A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

Nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma: a propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison and number needed to treat analysis for recurrence-free survival and overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data for adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo (proxy for routine surveillance) in patients with high-risk, resected melanoma are lacking. This post hoc, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used pooled data from the phase 3 EORTC 18,071 (ipilimumab vs. placebo) and CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs. ipilimumab) trials to assess RFS and OS with nivolumab versus placebo and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) over 4 years. METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition) were included. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. RFS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and placebo. OS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus placebo. To adjust for different post-recurrence treatments, the difference in post-recurrence survival between the two ipilimumab arms was added to OS of the placebo arm. RESULTS: This ITC included 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and placebo, respectively. Following IPTW, nivolumab was associated with improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61) and ipilimumab (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85). RFS NNT was 4.2 for nivolumab versus placebo and 8.9 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab. After post-recurrence survival adjustment, weighted 4-year OS rates were 75.8% for nivolumab and 64.1% for placebo; OS NNT for nivolumab versus placebo was 8.5. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma in this ITC, nivolumab improved RFS versus placebo and ipilimumab, and OS versus placebo after post-recurrence survival adjustment.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

Immunotherapy combinations are now accepted as safe and effective first-line treatment options for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This study used patient data from the CheckMate 214 clinical trial to evaluate the temporal trends and costs related to grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) among patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. We found that the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time and that patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower AE costs compared with those treated with sunitinib (at 42 months: US$19,096 vs US$27,473 per patient). As such, nivolumab plus ipilimumab may represent a treatment option that may reduce both the clinical and economic burden among patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Upadacitinib Versus Tofacitinib in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Upadacitinib and tofacitinib are Janus kinase inhibitors approved for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing their effectiveness, this study assessed the efficacy of upadacitinib 15 mg once-daily monotherapy/combination therapy against tofacitinib 5 mg twice-daily combination therapy among patients with RA using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). METHODS: The first of two MAICs used individual patient data (IPD) from the 14-week SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trial (upadacitinib [n = 217] vs. methotrexate [n = 216]) and published data from the ORAL Standard trial (tofacitinib + methotrexate [n = 204] vs. methotrexate [n = 108]). The second MAIC used IPD from the 26-week SELECT-COMPARE trial (upadacitinib + methotrexate [n = 647] vs. adalimumab + methotrexate [n = 324]) and published data from ORAL Strategy (tofacitinib + methotrexate [n = 376] vs. adalimumab + methotrexate [n = 386]). Data from patients in the upadacitinib trials were re-weighted based on age, sex, race, swollen joint count 66/28, tender joint count 68/28, C-reactive protein (CRP), and patients' global assessments to match the patient characteristics in tofacitinib trials. After matching, ACR20/50/70 and clinical remission (SDAI[CRP] ≤ 3.3, CDAI ≤ 2.8, DAS28-ESR/CRP < 2.6) were compared for upadacitinib vs. tofacitinib + methotrexate at month 3 and upadacitinib + methotrexate vs. tofacitinib + methotrexate at months 3 and 6 using Wald tests. RESULTS: At month 3, upadacitinib monotherapy patients experienced significantly larger improvement in ACR70 compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate (mean difference in difference [DID]: 9.9%; p = 0.019), while upadacitinib + methotrexate was associated with higher ACR50 compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate (DID: 12.9%; p = 0.011). At month 6, upadacitinib + methotrexate patients experienced significantly larger improvement in SDAI/CDAI/DAS28-ESR clinical remission compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate, with DIDs of 9.1% (p = 0.011), 7.5% (p = 0.038), and 11.3% (p = 0.002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to tofacitinib combination therapy, treatment with upadacitinib monotherapy and combination therapy were associated with improved outcomes at 3/6 months (monotherapy: ACR70; combination: ACR50, SDAI, CDAI, and DAS28-ESR remission).

US cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin, bendamustine and rituximab in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin (pola) + bendamustine + rituximab (BR) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma based on the GO29365 trial from a US payer's perspective. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model used progression-free survival and overall survival data from the GO29365 trial. The base case analysis assumed overall survival was informed by progression-free survival; a mixture cure model estimated proportion of long-term survivors. Results: In the base case, pola + BR was cost-effective versus BR at US$35,864 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses showed that the findings were robust. Conclusion: Pola + BR is cost-effective versus BR for the treatment of transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the US.

