Projected Impact of Omidubicel-onlv on Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (Allo-HCT) Outcomes in Hematologic Malignancies.

INTRODUCTION: In a phase III clinical trial (NCT02730299), omidubicel-onlv, a nicotinamide-modified allogeneic hematopoietic progenitor cell therapy, showed rapid hematopoietic and immune recovery compared with standard umbilical cord blood (UCB) transplant across all racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: A decision-tree model was used to project the effect of omidubicel-onlv availability on addressing health disparities in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) access and outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancies. The model used a hypothetical population of 10,000 allo-HCT-eligible US adults, for whom matched related donors were not available. Patients received matched or mismatched unrelated donor, haploidentical, UCB transplant, or no transplant. Scenarios with omidubicel-onlv use of 0% (status quo), 10%, 15%, 20%, and 30% were modeled on the basis of proportional reductions in other allo-HCT sources or no transplant by racial/ethnic group. RESULTS: Increased omidubicel-onlv use was associated with a higher proportion of patients undergoing allo-HCT, decreased time to allo-HCT, decreased 1-year non-relapse mortality, and increased 1-year overall survival, particularly among racial minorities. In the scenario modeling 20% omidubicel-onlv use, the proportion of Black patients receiving allo-HCT increased by 129%; increases were also observed in Asian (64%), Hispanic (45%), and other (42%) patient groups. Modeled time to allo-HCT improved among transplanted patients (23%) from 11.4 weeks to 8.8 weeks. One-year OS in the overall population increased by 3%, with improvements ranging from 3% for White patients to 5% for Black patients. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that broad access to omidubicel-onlv could increase access to allo-HCT and improve outcomes for patients, with the greatest benefits seen among racial/ethnic minority groups.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of semaglutide 2.4 mg for the treatment of adult patients with overweight and obesity in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence and associated public health burden of obesity has led to advancements in pharmaceuticals for weight management. Semaglutide 2.4 mg, an anti-obesity medication (AOM) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has demonstrated clinically relevant weight loss in its phase 3 clinical trials. Economic evaluation comparing semaglutide 2.4 mg with other available weight management therapies is essential to inform payers for decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 2.4 mg in the treatment of adult patients with obesity (ie, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30) and adult patients who are overweight (ie, BMI 27-29.9) with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort Markov model was constructed to compare semaglutide 2.4 mg with the following comparators: no treatment, diet and exercise (D&E), and 3 branded AOMs (liraglutide 3 mg, phentermine-topiramate, and naltrexone-bupropion). All AOMs, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, were assumed to be taken in conjunction with D&E. Changes in BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol level, experience of acute and chronic obesity-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were simulated over 30 years based on pivotal trials of the AOMs and other relevant literature. Drug and health care prices reflect 2021 standardized values. Cost-effectiveness was examined with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to plausible variation in model inputs. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to improve QALYs by 0.138 to 0.925 and incur higher costs by $3,254 to $25,086 over the 30-year time horizon vs comparators. Semaglutide 2.4 mg is cost-effective against all comparators at the prespecified WTP threshold, with the incremental cost per QALY gained ranging from $23,556 to $144,296 per QALY gained. In the sensitivity analysis, extended maximum treatment duration, types of subsequent treatment following therapy discontinuation, and weight-rebound rates were identified as key drivers for model results. The estimated probability of semaglutide 2.4 mg being cost-effective compared with comparators ranged from 67% to 100% when varying model parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: As a long-term weight management therapy, semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to be cost-effective compared with no treatment, D&E alone, and all other branded AOM comparators under a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained over a 30-year time horizon. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this research was provided by Novo Nordisk Inc. The study sponsor was involved in several aspects of the research, including the study design, the interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Kim and Ms Ramasamy are employees of Novo Nordisk Inc. Ms Kumar and Dr Burudpakdee were employees of Novo Nordisk Inc at the time this study was conducted. Dr Sullivan received research support from Novo Nordisk Inc for this study. Drs Wang, Song, Wu, Ms Xie, and Ms Sun are employees of Analysis Group, Inc, who received consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk Inc in connection with this study.

Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine.

BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb; IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world effectiveness data are needed to complement clinical trial data. This study assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab across different subgroups of adult patients with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM), or difficult-to-treat (DTT) migraine in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based online chart review used electronic case report forms. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of EM or CM; age ≥ 18 years at the time of first fremanezumab initiation; ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment; ≥ 1 follow-up visit since first initiation; and ≥ 2 measurements of monthly migraine days (MMD; with 1 within a month before or at first initiation and ≥ 1 after first initiation). Changes in MMD and monthly headache days were assessed during the follow-up period. These endpoints were evaluated in subgroups of patients by migraine type (EM/CM) and in subgroups with DTT migraine (diagnosis of medication overuse [MO], major depressive disorder [MDD], generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], or prior exposure to a different CGRP pathway-targeted mAb [CGRP mAb]). RESULTS: Data were collected from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD at Month 6 were - 7.7 (77.0%) in EM patients, - 10.1 (68.7%) in CM patients, - 10.8 (80.6%) in the MO subgroup, - 9.9 (68.3%) in the MDD subgroup, - 9.5 (66.4%) in the GAD subgroup, and - 9.0 (68.7%) in the prior CGRP mAb exposure subgroup. Improvements in MDD or GAD severity were reported by 45.5% and 45.8% of patients with comorbid MDD or GAD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, fremanezumab demonstrated effectiveness for migraine regardless of migraine type or the presence of factors contributing to DTT migraine (MO, GAD, MDD, or prior exposure to a different CGRP mAb).

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab in migraine patients initiating treatment in the United States: results from a retrospective chart study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults, have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world data can further support those clinical trial data and demonstrate the full clinical benefits of fremanezumab. This chart review assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab for improving clinical outcomes in adult patients with migraine treated according to real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based, online physician chart review study used electronic case report forms with US physicians. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of migraine, fremanezumab treatment initiation at ≥ 18 years of age after US Food and Drug Administration approval, ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment, and ≥ 2 assessments of monthly migraine days (MMD; 1 within 30 days before treatment initiation and ≥ 1 after initiation). Changes from baseline in MMD, monthly headache days (MHD), and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) scores were assessed over 6 months. These endpoints were evaluated in the overall population and subgroups divided by dosing schedule and number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures. RESULTS: This study included data from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean age at fremanezumab initiation was 39.7 years, and most patients were female (75.8%). In the overall population, mean baseline MMD and MHD were 12.7 and 14.0, respectively. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD and MHD, respectively, were - 4.6 (36.2%) and - 4.7 (33.6%) at Month 1, - 6.7 (52.8%) and - 6.8 (48.6%) at Month 3, and - 9.2 (72.4%) and - 9.8 (70.0%) at Month 6. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MIDAS and HIT-6 scores also increased over the 6-month study period, from - 6.2 (21.6%) and - 8.4 (14.0%) at Month 1 to - 18.1 (63.1%) and - 16.2 (27.0%) at Month 6, respectively. Improvements in these outcomes over 6 months were observed across all evaluated subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study demonstrated effectiveness of fremanezumab treatment for up to 6 months, irrespective of dosing regimen or number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures, reflecting ongoing, clinically meaningful improvements in patient outcomes.

Benefit-Risk Analysis of Upadacitinib Compared with Adalimumab in the Treatment of Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit-risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk-benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA). METHODS: Post-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria-PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles. RESULTS: UPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values < 10 for achievement of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of < 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively, and functional improvement. Based on indices for disease assessment other than the DAS28-CRP, remission outcomes were higher with UPA versus ADA over 26 weeks (NNTs: 7-12), 48 weeks (NNTs: 9-16), and 156 weeks (NNTs: 9-15). With the exception of herpes zoster, other AESIs demonstrated a similar risk with UPA versus ADA. CONCLUSION: In patients with active RA despite MTX use, UPA demonstrated an incremental achievement of clinical outcomes compared to ADA together with a similar profile of AESIs with ADA (with the exception of herpes zoster).

Superior Outcomes With Continuing Tenofovir Versus Switching to Zidovudine in Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in Haiti.

We compared viral suppression rates between patients who continued tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/lamivudine (3TC) vs switched to zidovudine (ZDV)/3TC in combination with a boosted protease inhibitor after failure of first-line efavirenz/TDF/3TC. We found higher rates of viral suppression with continued TDF/3TC compared with switching to ZDV/3TC.