Treatment Outcomes with Standard of Care in Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Real-World Data Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite new therapies for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), treatments with chemotherapy, single-agent rituximab/obinutuzumab, single-agent lenalidomide, or combinations of these agents continue to be commonly used. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized longitudinal data from 4226 real-world electronic health records to characterize outcomes in patients with R/R DLBCL. Eligible patients were diagnosed with DLBCL between January 2010 and March 2022 and had R/R disease treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic line of therapy (LOT), including ≥ 1 anti-CD20-containing regimen. RESULTS: A total of 573 patients treated with ≥ 1 prior LOT were included (31.2% and 13.4% with ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 prior LOTs, respectively). Median duration of follow-up was 7.7 months. Most patients (57.1%) were male; mean standard deviation (SD) age was 63 (14.7) years. Overall and complete response rates (95% confidence interval (CI) were 52% (48-56) and 23% (19-27). Median duration of response and duration of complete response were 3.5 and 18.4 months. Median progression-free and overall survival (95% CI) was 3.0 (2.8-3.3) and 12.9 (10.1-16.9) months, respectively. Patients with a higher number of prior LOTs, primary refractoriness, refractoriness to last LOT, refractoriness to last anti-CD20-containing regimen, and prior CAR T exposure had worse outcomes (i.e., challenging-to-treat R/R DLBCL) compared with those without these characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes in patients with R/R DLBCL treated with chemotherapy, single-agent rituximab/obinutuzumab, single-agent lenalidomide, or combinations of these agents remain poor, especially for those with challenging-to-treat R/R DLBCL. These findings underscore the unmet need for new, safe, and effective therapies, especially for challenging-to-treat R/R DLBCL populations.

Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes in Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients Treated With Epcoritamab.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated in EPCORE NHL-1 in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) treated with epcoritamab monotherapy (NCT03625037). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with R/R CD20+ LBCL and ≥2 prior systemic antilymphoma therapies, including anti-CD20, completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) and EQ-5D-3L. A subgroup of patients provided additional feedback in one-on-one qualitative interviews. FACT-Lym and EQ-5D-3L score changes from baseline (CFB) to cycle 9 or end of treatment were interpreted using published minimally important differences (MID). RESULTS: In total, 157 patients (88.5% with diffuse LBCL) were treated (median age, 64 years). In total, 70.7% had ≥3 prior treatments, 61.1% had primary refractory disease, and 82.8% were refractory to last systemic therapy. FACT-Lym scores exceeded MID thresholds: mean (SD) CFB were 4.4 (15.2), MID 3.0 to 7.0 (FACT-General); 5.9 (7.6), MID 2.9 to 5.4 (FACT-Lymphoma subscale); 8.4 (15.2), MID 5.5 to 11.0 (FACT-Trial Outcome Index); 10.3 (20.2), MID 6.5 to 11.2 (FACT-Lym total score). EQ-5D-3L index scores, 0.09 (0.20), MID 0.08, and EQ-VAS scores, 16.6 (22.8), MID 7.0, improved. In 20 qualitative interviews, 88.2% reported symptom improvements; 80.0% were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with epcoritamab. CONCLUSIONS: R/R LBCL patients reported consistent, clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms and HRQoL and satisfaction with epcoritamab.

Systematic review of outcomes and patient heterogeneity in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Aim: To evaluate trials of systemic therapies in transplant-ineligible or -experienced, relapsed/refractory diffuse large-B cell lymphoma and the impact of patient characteristics on overall response rate (ORR). Patients & methods: Systematically reviewed multiple databases through 22 July 2021. Analyzed variations in patient characteristics and their relationship with ORR across trials. Results: Among 17 included trials, key patient characteristics varied substantially: primary refractory (0-69%), refractory to last line of therapy (LOT) (12-100%), ≥2 prior LOTs (14-100%), ≥3 prior LOTs (0-64%), IPI ≥3 (23-73%), tumor stage III/IV (50-90%) and median age (56-74 years). ORRs varied substantially (25-83%), correlating with these characteristics. Conclusion: Differences in patient characteristics significantly contribute to the variability in ORR across these trials and should be considered when contextualizing efficacy data.

