Cost-Effectiveness of Plasma Microbial Cell-Free DNA Sequencing When Added to Usual Care Diagnostic Testing for Immunocompromised Host Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Immunocompromised host pneumonia (ICHP) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality, yet usual care (UC) diagnostic tests often fail to identify an infectious etiology. A US-based, multicenter study (PICKUP) among ICHP patients with hematological malignancies, including hematological cell transplant recipients, showed that plasma microbial cell-free DNA (mcfDNA) sequencing provided significant additive diagnostic value. AIM: The objective of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of adding mcfDNA sequencing to UC diagnostic testing for hospitalized ICHP patients. METHODS: A semi-Markov model was utilized from the US third-party payer's perspective such that only direct costs were included, using a lifetime time horizon with discount rates of 3% for costs and benefits. Three comparators were considered: (1) All UC, which included non-invasive (NI) and invasive testing and early bronchoscopy; (2) All UC & mcfDNA; and (3) NI UC & mcfDNA & conditional UC Bronch (later bronchoscopy if the initial tests are negative). The model considered whether a probable causative infectious etiology was identified and if the patient received appropriate antimicrobial treatment through expert adjudication, and if the patient died in-hospital. The primary endpoints were total costs, life-years (LYs), equal value life-years (evLYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Extensive scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: At a price of $2000 (2023 USD) for the plasma mcfDNA, All UC & mcfDNA was more costly ($165,247 vs $153,642) but more effective (13.39 vs 12.47 LYs gained; 10.20 vs 9.42 evLYs gained; 10.11 vs 9.42 QALYs gained) compared to All UC alone, giving a cost/QALY of $16,761. NI UC & mcfDNA & conditional UC Bronch was also more costly ($162,655 vs $153,642) and more effective (13.19 vs 12.47 LYs gained; 9.96 vs 9.42 evLYs gained; 9.96 vs 9.42 QALYs gained) compared to All UC alone, with a cost/QALY of $16,729. The PSA showed that above a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, All UC & mcfDNA was the preferred scenario on cost-effectiveness grounds (as it provides the most QALYs gained). Further scenario analyses found that All UC & mcfDNA always improved patient outcomes but was not cost saving, even when the price of mcfDNA was set to $0. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence available at the time of this analysis, this CEA suggests that mcfDNA may be cost-effective when added to All UC, as well as in a scenario using conditional bronchoscopy when NI testing fails to identify a probable infectious etiology for ICHP. Adding mcfDNA testing to UC diagnostic testing should allow more patients to receive appropriate therapy earlier and improve patient outcomes.

Population health outcomes of blood-based screening for colorectal cancer in comparison to current screening modalities: insights from a discrete-event simulation model incorporating longitudinal adherence.

AIM: Insufficient adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening impedes individual and population health benefits, with about one-third of individuals non-adherent to available screening options. The impact of poor adherence is inadequately considered in most health economics models, limiting the evaluation of real-world population-level screening outcomes. This study introduces the CAN-SCREEN (Colorectal cANcer SCReening Economics and adherENce) model, utilizing real-world adherence scenarios to assess the effectiveness of a blood-based test (BBT) compared to existing strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CAN-SCREEN model evaluates various CRC screening strategies per 1,000 screened individuals for ages 45-75. Adherence is modeled in two ways: (1) full adherence and (2) longitudinally declining adherence. BBT performance is based on recent pivotal trial data while existing strategies are informed using literature. The full adherence model is calibrated using previously published Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models. Outcomes, including life-years gained (LYG), CRC cases averted, CRC deaths averted, and colonoscopies, are compared to no screening. RESULTS: Longitudinal adherence modeling reveals differences in the relative ordering of health outcomes and resource utilization, as measured by the number of colonoscopies performed per 1,000, between screening modalities. BBT outperforms the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the multitarget stool DNA (mtsDNA) test with more CRC deaths averted (13) compared to FIT and mtsDNA (7, 11), more CRC cases averted (27 vs. 16, 22) and higher LYG (214 vs. 157, 199). BBT yields fewer CRC deaths averted compared to colonoscopy (13, 15) but requires fewer colonoscopies (1,053 vs. 1,928). LIMITATIONS: Due to limited data, the CAN-SCREEN model with longitudinal adherence leverages evidence-informed assumptions for the natural history and real-world longitudinal adherence to screening. CONCLUSIONS: The CAN-SCREEN model demonstrates that amongst non-invasive CRC screening strategies, those with higher adherence yield more favorable health outcomes as measured by CRC deaths averted, CRC cases averted, and LYG.

