Observing the Clinical Course of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in Medicaid Real-World Healthcare Data.

INTRODUCTION: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a rare, severe progressive neuromuscular disease. Health insurance claims allow characterization of population-level real-world outcomes, based on observed healthcare resource use. An analysis of data specific to those with Medicaid insurance is presently unavailable. The objective was to describe the real-world clinical course of DMD based on claims data from Medicaid-insured individuals in the USA. METHODS: Individuals with DMD were identified from the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid datasets (2013-2018). Diagnosis and procedure codes from healthcare claims were used to characterize the occurrence of DMD-relevant clinical observations; categories were scoliosis, cardiovascular-related, respiratory and severe respiratory-related, and neurologic/neuropsychiatric. Age-restricted analyses were conducted to focus on the ages at which DMD-relevant clinical observations were more likely to be captured, and to better understand the impact of both age and follow-up time. RESULTS: Of 2007 patients with DMD identified, median (interquartile range) age at index was 14 (9-20) years, and median follow-up was 3.1 (1.6-4.7) years. Neurologic and neuropsychiatric observations were most frequently identified, among 49.3% of the cohort; followed by cardiovascular (48.5%), respiratory (38.1%), scoliosis (36.3%), and severe respiratory (25.0%). Prevalence estimates for each category were higher when analyzed within age-restricted subgroups; and increased as follow-up time increased. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to use diagnosis and procedure codes from real-world Medicaid claims to document the clinical course in DMD. Findings were consistent with previously published estimates from commercially insured populations and clinical registries; and contribute to the expanding body of real-world evidence around clinical progression of patients with DMD.

Paving the way for future gene therapies: A case study of scientific spillover from delandistrogene moxeparvovec.

Gene therapies have potential to improve outcomes of severe diseases after only a single administration. Novel therapies are continually being developed using knowledge gained from prior successes, a concept known as scientific spillover. Gene therapy advancement requires extensive development at each stage: preclinical work to create and evaluate vehicles for delivery of the therapy, design of clinical development programs, and establishment of a large-scale manufacturing process. Pioneering gene therapies are generating spillover as investigators confront myriad issues specific to this treatment modality. These include frameworks for construct engineering, dose evaluation, patient selection, outcome assessment, and safety monitoring. Consequently, the benefits of these therapies extend beyond offering knowledge for treating any one disease to establishing new platforms and paradigms that will accelerate advancement of future gene therapies. This impact is even more profound in rare diseases, where developing therapies in isolation may not be possible. This review describes some instances of scientific spillover in healthcare, and specifically gene therapy, using delandistrogene moxeparvovec (SRP-9001), a gene therapy recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of ambulatory pediatric patients aged 4-5 years with Duchenne muscular dystrophy with a confirmed mutation in the DMD gene, as a case study.

Assessing the value of delandistrogene moxeparvovec (SRP-9001) gene therapy in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States.

Background: Delandistrogene moxeparvovec (SRP-9001) is an investigational gene therapy that may delay progression of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a severe, rare neuromuscular disease caused by DMD gene mutations. Early cost-effectiveness analyses are important to help contextualize the value of gene therapies for reimbursement decision making. Objective: To determine the potential value of delandistrogene moxeparvovec using a cost-effectiveness analysis. Study design: A simulation calculated lifetime costs and equal value of life years gained (evLYG). Inputs included extrapolated clinical trial results and published utilities/costs. As a market price for delandistrogene moxeparvovec has not been established, threshold analyses established maximum treatment costs as they align with value, including varying willingness-to-pay up to $500,000, accounting for severity/rarity. Setting: USA, healthcare system perspective Patients: Boys with DMD Intervention: Delandistrogene moxeparvovec plus standard of care (SoC; corticosteroids) versus SoC alone Main outcome measure: Maximum treatment costs at a given willingness-to-pay threshold Results: Delandistrogene moxeparvovec added 10.30 discounted (26.40 undiscounted) evLYs. The maximum treatment cost was approximately $5 M, assuming $500,000/evLYG. Varying the benefit discount rate to account for the single administration increased the estimated value to #$5M, assuming $500,000/evLYG. Conclusion: In this early economic model, delandistrogene moxeparvovec increases evLYs versus SoC and begins to inform its potential value from a healthcare perspective.

Assessing the impact of single or short-term administration on a therapy's cost-effectiveness: a hypothetical disease-agnostic model.