An Epidemiological Model to Estimate the Prevalence of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence is reflective of disease incidence and survival, and defined as the number of patients living with active disease. In diseases such as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with treatments with curative potential, a proportion of patients are cured, leading to a need for accurate, contemporary estimates of DLBCL prevalence to gauge the impact of the rapidly emerging treatment landscape. METHODS: Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) from 2000-2018 were utilized to develop an epidemiological model of incidence, survival, and cure, to estimate the current prevalent DLBCL population requiring active management in the United States (US). A variety of estimates were explored regarding cure rate and timing, based on a companion analysis of MarketScan data for treatment patterns and survival in incident DLBCL patients, and conditional survival analysis of SEER data. RESULTS: Across scenarios, with estimated cure ranging from 52.8% and 68.9%, and timing of cure ranging from 1 and 20 years post diagnosis, the estimated prevalence ranged from 63,883 to 142,889. With an assumption of no cure, estimated prevalence was 179,475. DISCUSSION: Prevalence estimates of DLBCL varied almost 3-fold, depending on specific cure adjustments made. Further understanding of DLBCL prevalence, for newly diagnosed and relapsed and/or refractory disease, is important to characterize the impact of emerging treatment options and related health care burden.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir + sofosbuvir versus sofosbuvir + ribavirin for patients with genotype 3 hepatitis C virus.

BACKGROUND: As treatments for chronic hepatitis C are moving away from interferon-containing regimens, the most appropriate allocation of resources to higher cost, interferon-free, direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens needs to be assessed. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 is associated with faster disease progression and has fewer treatment options, historically, than other HCV genotypes. This analysis aims to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness of two recently licenced interferon-free regimens for the treatment of HCV genotype 3. METHODS: Utilising a published Markov model and results of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of recently published clinical trial data (ALLY-3 and VALENCE, respectively), 12 weeks of treatment with daclatasvir + sofosbuvir (DCV + SOF) was compared to 24 weeks of treatment with sofosbuvir + ribavirin (SOF + RBV). UK-specific model inputs were used to inform a cost-utility analysis of these regimens. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, DCV + SOF was found to be dominant over SOF + RBV in treatment-naïve patients, patients that had previously been treated, and patients that are intolerant to, or ineligible for, interferon-containing regimens. Given the low rates of treatment currently observed in the UK, DCV + SOF was also compared to no treatment in the interferon-ineligible/intolerant patients, and may be considered cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8817. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to 24 weeks of SOF + RBV, 12 weeks of treatment with DCV + SOF results in improved quality of life and reduced total costs, and therefore is likely to represent significant clinical and economic value as a treatment option for genotype 3 HCV infection.

Value of Sustained Virologic Response in Patients with Hepatitis C as a Function of Time to Progression of End-Stage Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND: Targeted intervention in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) closest to end-stage liver disease (ESLD) progression may offer an approach to treatment prioritisation whilst delivering benefits for patients and the healthcare system. In contrast to previous HCV economic analyses, this study aimed to estimate the health economic value of sustained virologic response (SVR) stratified by the patient's propensity to progress to ESLD. METHODS: An HCV natural history model was adapted to estimate the value of avoiding ESLD complications following SVR, assessed as cost offsets and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains, as a function of time to ESLD at treatment initiation. These outcomes were used to estimate the financial value of achieving SVR, defined as the maximum investment that could be allocated without exceeding a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. RESULTS: Regardless of time to ESLD onset, achieving SVR was beneficial, resulting in cost offsets and QALY gains, due to avoidance of ESLD complications. The value of achieving SVR was greatest in patients closest to ESLD onset, resulting in increased cost offsets and QALY gains (up to £50,901 and 9.56 QALYs). In patients closest to ESLD onset, the financial value of achieving SVR was £242,051, compared with £127,116 in patients furthest from onset. CONCLUSIONS: Standard cost-effectiveness evaluations may underestimate the value of treatment in HCV patients closest to ESLD development. Targeted intervention would promote efficient allocation of limited healthcare resources and reconcile concerns surrounding the affordability of new direct-acting antivirals, by minimising the number-needed-to-treat to maximise health benefit, whilst minimising healthcare expenditure.

