell transplant, OS was significantly shorter for FLT3m patients compared to FLT3wt patients. Mean AML related inpatient charges and physician charges for FLT3m patients were significantly higher than FLT3wt patients. CONCLUSION: The FLT3 mutation is historically associated with a shorter time to transplant and increased total health care charges. More information is needed to evaluate the real-world treatment strategies for FLT3-mutated patients in the presence of FLT3 inhibitors and the impact of these treatment strategies on clinical and economic outcomes.

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.