AIMS: Assessing the value of single or short-term therapies (SSTs) within traditional cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) has been a topic of discussion as the number of SSTs increases, particularly regarding the effect of discounting on valuation. To quantify the impact of discounting in economic evaluations, a CEA of a hypothetical SST and equivalent chronic therapy was conducted using standard methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed for a hypothetical chronic, progressive disease that could be treated with an SST, chronic therapy, or no novel treatment, termed standard of care (SoC). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) comparing SST vs. SoC and an equivalent chronic therapy vs. SoC were assessed from a payer perspective. Both treatments had equal benefits and undiscounted lifetime costs; 3% discounting was applied to costs/benefits in the base case, and the impact of discounting was assessed. RESULTS: In the base case example, both the SST and equivalent chronic therapy vs. SoC had ICERs of $86,000/QALY without discounting. With 3% discounting, the ICER for the SST increased by 116% ($186,000/QALY) while the ICER for the chronic therapy increased by 10% ($95,000/QALY) despite equal clinical benefit. In scenario analyses, the ICER of the SST was consistently higher than the equivalent chronic therapy across a range of assumptions/inputs. Varying the cost/benefit discount rates had a greater impact on the SST. Differences in the ICERs between the therapies increased with increasing life expectancy/time horizon. LIMITATIONS: The simple model structure may not be reflective of acute or more complex diseases. Also, the scenario of perfect equivalency in efficacy and lifetime costs is hypothetical. CONCLUSIONS: This quantitative assessment showed the extent to which SST CEAs are highly sensitive to discounting, resulting in worse value assessments for SSTs than equivalent chronic therapies.

Commercial health plans use of patient subgroup restrictions: An analysis of orphan and US Food and Drug Administration-expedited programs.

BACKGROUND: Health plans apply utilization management criteria to guide their enrollees' access to prescription drugs. Patient subgroup restrictions (ie, clinical prerequisites for drug coverage) are a form of utilization management that have not been thoroughly investigated. OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency with which large US commercial health plans impose patient subgroup restrictions beyond the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label in their coverage policies for orphan drugs and for drugs included in 1 or more FDA-expedited programs. To determine how consistently these patient subgroup restrictions align with eligibility criteria specified in each drug's pivotal clinical trial(s). METHODS: The Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage (SPEC) database was used, which includes coverage policies issued by 17 large US commercial health plans. SPEC contained 3,786 orphan drug policies and 4,027 FDA-expedited drug policies (current as of December 2020). SPEC data on plans' patient subgroup restrictions were assessed for the first objective. Each patient subgroup restriction was benchmarked against the corresponding eligibility criteria for a drug's pivotal clinical trial(s) for the second objective. To do so, the "Clinical Studies" section of the drug's FDA label was reviewed or, if necessary, the published manuscript describing the drug's pivotal trial(s). Patient subgroup restrictions were categorized as follows: (1) "consistent," the restriction and trial eligibility criterion are equivalent; (2) "same measure, more stringent," the restriction and trial eligibility criteria depend on the same measure, but the plan coverage is more restrictive; (3) "same measure, less stringent," the restriction and trial eligibility criteria depend on the same measure, but the plan coverage is less restrictive; and (4) "not consistent," the restriction and trial eligibility criteria depend on different measures. RESULTS: Health plans imposed patient subgroup restrictions in 20.2% of orphan drug policies (frequency varied by health plan, 11.7%-36.6%), and in 21.8% of FDA-expedited drug policies (frequency varied by health plan, 11.1%-47.9%). Of the 936 patient subgroup restrictions in orphan drug policies, 60.3% were categorized as consistent; 7.3% as same measure, more stringent; 12.0% as same measure, less stringent; and 20.5% as not consistent. Of the 1,070 patient subgroup restrictions in FDA-expedited drug policies, 57.5% were categorized as consistent; 6.7% as same measure, more stringent; 16.0% as same measure, less stringent; and 19.8% as not consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Patient subgroup restrictions for orphan drugs and FDA-expedited programs varied substantially across health plans, potentially resulting in inconsistent access to a given therapy across the approved patient population. Patient subgroup restrictions tend to be consistent with eligibility criteria specified in pivotal clinical trials. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. Alexa C Klimchak and Lauren E Sedita are employees of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., and may own stock/options in the company.

Characterizing the Occurrence of Key Clinical Milestones in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in the United States Using Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Data on the clinical course of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) exist from well-characterized clinical cohorts but estimates from real-world populations are fewer. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to estimate the prevalence of key clinical milestones by age, among real-world commercially-insured DMD patients in the United States. METHODS: MarketScan claims (2013-2018) were used to identify males with DMD. The percentages with wheelchair use or experiencing scoliosis, neurologic/neuropsychiatric involvement, cardiomyopathy, and respiratory involvement were tabulated; as were the median (interquartile range [IQR]) ages at first observed occurrence within the claims data. RESULTS: Among DMD patients (n = 1,964), the median (IQR) baseline age was 15 (9-21) years, and median follow-up was 1.7 years. Wheelchair use was observed in 55% of those aged 8 to 13 years at cohort entry; scoliosis, among 38% of those 8 to 10 and 52% of those 11 to 13 years; neurologic/neuropsychiatric involvement, among 41-43% of those 8 to 13 years; respiratory involvement, among 45% of those 14 to 19 years; and cardiomyopathy, among 68% of those 14 to 16 and 58% of those 17 to 19 years. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of key clinical milestones across ages was broadly consistent with published findings. Variability in estimates reflect clinical heterogeneity; these contemporary estimates from real-world data help characterize clinical outcomes in DMD.