This study explored the impact of poor adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, where about one-third of people face barriers to screening. Common models don't consider real-world adherence, so we introduced the CAN-SCREEN model. It uses real-world data to determine how well a blood-based test (BBT) could work compared to existing tests. We studied people starting CRC screening at age 45. The model looked at two adherence scenarios: assuming everyone follows guidelines, and using real-world data about how people follow screening guidelines over time. The BBT's performance was based on a recent study, and we compared it to existing methods using data from the literature. Results per 1,000 simulated patients showed that the BBT outperforms two guideline-recommended stool-based tests, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the multitarget stool DNA (mtsDNA) test, with more CRC deaths averted (13) compared to FIT and mtsDNA (7, 11), more CRC cases averted (27 vs. 16, 22) and higher LYG (214 vs. 157, 199). BBT prevents less CRC deaths than colonoscopy (13 vs. 15), but it leads to fewer colonoscopies (1,053 compared to 1,928). Despite some limitations due to limited data, our model relies on informed assumptions for the natural history of CRC and real-world adherence. In conclusion, our CAN-SCREEN model shows that CRC screening strategies combining good test performance with high adherence give better health outcomes. Adding a blood test, which could be easier for people to use, could save lives and reduce the number of colonoscopies needed.

Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of the research was to assess the quantitative relationship between median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) specifically among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Two bibliographic databases (PubMed and Embase, 1970-2017) were systematically searched for RCTs in RRMM that reported OS and PFS, followed by an updated search of studies published between 2010 and 2022 in 3 databases (Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews, 2010-2022). The association between median PFS and median OS was assessed using the nonparametric Spearman rank and parametric Pearson correlation coefficients. Subsequently, the quantitative relationship between PFS and OS was assessed using weighted least-squares regression adjusted for covariates including age, sex, and publication year. Study arms were weighted by the number of patients in each arm. RESULTS: A total of 31 RCTs (56 treatment arms, 10,450 patients with RRMM) were included in the analysis. The average median PFS and median OS were 7.1 months (SD 5.5) and 28.1 months (SD 11.8), respectively. The Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients between median PFS and median OS were 0.80 (P < 0.0001) and 0.79 (P < 0.0001), respectively. In individual treatment arms of RRMM trials, each 1-month increase in median PFS was associated with a 1.72-month (95% CI 1.26-2.17) increase in median OS. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the relationship between PFS and OS incorporating more recent studies in RRMM further substantiates the use of PFS to predict OS in RRMM.

Economic Evaluation Associated With Clinical-Grade Mobile App-Based Digital Therapeutic Interventions: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital therapeutics (DTx), a class of software-based clinical interventions, are promising new technologies that can potentially prevent, manage, or treat a spectrum of medical disorders and diseases as well as deliver unprecedented portability for patients and scalability for health care providers. Their adoption and implementation were accelerated by the need for remote care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and awareness about their utility has rapidly grown among providers, payers, and regulators. Despite this, relatively little is known about the capacity of DTx to provide economic value in care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and summarize the published evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of clinical-grade mobile app-based DTx and explore the factors affecting such evaluations. METHODS: A systematic review of economic evaluations of clinical-grade mobile app-based DTx was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines. Major electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched for eligible studies published from inception to October 28, 2022. Two independent reviewers evaluated the eligibility of all the retrieved articles for inclusion in the review. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed for each included study. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included in this review. Of the 18 studies, 7 (39%) were nonrandomized study-based economic evaluations, 6 (33%) were model-based evaluations, and 5 (28%) were randomized clinical trial-based evaluations. The DTx intervention subject to assessment was found to be cost-effective in 12 (67%) studies, cost saving in 5 (28%) studies, and cost-effective in 1 (6%) study in only 1 of the 3 countries where it was being deployed in the final study. Qualitative deficiencies in methodology and substantial potential for bias, including risks of performance bias and selection bias in participant recruitment, were identified in several included studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review supports the thesis that DTx interventions offer potential economic benefits. However, DTx economic analyses conducted to date exhibit important methodological shortcomings that must be addressed in future evaluations to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the widespread adoption of DTx interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022358616; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022358616.