Hepatitis C disease transmission and treatment uptake: impact on the cost-effectiveness of new direct-acting antiviral therapies.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment can reduce the incidence of future infections through removing opportunities for onward transmission. This benefit is not captured in conventional cost-effectiveness evaluations of treatment and is particularly relevant in patient groups with a high risk of transmission, such as those people who inject drugs (PWID), where the treatment rates have been historically low. This study aimed to quantify how reduced HCV transmission changes the cost-effectiveness of new direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens as a function of treatment uptake rates. METHODS: An established model of HCV disease transmission and progression was used to quantify the impact of treatment uptake (10-100%), within the PWID population, on the cost-effectiveness of a DAA regimen versus pre-DAA standard of care, conducted using daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir in the UK setting as an illustrative example. RESULTS: The consequences of reduced disease transmission due to treatment were associated with additional net monetary benefit of £24,304-£90,559 per patient treated at £20,000/QALY, when 10-100% of eligible patients receive treatment with 100% efficacy. Dependent on patient genotype, the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment using daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir improved by 36-79% versus conventional analysis, at 10-100% treatment uptake in the PWID population. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment was shown to improve as more patients are treated, suggesting that the value of DAA regimens to the NHS could be enhanced by improved treatment uptake rates among PWID. However, the challenge for the future will lie in achieving increased rates of treatment uptake, particularly in the PWID population.

A clinician's guide to the cost and health benefits of hepatitis C cure assessed from the individual patient perspective.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains a considerable public health challenge. Novel direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens offer high cure rates and the promise of reduced HCV incidence and prevalence following the up-scaling of treatment. This has focused attention towards affordability. This study aimed to estimate the economic value of cure to evaluate the treatment costs justifiable from the patient perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A published, validated HCV model was utilized to contrast clinical and cost outcomes for patients aged 30-70 years, stratified by METAVIR F0-F4, for (i) no treatment and (ii) successful treatment [i.e. sustained virologic response (SVR)] ignoring the cost of treatment. Regression equations were fitted and used to determine the financial expenditure justifiable to achieve a cost-neutral or a cost-effective [£20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] cure. Model inputs were derived from UK literature; costs and utilities were discounted at 3.5% over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: To achieve cost-neutrality, the maximum discounted expenditure justifiable for SVR was £3774-43 607 across ages and fibrosis stages. Spending between £19 745 (70 years, F0) and £188 420 (30 years, F4) on SVR is expected to be cost-effective at £20 000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSION: Heterogeneity across HCV patients is considerable, which can obscure the relevance of conventional cohort-based economic models evaluated at the mean, particularly when considering the value of treatment at the individual patient level. By quantifying the full exposition of HCV cost-savings and health benefits realizable following HCV cure, this study provides insight into the economic value of successful treatment from the patient perspective.

Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir Versus Sofosbuvir and Ribavirin in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Coinfected with HIV: A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir (DCV+SOF) versus SOF plus ribavirin (SOF+R) in patients coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV). METHODS: A systematic literature review of Phase III clinical trials identified 2 trials of SOF+R-PHOTON-1 (A Phase 3, Open-Label Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of GS-7977 Plus Ribavirin in Chronic Genotype 1, 2 and 3 Hepatitis C Virus [HCV] and Human Immunodeficiency Virus [HIV] Co-Infected Subjects) and PHOTON-2 (A Phase 3, Open-Label Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of Sofosbuvir Plus Ribavirin in Chronic Genotype 1, 2, 3 and 4 Hepatitis C Virus [HCV] and Human Immunodeficiency Virus [HIV] Co-Infected Subjects) suitable for comparison with the trial of DCV+SOF in patients coinfected with HIV and HCV-ALLY-2 (A Phase 3 Evaluation of Daclatasvir Plus Sofosbuvir in Treatment-naïve and Treatment-experienced Chronic Hepatitis C [Genotype 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6] Subjects Coinfected With Human Immunodeficiency Virus [HIV]). Individual patient data from ALLY-2 were available; published summary data were extracted and pooled for the PHOTON trials. To adjust for cross-trial differences, ALLY-2 patients were subject to the inclusion and exclusion criteria reported in the PHOTON trials and were weighted to match all available summary baseline characteristics reported in both PHOTON trials. Sustained virologic response at week 12 post-treatment (SVR12) discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and rates of AEs were compared. FINDINGS: The SVR12 rate was significantly higher among patients treated with DCV+SOF (n = 91) than among those treated with SOF+R (n = 455) both before (96.7% vs 84.6%; P = 0.002) and after (99.9% vs 84.6%; P < 0.001) adjusting for baseline characteristics. After adjustment, compared with patients treated with SOF+R, patients receiving DCV+SOF had a significantly lower rate of discontinuation due to AEs and significantly lower rates of the following specific AEs: cough, diarrhea, insomnia, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and hemoglobin <10 g/dL. IMPLICATIONS: After adjustment for cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics, DCV+SOF was associated with a significantly higher SVR12 rate and lower rate of discontinuation due to AEs than SOF+R in patients coinfected with HIV and HCV.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir in difficult to treat Japanese patients chronically infected with hepatitis C genotype 1b.