Characterizing demographics, comorbidities, and costs of care among populations with Duchenne muscular dystrophy with Medicaid and commercial coverage.

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a severe X-linked progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by loss of ambulation, cardiomyopathy, respiratory insufficiency, and early mortality. Few data are available that describe the direct medical costs among patients with DMD in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the demographics, comorbidity burden, and direct monthly costs of care among patients with DMD with Medicaid and with commercial insurance coverage. METHODS: IBM MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid claims (2013-2018) were used to identify males aged 30 years or under with diagnostic codes for muscular dystrophy or DMD; additional exclusion criteria were applied to identify those with probable DMD. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were tabulated. The frequency of health care resource use and median (interquartile range [IQR]) monthly costs (in 2018 USD) were estimated from those with at least 12 months of continuous follow-up. RESULTS: Median (IQR) baseline ages were similar between the Medicaid (14 [9-20] years; n = 2,007) and commercial (15 [9-21] years; n = 1,964) DMD cohorts. The frequency of comorbidities over the period was slightly higher with those on Medicaid. The median duration of follow-up was 3.1 years among members of the Medicaid DMD cohort and 1.7 years among the commercial DMD cohort. Median monthly resource use was generally higher among the Medicaid DMD cohort; nonetheless, median (IQR) monthly costs were similar at $1,735 ($367-$5,281) for the Medicaid DMD cohort vs $1,883 ($657-$6,796) for the commercial DMD cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The demographic characteristics and median direct medical costs were similar between patients with commercial vs Medicaid coverage, even though patients with Medicaid coverage had higher resource use. Despite challenges in definitively identifying DMD patients using claims data, these findings help characterize contemporary DMD populations in the United States and the related direct economic burden to the payer. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. Klimchak and Gooch are employees of Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. Szabo, Qian, and Popoff are employees of Broadstreet HEOR, which received funds from Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., for work on this study. Iannaccone has received research funding or consulting fees from Avexis, Biogen, Fibrogen, Mallinkrodt, Regeneron, Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Scholar Rock, PTC Therapeutics, Pfizer, MDA, CureSMA, NIH, Genentech-Roche, and BCBS. Publication of the study results was not contingent on the sponsor's approval or censorship of the manuscript. Information from this study was presented, in part, at the AMCP Virtual Annual Meeting, April 21-24, 2020.

Erratum to 'Lipid Treatment and Goal Attainment Characteristics among Persons with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the United States' [American Journal of Preventive Cardiology 1C (2020) 100010].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpc.2020.100010.].

Lipid treatment and goal attainment characteristics among persons with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: National estimates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in the United States (US) are scarce, especially for patients grouped by cardiovascular risk, lipid-lowering therapy use, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The objective of this study was to estimate the size of the ASCVD population, including the subgroup at very high risk for recurrent events as defined by the 2018 Multi-Society Cholesterol Guidelines. METHODS: Patient-level data from the Truven MarketScan Research Database were used and extrapolated to approximate national figures based on known national demographic and ASCVD prevalence numbers. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including LDL-C levels and lipid-lowering therapy use, were captured. RESULTS: The extrapolated prevalence of ASCVD in 2014 was 18.3 million, of whom 690,524 had an acute coronary syndrome event in the past year. An estimated 41.4% of patients with ASCVD had diabetes, 44.9% had polyvascular disease, and 23.8% had multiple cardiovascular events. A third of those with ASCVD were estimated to be at very high risk for subsequent events per the 2018 Multi-Society Cholesterol Guidelines. Of those with ASCVD, 74.2% were estimated to have an LDL-C level of ≥70 â€‹md/dL, and more than half of these patients were neither on statins nor ezetimibe. Only 9.2% of patients with ASCVD and LDL-C ≥70 â€‹mg/dL were on a high-intensity statin. CONCLUSIONS: The underutilization of lipid-lowering therapies in general, and in particular the relatively low usage of high-intensity statins among patients with uncontrolled LDL-C (including those at very high risk), suggests that eligible patients for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor therapy may not be as numerous as previously estimated.