Brief communication: global temporal trends in the efficacy of clarithromycin-based regimens for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection.

Background: Helicobacter pylori eradication rates achieved with clarithromycin-based triple therapies are declining due to antibiotic resistance, but data regarding temporal changes in efficacy with these eradication therapies are scarce. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of clarithromycin-based triple eradication regimens over time. Design: A comprehensive literature review and time-trend analysis. Data sources and methods: Bibliographies of recently published systematic literature reviews were searched and supplemented with a targeted literature review conducted using Medline and Embase databases and ProQuest from conception to May 2021. Studies reporting H. pylori eradication rates of clarithromycin-based triple therapies were included and temporal trends were estimated using a random-effects model. Results: Eradication rates for triple therapies containing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), clarithromycin, and amoxicillin showed a significant decline over the past 23 years (p = 0.0315). However, this decline was not significant when eradication rates achieved with vonoprazan-based triple therapy were included (p = 0.3910). Conclusion: Vonoprazan-based triple therapy partially mitigated the decline in eradication rates seen with PPI-based triple therapy, likely due to more powerful acid suppression of vonoprazan.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nefecon versus Best Supportive Care for People with Immunoglobulin A Nephropathy (IgAN) in the United States.

Purpose: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of Nefecon in addition to the best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC in a hypothetical cohort of commercially insured adult patients with primary immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) from a United States (US) societal perspective. Methods: A lifetime horizon, semi-Markov model was developed that consisted of nine health states: chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) with dialysis, ESRD without dialysis, post-kidney transplant, and death. Health state occupancy was estimated from individual patient-level data from the Phase 3 randomized controlled trial NefIgArd Part A (NCT03643965). Additional scenarios evaluated the impact of varying the time horizon, discounting, costs included, rounds of treatment, and the method used to calculate transition probabilities. Results: In the deterministic base case analysis over a lifetime horizon, Nefecon plus BSC (hereafter Nefecon) had an incremental cost of $3,810 vs BSC. Nefecon resulted in a mean survival gain of 0.247 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 0.195 life years (LYs), and 0.244 equal value life years (evLYs) vs BSC alone - this resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $15,428 per QALY, $19,502 per LY, and $15,611 per evLY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses estimated that with willingness to pay thresholds of $100,000, $150,000, and $250,000 per QALY gained, Nefecon would be cost-effective over BSC in 66.70%, 75.02%, and 86.82% of cases, respectively. In the scenario analysis, Nefecon remained cost-effective with 4 rounds of treatment. Conclusion: Nefecon was associated with LY and QALY gains vs BSC, with an incremental cost of $3,810. Based on these values, with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained, Nefecon was found to be a cost-effective treatment for US adults with primary IgAN.

Overall and complete response rates as potential surrogates for overall survival in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Aim: The correlation between response and survival has not been well-studied in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Materials & methods: A systematic literature review of Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases (2010-06/2020) and relevant congresses (2018-2020) was performed to identify randomized clinical trials in RRMM reporting median overall survival (mOS), progression-free survival and response end points. The relationship between mOS and response end points was analyzed using Pearson's product-moment correlation. Results: A total of 81 records for 65 original studies, representing 12,827 patients were included. The correlation was moderate for mOS with overall response rate (Pearson r = 0.79), very good partial response (r = 0.73) and duration of response (r = 0.78); all were statistically significant. In linear regression models, estimated mOS gain was 0.48, 0.47 and 1.94 months per percentage point of overall response rate, very good partial response and complete response, respectively (all p < 0.001). Significance was maintained after adjustment for age, relapsed versus refractory multiple myeloma and study year. The analysis was limited by small sample sizes and inconsistent reporting of study-level covariates. Conclusion: These findings support short-term response-based end points as surrogates to survival in RRMM.