AIM: Standard of care for chronic hepatitis C in Japan is currently a pegylated interferon (IFN)-α + ribavirin (PR)-based regimen, notably associated with efficacy and tolerability issues. The advent of novel direct-acting antivirals (DAA) has provided more efficacious and better tolerated treatments. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of the daclatasvir + asunaprevir (DCV + ASV) DAA regimen in patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b who had previously not responded to or were ineligible for IFN-containing regimens. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis using an established Markov model compared DCV + ASV with simeprevir + PR (SMV + PR), telaprevir + PR (TVR + PR) and no treatment using Japanese-specific model inputs, with costs and utility values discounted at 2%. A cohort of patients was simulated until death and predicted quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs were estimated. A subgroup analysis of patients with no DCV resistance was conducted. RESULTS: In all scenarios, DCV + ASV was predicted to be dominant over the comparator; namely, DCV + ASV was associated with increased QALY gains and decreased cost. In patients treated during the chronic hepatitis C stage, cost reductions were ¥1 057 288-2 619 206, and in patients treated during the compensated cirrhosis (CC) stage, reductions were ¥1 032 224-2 531 930. QALY gains were 0.749-2.609 and 0.874-3.043, respectively. Results improved when considering the subgroup of patients without DCV resistance. CONCLUSION: Cost-effectiveness conclusions are similar for patients treated in the chronic hepatitis C and CC disease stages, with DCV + ASV expected to be cost-saving versus standard of care in Japan for patients with HCV genotype 1b patients who have failed prior therapy or are IFN-ineligible/intolerant.

Daclatasvir + sofosbuvir versus standard of care for hepatitis C genotype 3: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of daclatasvir and sofosbuvir (DCV + SOF) versus SOF and ribavirin (SOF + R) and versus peginterferon-alfa plus ribavirin (A/R) in patients infected with hepatitis C genotype 3. PATIENTS & METHODS: Clinical trials of SOF + R or A/R were identified in systematic literature reviews. The DCV+SOF population was adjusted via propensity score weighting to match average baseline characteristics to those reported for the comparator regimens. RESULTS: The SVR12 rate was similar between DCV + SOF and SOF + R, and significantly higher with DCV + SOF than A/R. Rates of discontinuation due to AEs were similar or significantly lower in patients treated with DCV + SOF than SOF + R or A/R. CONCLUSION: With its high efficacy and improved tolerability, DCV + SOF is an important treatment for hepatitis C genotype 3.

The cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir-based regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir in combination with other medicinal products for the treatment of patients with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 and advanced liver disease in the UK. METHODS: A published and validated Markov model designed to simulate the natural history of chronic hepatitis C was used to compare daclatasvir with relevant treatment options for patients with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 and a METAVIR score of F3-F4. Patients were defined according to their treatment status; that is, naive, experienced or interferon ineligible/intolerant. Data inputs for the analysis were derived from published sources, UK-specific where possible. A lifetime horizon was used, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Daclatasvir-based regimens are estimated to be cost-effective versus no treatment and established standard-of-care regimens, including telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon-α+ribavirin (PR), boceprevir in combination with PR and PR alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range: £3715-£15,408). The cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir-based regimens versus emerging regimens (sofosbuvir or simeprevir based) is less consistent, but was dominant or cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range: £1394-£28,393) in all except two scenarios. CONCLUSION: Daclatasvir-based regimens are expected to be highly cost-effective for the majority patients with advanced disease versus relevant comparator regimens, including newer direct-acting antiviral regimens.

Comparative efficacy and safety of daclatasvir/asunaprevir versus IFN-based regimens in genotype 1b hepatitis C virus infection.