Comparative Efficacy of JAK Inhibitors for Moderate-To-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a class of targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with established clinical efficacy. However, little is known about their efficacy compared with each other. This network meta-analysis (NMA) estimated the comparative efficacy of JAK inhibitors currently approved for RA. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of three approved JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib) as monotherapy or combination therapy among patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR). Using Bayesian NMA, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses and clinical remission (defined as DAS28-CRP < 2.6) were evaluated separately at 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs were identified and included in the NMA. All JAK inhibitors demonstrated significantly better efficacy than csDMARD. Among combination therapies, upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest 12-week ACR50 responses (median [95% credible interval]: 43.4% [33.4%, 54.5%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (38.7% [28.6%, 49.8%]), baricitinib 2 mg (37.1% [25.0%, 50.6%]), and baricitinib 4 mg (36.7%, [27.2%, 47.0%]). Similar results were observed for ACR20/70 and at week 24. Upadacitinib 15 mg + csDMARD was also found to have the highest clinical remission rates at week 12 (29.8% [16.9%, 47.0%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (24.3%, [12.7%, 40.2%]), baricitinib 4 mg (22.8%, [11.8%, 37.5%]), and baricitinib 2 mg (20.1%, [8.6%, 37.4%]). Similar results were seen at week 24. Among monotherapies, upadacitinib had a higher ACR50 response (38.5% [25.3%, 53.2%]) than tofacitinib (30.4% [18.3%, 45.5%]). The differences in efficacy measures were not statistically significant between the JAK inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: The NMA found that upadacitinib 15 mg once daily had numerically higher efficacy in terms of ACR response and clinical remission among approved JAK combination therapies and monotherapies for csDMARD-IR patients with RA.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Nivolumab Versus Observation or Ipilimumab as Adjuvant Therapy in Resected Melanoma Using Pooled Clinical Trial Data.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab has been approved in patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection, in the adjuvant setting. A pivotal trial compared nivolumab with ipilimumab; however, no head-to-head trial exists comparing nivolumab to observation, a common comparator in the adjuvant setting. Here, we compared the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nivolumab with observation or ipilimumab as adjuvant therapies in resected stage IIIB/C melanoma. METHODS: Patient data were pooled from the EORTC 18071 and CheckMate 238 trials using propensity score weighting and adjusting for cross-trial differences. Number needed to treat (NNT) and costs per recurrence-free life-month (RFLM) at 12, 16, 18, and 24 months (as data allowed) were estimated. Costs included drug acquisition, administration costs, and direct medical costs. Sensitivity analyses including patients with stage IIIB/C and resected stage IV melanoma were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 1287 patients (278 nivolumab, 365 observation, and 644 ipilimumab) with resected stage IIIB/C melanoma were pooled. NNTs to achieve one additional recurrence-free survivor with nivolumab versus observation were 3.93 at 12 months and 3.42 at 24 months; NNTs for nivolumab versus ipilimumab were 7.97 at 12 months and 6.43 at 24 months. Mean drug costs per RFLM were lower for nivolumab at 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively (nivolumab: $13,447, $9462, and $7370; ipilimumab: $52,734, $40,484, and $33,875). Mean medical costs per RFLM were the lowest for nivolumab versus observation or ipilimumab at 12 months ($449 versus $674 or $1531) and 16 months ($383 versus $808 or $1316). The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the base case. CONCLUSION: For resected melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab is both clinically effective and cost-effective compared with observation or ipilimumab. Adjuvant nivolumab was associated with a lower drug cost per RFLM compared with ipilimumab, and a lower medical cost compared with observation. Future analyses incorporating long-term follow-up data may help increase understanding of the economic impact of nivolumab in the adjuvant setting. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

First-line treatment disruption among post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer: a retrospective US claims study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed disruption of first-line treatments initiated after the approval of the first CDK 4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, among post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in the US. METHODS: Post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC who initiated first-line endocrine therapy or chemotherapy (index therapy) between February 3, 2015 (palbociclib approval date) and February 29, 2016 (end of data) were identified from the Symphony Source Lx database. Patients were required to have continuous quarterly activity (defined as ≥1 pharmacy or medical claim) for 12 months prior to and 1 month after the initiation of the index therapy (index date). Treatment disruption was defined as a treatment gap of ≥60 days or adding an agent after the original therapy. Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted to estimate treatment disruption rates during the 6 months following the index date. Patients without treatment disruption were censored at the end of continuous quarterly activity or end of data. RESULTS: A total of 8,160 and 2,153 eligible patients initiated endocrine therapy or chemotherapy as their first-line mBC treatment, with a median follow-up of 6.7 and 7.6 months, respectively. The three most prevalent metastatic sites were bone (28.1-42.2%), liver (8.8-17.3%), and lung (8.6-9.5%). Overall, 37.7% (n = 3,074) of patients receiving endocrine therapy and 86.1% (n = 1,852) of patients receiving chemotherapy encountered treatment disruption at 6 months (log-rank test p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment disruption rates of first-line therapies were sub-optimal among post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC, primarily driven by chemotherapy users. New therapies or interventions are needed to reduce treatment disruption in this patient population.

Real-world palbociclib dosing patterns and implications for drug costs in the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study described real-world palbociclib dosing patterns and associated impacts on treatment costs for HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in the US. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC who initiated palbociclib-based therapy (initiation date = index date) between 02/03/2015 (palbociclib approval) and 02/29/2016, and continuous quarterly activity 1 year before and 6 months after the index date, were identified in the Symphony Health Solutions database. Rates of 1) dose reduction (≥25 mg dose decrease/daily), and 2) reduction or interruption (>60 day gap in continuous drug supply) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Drug wastage cost was estimated based on overlapping days between two prescription fills: the last original dose fill and the first reduced dose fill. RESULTS: 1,242 patients initiated palbociclib-based therapy (mean age = 62.7 years, median follow-up = 8.7 months). During the 12-month post-index period, across the first four lines, dose reduction rates were 31.9-33.7% and dose reduction/interruption rates were 63.5-80.9%. A total of 411 (33.1%) patients changed dose, among whom 128 (31.1%) experienced prescription fill overlap (average = 11.1 days). Mean potential drug wastage cost among patients with fill overlap was $5,471. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients receiving palbociclib experienced dose reduction or interruption early in treatment; the associated drug wastage may lead to considerable costs.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 vs two recombinant factor VIII for the prophylactic treatment of severe hemophilia A.