Treatments for multiple myeloma may not work for every patient and the cancer may come back. In clinical trials, it is difficult to find out how well new treatments work in allowing patients to live longer. This is especially true when patients have advanced disease that has returned or has not responded to treatment. How well a patient responds to treatment (i.e., has a decreased extent of disease) could indicate whether the drug will help the patient live longer, but the relationship between response to treatment and survival is not fully understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand how response rates and survival are related. A systematic review collects all the published research on a specific subject, and a meta-analysis is a statistical method that creates a single finding from several separate studies. This study found a moderate relationship between how long patients live after receiving treatment for multiple myeloma and their response to treatment. This would allow response-to-treatment data from clinical trials to be used to predict better survival and show the drug can help patients.

Bayesian hierarchical model-based network meta-analysis to overcome survival extrapolation challenges caused by data immaturity.

Aim: This research evaluated standard Weibull mixture cure (WMC) network meta-analysis (NMA) with Bayesian hierarchical (BH) WMC NMA to inform long-term survival of therapies. Materials & methods: Four trials in previously treated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 >1% were used comparing docetaxel with nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab. Cure parameters related to a certain treatment class were assumed to share a common distribution. Results: Standard WMC NMA predicted cure rates were 0.03 (0.01; 0.07), 0.18 (0.12; 0.24), 0.07 (0.02; 0.15) and 0.03 (0.00; 0.09) for docetaxel, nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, respectively, with corresponding incremental life years (LY) of 3.11 (1.65; 4.66), 1.06 (0.41; 2.37) and 0.42 (-0.57; 1.68). The Bayesian hierarchical-WMC-NMA rates were 0.06 (0.03; 0.10), 0.17 (0.11; 0.23), 0.12 (0.05; 0.20) and 0.12 (0.03; 0.23), respectively, with incremental LY of 2.35 (1.04; 3.93), 1.67 (0.68; 2.96) and 1.36 (-0.05; 3.64). Conclusion: BH-WMC-NMA impacts incremental mean LYs and cost-effectiveness ratios, potentially affecting reimbursement decisions.

Economic Evaluation of Cost and Time Required for a Platform Trial vs Conventional Trials.

Importance: Platform trial design allows the introduction of new interventions after the trial is initiated and offers efficiencies to clinical research. However, limited guidance exists on the economic resources required to establish and maintain platform trials. Objective: To compare cost (US dollars) and time requirements of conducting a platform trial vs a series of conventional (nonplatform) trials using a real-life example. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, an online survey was administered to a group of international experts (146 participants) with publication records of platform trials to elicit their opinions on cost and time to set up and conduct platform, multigroup, and 2-group trials. Using the reported entry dates of 10 interventions into Systemic Therapy in Advancing Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy, the longest ongoing platform trial, 3 scenarios were designed involving a single platform trial (scenario 1), 1 multigroup followed by 5 2-group trials (scenario 2), and a series of 10 2-group trials (scenario 3). All scenarios started with 5 interventions, then 5 more interventions were either added to the platform or evaluated independently. Simulations with the survey results as inputs were used to compare the platform vs conventional trial designs. Data were analyzed from July to September 2021. Exposure: Platform trial design. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total trial setup and conduct cost and cumulative duration. Results: Although setup time and cost requirements of a single trial were highest for the platform trial, cumulative requirements of setting up a series of multiple trials in scenarios 2 and 3 were larger. Compared with the platform trial, there was a median (IQR) increase of 216.7% (202.2%-242.5%) in cumulative setup costs for scenario 2 and 391.1% (365.3%-437.9%) for scenario 3. In terms of total cost, there was a median (IQR) increase of 17.4% (12.1%-22.5%) for scenario 2 and 57.5% (43.1%-69.9%) for scenario 3. There was a median (IQR) increase in cumulative trial duration of 171.1% (158.3%-184.3%) for scenario 2 and 311.9% (282.0%-349.1%) for scenario 3. Cost and time reductions in the platform trial were observed in both the initial and subsequently evaluated interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: Although setting up platform trials can take longer and be costly, the findings of this study suggest that having a single infrastructure can improve efficiencies with respect to costs and efforts.