AIM: Efficacy and safety comparison of daclatasvir/asunaprevir (DCV + ASV) versus peginterferon-α/ribavirin (A/R) alone or combined with telaprevir, boceprevir, simeprevir or sofosbuvir in chronic genotype 1b hepatitis C virus infection. METHODS: Network meta-analysis (NMA) and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). RESULTS: Among treatment-naive patients, DCV + ASV demonstrated higher sustained virologic response (SVR) rates than telaprevir + A/R, boceprevir + A/R and A/R in NMA and MAICs and simeprevir + A/R in NMA. DCV + ASV among treatment-experienced patients had higher SVR rates than telaprevir + A/R, boceprevir + A/R, simeprevir + A/R and A/R in MAICs. DCV + ASV had lower adverse events rates than comparators. CONCLUSION: DCV + ASV demonstrated superior efficacy and safety compared with A/R-based regimens.

Costs and Resource Utilization Associated With Anemia and Rash in Chronic Hepatitis C Patients Treated With Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents in the United States.

PURPOSE: The addition of 2 direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents, telaprevir and boceprevir, to peginterferon and ribavirin therapy significantly improves sustained virologic response rates in patients treated for chronic hepatitis C virus (CHC) but is associated with a higher risk of adverse events (AEs), including anemia and rash. Using a large administrative claims database, this study compared the health care resource utilization and costs among CHC patients who developed anemia and/or rash while receiving DAA-based therapies (telaprevir and boceprevir) versus those who did not develop anemia or rash. Adjusted costs were compared by using regression analysis. METHODS: Adult patients with ≥1 CHC diagnosis and a prescription for boceprevir or telaprevir were selected from a US-based claims database. The date of the first DAA fill after May 13, 2011, was defined as the index date. Patients were required to have continuous eligibility and no claims for hepatitis B treatment during the 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months after (study period) the index date. Patients were categorized into 4 cohorts based on the development of anemia only, rash only, both anemia and rash (anemia/rash), or neither anemia nor rash (NAR) while receiving DAA-based therapies. Baseline characteristics and study period health care utilization and costs were compared by using univariate statistics between cohorts that developed anemia only, rash only, or anemia/rash and the cohort that did not develop anemia or rash. Adjusted costs were compared by using multivariable regressions. FINDINGS: A total of 2862 patients were identified and categorized into 4 cohorts: 1204 anemia only, 131 rash only, 188 anemia/rash, and 1339 NAR patients. During the study period, patients developing anemia and/or rash incurred significantly more outpatient, dermatologist, and total medical visits compared with the NAR cohort. The anemia-only and anemia/rash cohorts also had significantly more inpatient, emergency department, and hematologist visits, as well as significantly higher adjusted total medical costs ($18,285 and $21,435 vs $11,253), total drug costs ($76,723 and $79,689 vs $63,001), and non-CHC drug costs ($10,391 and $10,475 vs $2437). The rash-only cohort had comparable adjusted total medical and drug costs. IMPLICATIONS: CHC patients who developed anemia while receiving DAA-based therapies incurred significantly higher resource utilization and costs compared with those who did not. The study highlights the need for new CHC treatment regimens that are associated with fewer and less severe AEs, particularly anemia.

Assessing the Long-Term Impact of Treating Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)-Infected People Who Inject Drugs in the UK and the Relationship between Treatment Uptake and Efficacy on Future Infections.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains high amongst people who inject drugs (PWID) and accounts for the majority of newly acquired infections. This study aims to quantify the value of treatment amongst PWID with more efficacious treatments and at increased uptake rates, with respect to the avoidance of future infections and subsequent long-term complications of HCV. METHODS: A dynamic HCV transmission and disease progression model was developed, incorporating acute and chronic infection and their long-term complications (decompensated cirrhosis, cancer, liver transplant and mortality), with the potential for HCV transmission to other PWID prior to successful treatment. The model was populated with prevalence and therapy data from a UK setting. Scenarios of current standard of care (SoC) treatment efficacy and uptake were compared to anticipated sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of 90-100% and increased uptake over varied horizons. RESULTS: SoC led to modest reductions in prevalence; >5% after 200 years. New treatments achieving 90% SVR could reduce prevalence below 5% within 60 years at current uptake rates or within 5 years if all patients are treated. Amongst 4,240 PWID, chronic HCV infections avoided as a result of increasing treatment uptake over the period 2015-2027 ranged from 20-580 and 34-912 with SoC and 90% SVR rates respectively. The reduction in downstream HCV infections due to increasing treatment uptake resulted in an approximate discounted gain of 300 life-years (from avoiding reduced life expectancy from HCV infection) and a gain of 1,700 QALYs (from avoiding the disutility of HCV infection and related complications), with a projected £5.4 million cost saving. CONCLUSION: While improved SVR profiles led to reductions in modelled prevalence, increased treatment uptake was the key driver of future infections avoided. Increased treatment among PWID with new more efficacious therapies could significantly change the future dynamics, cost and health burden of HCV-related disease.