BACKGROUND: No head-to-head trials comparing recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) products currently exist. This was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) study of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 with antihemophilic factor (recombinant) plasma/albumin-free method (rAHF-PFM) and turoctocog alfa for the prophylaxis of severe hemophilia A. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials of rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa. Comparisons were conducted using BAY 81-8973 individual patient data (IPD) from LEOPOLD trials and published data from rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa trials. Differences in outcome reporting were reconciled using transformation of BAY 81-8973 IPD. Patients in pooled LEOPOLD trials were weighted to match baseline characteristics for rAHF-PFM or turoctocog alfa trials using MAICs. After matching, annualized bleed rates (ABRs) were compared using weighted t-tests. RESULTS: Two rAHF-PFM trials and one turoctocog alfa trial were identified. In these trials, rFVIIIs were dosed thrice weekly or every other day; in LEOPOLD trials, BAY 81-8973 was dosed twice- or thrice weekly. Three MAICs were conducted because the two rAHF-PFM trials calculated ABRs differently, matching for age, race, and weight (turoctocog alfa only). BAY 81-8973 had similar ABR of all bleeds vs rAHF-PFM (two trials: 4.8 vs 6.3, 1.9 vs 1.8 [square root transform]) and lower ABR of spontaneous bleeds and trauma bleeds (2.6 vs 4.1, 2.1 vs 4.7; both P<0.05). BAY 81-8973 showed lower ABR of all bleeds and spontaneous bleeds vs turoctocog alfa (4.3 vs 6.5, 2.8 vs 4.3; both P<0.05) and similar ABR of trauma bleeds (1.5 vs 1.6). In subgroup analysis, twice-weekly BAY 81-8973 had similar ABRs of all bleeds, spontaneous bleeds, and trauma bleeds compared to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa. CONCLUSION: This indirect comparison found that prophylaxis with BAY 81-8973, even including the lower frequency of two times a week and lower factor VIII consumption, has efficacy comparable to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa, which were dosed thrice weekly or every other day. The use of IPD enabled adjustments for differences in calculation of ABRs and population characteristics between trials.

Cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder that impairs the quality of life for patients and their families and is associated with considerable direct and indirect costs. Pharmacotherapies for ADHD, including stimulants and non-stimulants, are often used to treat patients with ADHD. However, the costs, effectiveness and adverse effects of these agents vary. Therefore, information regarding the cost effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments is needed to better inform payers in the allocation of limited resources. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to conduct a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of pharmacotherapies for ADHD treatments and to assess the cost effectiveness of different interventions based on the existing studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of pharmacotherapies for ADHD was conducted in MEDLINE, the National Health Services (NHS) Economic Evaluation database and EMBASE. For inclusion in this review, studies had to compare two or more ADHD interventions with at least one pharmacotherapy, assess both costs and outcomes, and be conducted between 1990 and 2011 in North America, Europe, Australia or New Zealand. Studies were excluded if they were not original research, were presented only as conference proceedings or abstracts or did not report costs associated with specific interventions. The study quality was assessed using the British Medical Journal (BMJ) health economics checklist. The literature search, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one author and independently checked for accuracy by a second author. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and referring to the original article. If necessary, a third reviewer was consulted. RESULTS: The initial search returned 93 citations from MEDLINE, 10 from the NHS Economic Evaluation database and 377 from EMBASE. Thirteen papers met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the review. Based on the BMJ checklist, all these studies were considered to be of sufficient quality to be included in the literature review, but they varied substantially in target population, methodology and effectiveness measures. Identified pharmacotherapies were cost effective compared with no treatment, placebo, behavioural therapy or community care among children and adolescents with ADHD. Studies comparing non-stimulants with stimulants and amfetamine with methylphenidate stimulants showed inconsistent findings. A limited number of studies indicated that methylphenidate Osmotic-controlled Release Oral delivery System (OROS) was cost effective compared with short-acting methylphenidate. There were no published studies on the cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in the adult ADHD population, comparing stimulants, non-stimulants or adjuvant therapy. There is limited evidence on the long-term cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Among children and adolescents with ADHD, there was consistent evidence that pharmacotherapies are cost effective compared with no treatment or behavioural therapy. Adequate data are lacking to draw conclusions regarding the relative cost effectiveness of different pharmacological agents. More economic evaluations with standardized methods, such as effectiveness measures and cost components, are warranted. To better inform payers about the economic value of existing medications, future studies should also consider identifying subgroups that may have heterogeneous responses to different treatments, including analyses of recently approved treatments (e.g. lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine extended-release and clonidine extended-release) and expanding the time horizon to incorporate long-term outcomes.