Response rates and minimal residual disease outcomes as potential surrogates for progression-free survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Progression-free survival (PFS) is a common primary endpoint in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Patients with NDMM typically have longer PFS and are more likely to achieve minimal residual disease (MRD) or complete response (CR) compared to patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Response-based surrogate endpoints may hold value given the longer follow-up time required to evaluate PFS in NDMM. In this work, systematic literature reviews of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases (2010-06/2020) and relevant congresses (2018-2020) were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and real-world studies in NDMM reporting median PFS and objective response. Associations between PFS and each response endpoint were evaluated using Pearson's product-moment correlation weighted by sample size in each RCT arm. Unadjusted and adjusted weighted linear regression models were applied to estimate the gain in median PFS associated with each response endpoint. Statistically significant correlations were identified for median PFS with overall response rate (ORR; Pearson r = 0.59), CR (r = 0.48), stringent CR (sCR; r = 0.68), and MRD (r = 0.69). The unadjusted models estimated 0.50 (95% CI: 0.36, 0.64; p<0.001), 0.42 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.58; p<0.001), 1.05 (95% CI: 0.58, 1.52; p<0.001), and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.58; p = 0.006) months of median PFS gained per point of ORR, CR, sCR, and MRD, respectively. Associations for median PFS remained statistically significant in models adjusted for age and treatment type with ORR (0.35, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.49; p<0.001), and adjusted for age and International Staging System risk stage with CR (0.29, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.41; p<0.001). Due to small sample size, adjusted models could not be constructed for sCR or MRD. Nevertheless, evidence of significant survival benefit (p<0.05) associated with MRD negativity and sCR was identified across real-world studies. These findings provide support for the use of response outcomes as surrogate endpoints to estimate PFS benefit in NDMM.

Humanistic and Economic Burden of Conversion Therapy Among LGBTQ Youths in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts (SOGICE), also called conversion therapy, is a discredited practice attempting to convert lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning (LGBTQ) individuals to be heterosexual and/or cisgender. OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesize evidence on the humanistic and economic consequences of SOGICE among LGBTQ youths in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study, conducted from December 1, 2020, to February 15, 2021, included a systematic literature review and economic evaluation. The literature review analyzed published evidence on SOGICE among LGBTQ individuals of any age. The economic model evaluated the use of SOGICE vs no intervention, affirmative therapy vs no intervention, and affirmative therapy vs SOGICE to estimate the costs and adverse outcomes for each scenario and to assess the overall US economic burden of SOGICE. Published literature and public sources were used to estimate the number of LGBTQ youths exposed to SOGICE, the types of therapy received, and the associated adverse events (anxiety, severe psychological distress, depression, alcohol or substance abuse, suicide attempts, and fatalities). EXPOSURES: SOGICE (licensed or religion-based practitioners) or affirmative therapy (licensed practitioners). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) vs no intervention and total economic burden of SOGICE. RESULTS: Among 28 published studies, which included 190 695 LGBTQ individuals, 12% (range, 7%-23%) of youths experienced SOGICE, initiated at a mean age of 25 years (range, 5-58 years), with a mean (SD) duration of 26 (29) months. At least 2 types of SOGICE were administered to 43% of recipients. Relative to LGBTQ individuals who did not undergo SOGICE, recipients experienced serious psychological distress (47% vs 34%), depression (65% vs 27%), substance abuse (67% vs 50%), and attempted suicide (58% vs 39%). In the economic analysis, over a lifetime horizon with a 3% annual discount rate, the base-case model estimated additional $97 985 lifetime costs per individual, with SOGICE associated with 1.61 QALYs lost vs no intervention; affirmative therapy yielded cost savings of $40 329 with 0.93 QALYs gained vs no intervention. With an estimated 508 892 youths at risk for SOGICE in 2021, the total annual cost of SOGICE is estimated at $650.16 million (2021 US dollars), with associated harms totaling an economic burden of $9.23 billion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This economic evaluation study suggests that there is a high economic burden and high societal costs associated with SOGICE and identifies additional research questions regarding the roles of private and public funding in supporting this harmful practice.

Effectiveness of crizotinib versus entrectinib in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer using clinical and real-world data.