A meta-analysis platform methodology for determining the comparative effectiveness of antihepatitis C virus regimens.

AIM: Many hepatitis C virus regimens are unlikely to be compared head to head. In more difficult to treat populations where there is no standard of care, trials are single arm. We describe a flexible meta-analysis platform in this setting. METHODS: Our meta-analysis is literature based. We illustrate our methodology and show how inference can be extended to single-arm trials. RESULTS: As an example, in the single arm setting, a regimen with response rates of 84, 72 and 54% in genotype 1a across treatment naive, previous partial responders and previous null responders, respectively, would have 95% probability of superiority to IFN-α + RBV + TPV. CONCLUSION: This is a rigorous approach to comparative effectiveness that accounts for varying patient populations and plans for the incorporation of emerging treatments.

Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs in U.S. patients diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C infection who received telaprevir or boceprevir.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, with the future burden of disease predicted to significantly increase. The recent addition of 2 direct-acting antiviral (DAA) protease inhibitors, telaprevir and boceprevir, to peginterferon alfa (PEG) and ribavirin (RBV) therapy has been shown to significantly improve sustained virologic response rates and thus has become standard of care. While the efficacy and safety of DAAs has been assessed in the clinical trial setting, less is known about real-world use of these new therapies. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate the treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs of CHC patients receiving DAA-based therapies in the United States using a retrospective analysis of a large administrative claims database and (b) evaluate factors associated with therapy noncompletion using multivariable analyses. METHODS: Adult patients with ≥ 1 claim for CHC and a prescription filled for boceprevir or telaprevir were selected from a de-identified U.S.-based claims database. The date of the first fill for a DAA after May 13, 2011 (date of first DAA availability) was defined as the index date, and patients were categorized into either the telaprevir or boceprevir cohort. Patients were required to have continuous eligibility and no claims for hepatitis B during the 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months following (study period) the index date. Baseline characteristics and study period treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs were described. Factors associated with therapy noncompletion were examined using multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted health care costs were compared between the DAA cohorts using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 871 telaprevir and 284 boceprevir patients were identified. DAA patients were aged 54 years on average and more often were male (60%, n = 688). Approximately 25% (n = 216) of telaprevir and 18% (n = 52) of boceprevir patients had cirrhosis, and 9% (n = 82) of telaprevir and 7% (n = 20) of boceprevir patients had decompensated cirrhosis at baseline. Less than 1% (n = 9) of patients were HIV co-infected. Approximately 54% (n = 470) of telaprevir and 74% (n = 210) of boceprevir patients did not complete the minimum duration of therapy as per the prescribing information (telaprevir: 12 weeks of triple + 12 weeks of dual; boceprevir: 3 weeks of lead-in + 24 weeks of triple). In multivariable analyses, females (vs. males) and patients taking boceprevir (vs. telaprevir) were more likely to not complete therapy (P = 0.011). CHC patients experienced high medical and drug-related resource utilization. Telaprevir patients had numerically higher study period unadjusted medical (boceprevir: $16,927; telaprevir: $19,519) and drug costs (boceprevir: $59,953; telaprevir: $76,497) than boceprevir patients; however, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, only drug costs remained significantly different (P less than 0.001).  CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that a large proportion of CHC patients receiving telaprevir or boceprevir did not complete minimum duration of therapy as per the prescribing information. CHC patients on a DAA regimen also experienced high resource utilization and high medical and drug costs.