Simulation of impact on cardiovascular events due to lipid-lowering therapy intensification in a population with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), guidelines recommend statins as first-line lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) with addition of nonstatin agents in those with persistently elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. METHODS: To estimate the cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction implications of treatment intensification, we used a previously reported simulation model with enhancements. An ASCVD cohort was developed from a US claims database. A Cox model was used to estimate baseline risk of CV events: myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, unstable angina hospitalization, elective coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death. Patients were sampled with replacement (bootstrapping) and entered the simulation model, which applied stepwise LLT intensification logic, with a goal of achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL at each step. CV risk reduction assumptions were based on published data. Two treatment intensification scenarios were investigated: ideal and real-world (which accounted for statin intolerance, nonadherence, and payer restrictions). RESULTS: In a cohort of 1,000 patients with ASCVD, approximately 813 (809-818) would require treatment intensification with LLT under an ideal treatment intensification scenario. Before treatment intensification, 183 (179-187) events would be expected to occur over 5 years. With treatment intensification, 40 (34-45) of these events could be avoided. In a real-world scenario, about 818 (813-823) patients require treatment intensification with LLT, resulting in 29 (24-34) events avoided over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Intensification of LLT in an ASCVD population translates into a substantial number of CV events avoided. This simulation-based model could assist in assessing the potential benefits of various types of population-level LLT interventions.

Simulation of the Impact of Statin Intolerance on the Need for Ezetimibe and/or Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 Inhibitor for Meeting Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goals in a Population With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

In a population with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, previous research indicated that approximately 86% can achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of <70 mg/dL with oral lipid-lowering therapies (LLT) only, whereas 14% would require a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor. We aim to estimate these values accounting for varying levels of statin intolerance. A simulation model described previously was used to estimate the utilization of LLT needed to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL via an intensification algorithm which maximized statins before adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. The current analysis took into account varying background rates of statin intolerance. We defined statin intolerance as either partial (inability to tolerate high-intensity statin) or full (inability to tolerate any statin). With treatment intensification and 10% of patients having partial statin intolerance, the use of ezetimibe (± statin ± PCSK9 inhibitor) increased from 32.7% to 34.9%, and the need for a PCSK9 inhibitor (+ ezetimibe ± statin) increased from 14.0% to 15.5%. If, instead, 10% were fully statin intolerant, the use of ezetimibe (± statin ± PCSK9 inhibitor) increased from 32.7% to 38.5%, and the use of a PCSK9 inhibitor (+ ezetimibe ± statin) increased from 14.0% to 19.7%. In conclusion, in our simulation-based study, partial statin intolerance increased the need for nonstatins only modestly (by an absolute 2.2%), whereas having 10% of patients with full statin intolerance increased the need for PCSK9 inhibitors from 14% overall to approximately 20%.

Simulation of Lipid-Lowering Therapy Intensification in a Population With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Importance: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), guidelines recommend optimizing statin treatment, and consensus pathways suggest use of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in patients with persistently elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite use of statins. Recent trials have provided evidence of benefit in reduction of cardiovascular events with these agents. Objective: To estimate the percentage of patients with ASCVD who would require a PCSK9 inhibitor when oral lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is intensified first. Design, Setting, and Participants: This simulation model study used a large administrative database of US medical and pharmacy claims to identify a cohort of 105 269 patients with ASCVD enrolled from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013, who met the inclusion criteria (database cohort). Patients were sampled with replacement (bootstrapping) to match the US epidemiologic distribution and entered into a Monte Carlo simulation (simulation cohort) that applied stepwise treatment intensification algorithms in those with LDL-C levels of at least 70 mg/dL. All patients not initially receiving a statin were given atorvastatin, 20 mg, and the following LLT intensification steps were applied: uptitration to atorvastatin, 80 mg; add-on ezetimibe therapy; add-on alirocumab therapy, 75 mg (a PCSK9 inhibitor); and uptitration to alirocumab, 150 mg. Sensitivity analyses included evolocumab as a PCSK9 inhibitor. Efficacy was estimated from published studies and incorporated patient-level variation. Data were analyzed from December 2015 to May 2017. Exposures: Treatment intensification strategies with LLT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of LLT among the population with ASCVD and distributions of LDL-C levels under various treatment intensification scenarios. Results: Inclusion criteria were met by 105 269 individuals in the database cohort (57.2% male and 42.8% female; mean [SD] age, 65.1 [12.1] years). In the simulation cohort (1 million patients; 54.8% male and 45.2% female; mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.2] years), before treatment intensification, 51.5% used statin monotherapy and 1.7% used statins plus ezetimibe. Only 25.2% achieved an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL. After treatment intensification, 99.3% could achieve an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL, including 67.3% with statin monotherapy, 18.7% with statins plus ezetimibe, and 14% with add-on PCSK9 inhibitor. Conclusions and Relevance: Large gaps exist between recommendations and current practice regarding LLT in the population with ASCVD. In our model that assumes no LLT intolerance and full adherence, intensification of oral LLT could achieve an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL in most patients, with only a modest percentage requiring a PCSK9 inhibitor.