Aims: To compare clinical trial results for crizotinib and entrectinib in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and compare clinical trial data and real-world outcomes for crizotinib. Patients & methods: We analyzed four phase I-II studies using a simulated treatment comparison (STC). A STC of clinical trial versus real-world evidence compared crizotinib clinical data to real-world outcomes. Results: Adjusted STC found nonsignificant trends favoring crizotinib over entrectinib: objective response rate, risk ratio = 1.04 (95% CI: 0.85-1.28); median duration of response, mean difference = 16.11 months (95% CI: -1.57- 33.69); median progression-free survival, mean difference = 3.99 months (95% CI: -6.27-14.25); 12-month overall survival, risk ratio = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.90-1.12). Nonsignificant differences were observed between the trial end point values and the real-world evidence for crizotinib. Conclusions: Crizotinib and entrectinib have comparable efficacy in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Network Meta-Analysis of Once Weekly Selinexor-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma.

Background: Despite the availability of new treatments, multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable cancer with nearly all patients relapsing and undergoing multiple lines of treatment. Performing head-to-head comparisons of all treatment options is not feasible. Thus, network meta-analyses play an important role in allowing health-care decision makers to compare the effectiveness of treatment options. Objectives: A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was developed from studies identified from a systematic literature review (SLR) to evaluate the efficacy of once weekly oral selinexor with once weekly bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) relative to other therapies in previously treated MM. Methods: Ovid was systematically searched for phase 2-3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in MM that assessed progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall response rates (ORR). Two population subsets were assessed: second-line patients (2L) and third-line or greater patients (3L+). Base case results compared all regimens against twice weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) as the anchored comparator regimen. Results: Forty-seven RCTs met inclusion. For 2L PFS, OS and ORR, XVd had, on average, out of all iterations, the 6th (out of 21), 4th (out of 15), and 5th (out of 20) best result, respectively, versus Vd. For 3L+ PFS, OS and ORR, XVd had the 12th (out of 24), 11th (out of 22), and 8th (out of 25) best result, respectively, versus Vd. There was no statistically significant difference between XVd and other top-ranking therapies for PFS, OS, and ORR in either 2L and 3L+ except for daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone [DVd], which was favorable versus XVd (2L PFS only). Discussion: Results for XVd were more favorable in 2L, having a higher probability of being a top 5 regimen, compared with 3L+ therapies based on the reported clinical trial results. However, in typical clinical practice, most triplet regimens have been modified using weekly bortezomib dosing, raising questions about the actual efficacy of these regimens versus the reported results using twice weekly bortezomib dosing. Conclusions: The addition of XVd, which was designed with once weekly bortezomib dosing, to the treatment landscape for previously treated MM provides a regimen that may potentially be noninferior to the other top 5 regimens in both 2L and 3L+ settings and is associated with less peripheral neuropathy.

Quality of life analyses in patients with multiple myeloma: results from the Selinexor (KPT-330) Treatment of Refractory Myeloma (STORM) phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor is an oral, selective nuclear export inhibitor. STORM was a phase 2b, single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial of selinexor with low dose dexamethasone in patients with penta-exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) that met its primary endpoint, with overall response of 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19 to 35%). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM). This study examines impact of selinexor treatment on HRQoL of patients treated in STORM and reports two approaches to calculate minimal clinically important differences for the FACT-MM. METHODS: FACT-MM data were collected at baseline, on day 1 of each 4-week treatment cycle, and at end of treatment (EOT). Changes from baseline were analyzed for the FACT-MM total score, FACT-trial outcome index (TOI), FACT-General (FACT-G), and the MM-specific domain using mixed-effects regression models. Two approaches for evaluating minimal clinically important differences were explored: the first defined as 10% of the instrument range, and the second based on estimated mean baseline differences between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) scores. Post-hoc difference analysis compared change in scores from baseline to EOT for treatment responders and non-responders. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included in the analysis; the mean number of prior therapies was 7.9 (standard deviation [SD] 3.1), and mean duration of myeloma was 7.6 years (SD 3.4). Each exploratory minimal clinically important difference threshold yielded consistent results whereby most patients did not experience HRQoL decline during the first six cycles of treatment (range: 53.9 to 75.7% for the first approach; range: 52.6 to 72.9% for the second). Treatment responders experienced less decline in HRQoL from baseline to EOT than non-responders, which was significant for the FACT-G, but not for other scores. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients did not experience decline in HRQoL based on minimal clinically important differences during early cycles of treatment with selinexor and dexamethasone in the STORM trial. An anchor-based approach utilizing patient-level data (ECOG PS score) to define minimal clinically important differences for the FACT-MM gave consistent results with a distribution-based approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the trial-ID NCT02336815 on January 8, 2015.