Estimating the clinical and economic benefit associated with incremental improvements in sustained virologic response in chronic hepatitis C.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is one of the principle causes of chronic liver disease. Successful treatment significantly decreases the risk of hepatic morbidity and mortality. Current standard of care achieves sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of 40-80%; however, the HCV therapy landscape is rapidly evolving. The objective of this study was to quantify the clinical and economic benefit associated with increasing levels of SVR. METHODS: A published Markov model (MONARCH) that simulates the natural history of hepatitis C over a lifetime horizon was used. Discounted and non-discounted life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost of complication management were estimated for various plausible SVR rates. To demonstrate the robustness of projections obtained, the model was validated to ten UK-specific HCV studies. RESULTS: QALY estimates ranged from 18.0 years for those treated successfully in fibrosis stage F0 to 7.5 years (discounted) for patients in fibrosis stage F4 who remain untreated. Predicted QALY gains per 10% improvement in SVR ranged from 0.23 (F0) to 0.64 (F4) and 0.58 (F0) to 1.35 (F4) in 40 year old patients (discounted and non-discounted results respectively). In those aged 40, projected discounted HCV-related costs are minimised with successful treatment in F0/F1 (at approximately £ 300), increasing to £ 49,300 in F4 patients who remain untreated. Validation of the model to published UK cost-effectiveness studies produce R2 goodness of fit statistics of 0.988, 0.978 and of 0.973 for total costs, QALYs and incremental cost effectiveness ratios, respectively. CONCLUSION: Projecting the long-term clinical and economic consequences associated with chronic hepatitis C is a necessary requirement for the evaluation of new treatments. The principle analysis demonstrates the significant impact on expected costs, LYs and QALYs associated with increasing SVR. A validation analysis demonstrated the robustness of the results reported.

Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analyses are frequently conducted to compare treatments for hepatitis C, which are often associated with complex regimens and serious adverse events. Thus, the purpose of this study was to estimate the utility associated with treatment administration and adverse events of hepatitis C treatments. DESIGN: Health states were drafted based on literature review and clinician interviews. General population participants in the UK valued the health states in time trade-off (TTO) interviews with 10- and 1-year time horizons. The 14 health states described hepatitis C with variations in treatment regimen and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 182 participants completed interviews (50% female; mean age = 39.3 years). Utilities for health states describing treatment regimens without injections ranged from 0.80 (1 tablet) to 0.79 (7 tablets). Utilities for health states describing oral plus injectable regimens were 0.77 (7 tablets), 0.75 (12 tablets), and 0.71 (18 tablets). Addition of a weekly injection had a disutility of -0.02. A requirement to take medication with fatty food had a disutility of -0.04. Adverse events were associated with substantial disutilities: mild anemia, -0.12; severe anemia, -0.32; flu-like symptoms, -0.21; mild rash, -0.13; severe rash, -0.48; depression, -0.47. One-year TTO scores were similar to these 10-year values. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events and greater treatment regimen complexity were associated with lower utility scores, suggesting a perceived decrease in quality of life beyond the impact of hepatitis C. The resulting utilities may be used in models estimating and comparing the value of treatments for hepatitis C.

Estimating the incremental net health benefit of requirements for cardiovascular risk evaluation for diabetes therapies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of pre-approval requirements for safety data to detect cardiovascular (CV) risk contained in the December 2008 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance for developing type 2 diabetes drugs compared with the February 2008 FDA draft guidance from the perspective of diabetes population health. METHODS: We applied the incremental net health benefit (INHB) framework to quantify the benefits and risks of investigational diabetes drugs using a common survival metric (life-years [LYs]). We constructed a decision analytic model for clinical program development consistent with the requirements of each guidance and simulated diabetes drugs, some of which had elevated CV risk. Assuming constant research budgets, we estimate the impact of increased trial size on drugs investigated. We aggregate treatment benefit and CV risks for each approved drug over a 35-year horizon under each guidance. RESULTS: The quantitative analysis suggests that the December 2008 guidance adversely impacts diabetes population health. INHB was -1.80 million LYs, attributable to delayed access to diabetes therapies (-0 .18 million LYs) and fewer drugs (-1.64 million LYs), but partially offset by reduced CV risk exposure (0.02 million LYs). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The health outcomes impact of all potential benefits and risks should be evaluated in a common survival measure, including health gain from avoided adverse events, lost health benefits from delayed or for gone efficacious products, and impact of alternative policy approaches. Quantitative analysis of the December 2008 FDA guidance for diabetes therapies indicates that negative impact on patient health will result.