Hemoglobin and End-Organ Damage in Individuals with Sickle Cell Disease.

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited, chronic, multifaceted blood disorder. Patients with SCD develop anemia, which has been associated with end-organ damage (EOD). Objectives: This retrospective, observational, repeated-measures study systematically characterizes the relationship between hemoglobin (Hb) level and EOD in adolescent and adult patients with SCD. Methods: The study population comprised patients with SCD aged ≥12 years with available Hb data from a US provider-centric health care database. For each patient, each Hb value over time was included as a separate observation. Study outcomes-the onset of any new EOD, including chronic kidney disease, pulmonary hypertension, stroke, and leg ulcer-were ascertained during the 1-year period after each Hb assessment. The association between Hb levels and risk of new EOD was estimated using multivariable generalized estimating equations. Results: A total of 16,043 unique patients with SCD contributed 44,913 observations. Adjusted odds of any EOD during the 1-year follow-up were significantly lower with higher Hb level. Risk reductions with higher Hb levels for chronic kidney disease, pulmonary hypertension, and leg ulcer were comparable. The risk of new EOD was significantly lower among adolescent and adult patients with higher Hb levels. Conclusions: In patients with SCD, higher Hb levels are associated with a reduced risk of developing EOD. Therapeutic strategies that result in higher Hb levels may offer clinical and economic value for patients with SCD. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2023; 84:XXX-XXX).

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Ribociclib Plus Fulvestrant versus Palbociclib Plus Letrozole as First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus endocrine therapy are recommended for first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, not all CDK4/6i trials have reported significant overall survival (OS) benefit, and there have been no head-to-head trials. Two trials have reported OS outcomes in first-line patients: MONALEESA-3 reported significant OS benefit with first- or second-line ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB+FUL) versus placebo plus fulvestrant (PBO+FUL), while PALOMA-1 reported no significant OS benefit for palbociclib plus letrozole (PAL+LET) versus LET in first-line postmenopausal patients. Matched-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) are an established method for comparing efficacy of treatments from different trials. We used an MAIC to compare first-line patients from MONALEESA-3 and PALOMA-1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An unanchored MAIC of progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in first-line patients with HR+/HER2- ABC treated with RIB+FUL versus PAL+LET was conducted using individual patient data from MONALEESA-3 and aggregated data from PALOMA-1. To match patients in PALOMA-1, patients in MONALEESA-3 were limited to those with no prior endocrine therapy for ABC and no (neo) adjuvant LET ≤12 months before enrollment. PFS and OS were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 329 and 178 patients from RIB+FUL and PBO+FUL arms, respectively, of MONALEESA-3 were matched to 84 and 81 patients from PAL+LET and LET arms of PALOMA-1. After weighting, OS was significantly longer for RIB+FUL versus PAL+LET (hazard ratio [HR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.77; p = 0.0020). PFS favored RIB+FUL versus PAL+LET, although the difference was not statistically significant (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.54-1.10; p = 0.1553). CONCLUSION: Using MAIC to adjust for trial differences, OS comparisons favored RIB+FUL over PAL+LET as first-line treatment in postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. These exploratory results suggest a significant increase in OS benefit with RIB treatment compared with PAL.

Attributable Cost of Adult Hospitalized Pneumonia Beyond the Acute Phase.

BACKGROUND: While much is known about the cost of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) during the acute phase of illness, little is known about the potential attributable cost of CAP thereafter. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess long-term attributable costs associated with CAP among adults in US clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective matched cohort design and data from a US private healthcare claims repository were employed. In each month during the study period (2011-2016), adults who were hospitalized for CAP in that month ('CAP patients') were matched (1:1, without replacement) on demographic, clinical, and healthcare profiles to adults who did not develop CAP in that month ('comparison patients'). All-cause healthcare expenditures were tallied for the qualifying CAP hospitalization and during the 30-day period post-discharge (collectively, 'acute phase'), as well as from the end of the acute phase to the end of the 3-year follow-up period ('long-term phase'). RESULTS: The study population included 43,975 matched pairs of CAP patients and comparison patients. Expenditures averaged $33,380 (95% confidence interval [CI] $32,665-$34,161) for the CAP hospitalization and $4568 (95% CI $4385-$4749) during the 30-day period thereafter (vs. $2075 [95% CI $1989-$2167] in total for the comparison patients). During the long-term phase, all-cause expenditures averaged $83,463 (95% CI $81,318-$85,784) for CAP patients versus $51,017 (95% CI $49,553-$52,491) for comparison patients, and thus attributable expenditures during this phase totaled $32,446 (95% CI $29,847-$35,075). The majority of attributable CAP expenditures (53% of $68,319) occurred during the acute phase, while 21%, 14%, and 12% occurred during the first, second, and third years, respectively, after the acute phase. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide additional evidence that the cost of CAP requiring hospitalization is high, and that the impact of CAP extends well beyond the expected time for resolution of acute inflammatory signs.

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective.Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually.Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%.Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Valsartan versus lisinopril or extended-release metoprolol in preventing cardiovascular and renal events in patients with hypertension.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare cardiovascular and renal events in patients with hypertension receiving the angiotensin II-receptor blocker valsartan versus those receiving the angiotensin-converting-enzyme lisinopril or the beta-blocker metoprolol succinate in an extended-release formulation. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using a health insurance claims database spanning the period from January 1997 through December 2003 and representing approximately 40 million members enrolled in over 70 health plans across the United States. Study subjects included all persons in the database with two or more outpatient prescriptions for valsartan, lisinopril, or extended-release metoprolol and two or more prior claims with a diagnosis of hypertension. Those with a history of major cardiovascular or renal events (diagnosis of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias, or cardiac arrest; coronary revascularization procedure; diagnosis of renal failure; or dialysis or kidney transplantation) or using other antihypertensive medications except diuretics during the 12 months before treatment with valsartan, lisinopril, or extended-release metoprolol were excluded. Risks of major cardiovascular or renal event during follow-up were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 29,357 antihypertensive patients were identified who initiated therapy with valsartan (n = 6,645), lisinopril (n = 17,320), or extended-release metoprolol (n = 5,392). In multivariate analyses, therapy with valsartan was associated with a significantly lower risk of a major cardiovascular or renal event versus extended-release metoprolol (heart rate [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.87; p = 0.0015). Patients receiving valsartan had a nominally lower risk of a major cardiovascular or renal event than those receiving lisinopril, although this difference was not statistically significant (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.07; p = 0.1987). CONCLUSION: Results of this observational study suggest that the use of valsartan may reduce the risk of major cardiovascular and renal events compared with extended-release metoprolol.