Cost Effectiveness of Triplet Selinexor-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone (XVd) in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma (MM) Based on Results from the Phase III BOSTON Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Nearly all patients with multiple myeloma undergo multiple rounds of therapy. The phase III BOSTON trial of once-weekly selinexor and once-weekly bortezomib with dexamethasone (XVd) vs twice-weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) is the basis for this cost-effectiveness analysis in previously treated multiple myeloma from a US commercial payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. METHODS: A partitioned survival model enabled use of direct overall survival and progression-free survival curves from BOSTON to generate four health states for XVd and Vd: progression-free survival on treatment, progression-free survival off treatment, post-progression, and mortality. Using a 1-week cycle length, benefits and costs were discounted at 3.0% annually. Additional comparators were included in an exploratory analysis that compared XVd against seven additional regimens (six triplets, one doublet). RESULTS: After considering costs, utility, progression, and survival, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of XVd vs Vd was $475,430/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The 50% cost-effectiveness probability midpoint was near $470,000/QALY, based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The robustness of the analysis was supported by additional scenario assessment and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, which generally demonstrated little variance, with greatest sensitivity to variations in discount rates and utility values. In an exploratory analysis against external comparators, XVd showed a higher QALY gain with a lower cost (i.e., dominance) compared with lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), pomalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (PVd), and carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (KPd). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of XVd to the previously treated multiple myeloma treatment landscape provides a novel oral treatment option, which, when compared to Vd in the base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $475,430/QALY. Exploratory analyses comparing against external comparators suggest that XVd was dominant vs Rd, PVd, and KPd.

Patients with multiple myeloma often relapse and require multiple treatments to extend survival while maintaining quality of life. Many of the standard treatment regimens include twice-weekly bortezomib, which is associated with potentially severe peripheral neuropathy. The novel triplet regimen of once-weekly selinexor and once-weekly bortezomib with dexamethasone (XVd) improves cancer response and progression-free survival while decreasing the rate of peripheral neuropathy. This study used economic modeling to calculate the cost of the triplet XVd regimen per life-year gained and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. XVd had a lower cost with a higher quality-adjusted life-year benefit compared with lenalidomide/dexamethasone, pomalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, and carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma.

Projected impact of a plant-derived vaccine on the burden of seasonal influenza in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The analysis estimates projected population outcomes resulting from the introduction of a plant-derived influenza vaccine formulated as quadrivalent virus-like particles (QVLP) in Canada. METHODS: Using Monte Carlo simulations, the number of influenza cases, general practitioner visits, inpatient admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths due to influenza-associated illness were estimated under no vaccination, plant-derived QVLP vaccines only, or egg-derived vaccines only. The base case analysis examined the adult Canadian population in two subgroups: 18-64 years of age during the 2017/18 season and 65+ years of age during the 2018/19 season. Efficacy data were obtained from QVLP clinical trials. Vaccine effectiveness data for egg-derived vaccines were calculated from observational studies from the corresponding influenza seasons. Scenario analyses examined the impact of varying absolute vaccine effectiveness or vaccination coverage from base case inputs. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, plant-derived QVLP vaccines led to an additional reduction in the burden of influenza over egg-derived vaccines for both population subgroups. In the 18-64 subgroup, QVLP vaccines were associated with 2.63% (48,029; 95% credible interval [Crl]: 42,723-53,336) fewer influenza cases than egg-derived vaccines. In the 65+ subgroup, QVLP vaccines led to 4.82% (27,918; 95% Crl: 25,440-30,397) fewer influenza cases, and reductions in the number of inpatient admissions by 4.77% (1167; 95% CrI: 851-1483) and deaths by 4.75% (326; 95% CrI: 107-546) compared to egg-derived vaccines. Further reductions were observed in scenario analyses considering the potential increase in vaccine coverage. CONCLUSION: Use of plant-derived QVLP influenza vaccines may contribute to greater reductions in influenza cases and influenza-related outcomes, including inpatient admissions and deaths, compared to egg-derived vaccines currently available in Canada.

US Budget Impact Model for Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: To estimate the budget impact of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (XVd) in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) from the perspective of a private third-party payer and Medicare in the US. METHODS: The introduction of XVd as an option for patients with previously treated MM compared to no introduction of XVd was considered from a private third-party US payer (with 1,000,000 members) and a Medicare perspective in one-year increments for 3 years. Total annual treatment costs were calculated as the sum of drug costs, costs of treating serious treatment emergent adverse events (grade ≥3), ongoing best supportive care costs, and mortality costs. RESULTS: The absolute budget impact (Millions, USD) of including XVd from a private third-party payer plan perspective was $0.06, $0.07, $0.08 and $0.22 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative budget impact of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a per member per month (PMPM) budget impact of $0.005, $0.006, $0.007, and $0.006 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. From a Medicare perspective, the absolute budget impact (Millions, USD) of including XVd was $29.68, $36.62, $39.42 and $105.72 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative budget impact of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% percent for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a PMPM budget impact of $0.041, $0.051, $0.054, and $0.049 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed general consistency with the base-case findings. CONCLUSION: Understanding the potential budget impact of new therapies in MM is vital for payers to manage spending and assess treatment value. The introduction of XVd presents a manageable budget impact for a third-party US payer and Medicare.

Comparative Effectiveness of Remestemcel-L-rknd versus Ruxolitinib in Pediatric Patients with Steroid-Refractory Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease using Simulated Treatment Comparisons.

Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can be a lifesaving treatment for hematologic malignancies, but acute graft-versus-host-disease (aGVHD) is a potentially deadly adverse effect experienced by up to half of allo-HSCT recipients. Inadequate response to steroid therapy for aGVHD is associated with poor prognosis and high mortality, including among pediatric patients, who are the focus of this study. Ruxolitinib and remestemcel-L-rknd were evaluated for the treatment of steroid-refractory (SR) aGVHD in two separate single-arm trials. To effectively compare the safety and efficacy of these treatments without a head-to-head trial, a simulated treatment comparison (STC) was conducted. Methods: Regression techniques were used to adjust individual patient-level data from the remestemcel-L-rknd trial to mutually reported baseline characteristics from the ruxolitinib trial. Outcomes of interest included a 28-day overall response rate (ORR), a 28-day ORR in the grade III-IV aGVHD population, and adverse events (AEs). Results: In the full populations, the STC of risk ratios (RRs) found treatment with remestemcel-L-rknd to be associated with a numerical but not statistically significant improvement in the 28-day ORR versus ruxolitinib. In the grade III-IV aGVHD sub-group, the STC showed significantly improved 28-day ORR for remestemcel-L-rknd versus ruxolitinib (P=0.04). Remestemcel-L-rknd was also associated with improved safety outcomes (P<0.05) in 17 out of 30 AEs, including hematologic events, peripheral edema, muscular weakness, nausea, back pain, and fatigue. Conclusion: Remestemcel-L-rknd was associated with significant improvements in day 28 ORR compared with ruxolitinib in patients with severe (grade III-IV) SR aGVHD. Across all grades of SR aGVHD, remestemcel-L-rknd was associated with fewer all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (27/30) available for comparison, including the majority reaching statistical significance.

Comparative effectiveness of glasdegib versus venetoclax combined with low-dose cytarabine in acute myeloid leukemia.

Background: Two combination therapies recently approved and recommended for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in acute myeloid leukemia patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy are glasdegib+LDAC and venetoclax+LDAC. Materials & methods: An indirect treatment comparison used median overall survival, overall survival hazard ratios, complete remission (CR), CR+CR with incomplete blood count recovery and transfusion independence to assess comparative effectiveness, and a simulated treatment comparison accounted for differences in patient characteristics between trials. Results: Differences in efficacy between glasdegib+LDAC and venetoclax+LDAC were suggestive and not statistically significant. Conclusion: With no significant differences in comparative effectiveness, considerations such as safety profiles, burden of administration and patient preference are likely to guide treatment decisions.