Cost-effectiveness of a 12-month fixed-duration venetoclax treatment in combination with obinutuzumab in first-line, unfit chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a significant health and economic burden in the United States. Treatments include chemoimmunotherapy, such as obinutuzumab (G) plus chlorambucil (Clb) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR), and chemotherapy-free regimens incorporating oral targeted therapies such as ibrutinib (Ibr), acalabrutinib (Acala), or venetoclax (Ven). Most chemotherapy-free regimens require continuous treatment to progression, while Ven plus G (VenG) is given for a fixed duration of 12 months, based on the CLL14 trial that led to its approval. Fixed-duration VenG has the potential for cost savings compared with treat-to-progression chemotherapy-free regimens. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 months fixed-duration VenG in first-line treatment of unfit patients with CLL from a US health care payer perspective compared with GClb, BR, Ibr, Ibr + G, Ibr + R, Acala, and Acala + G. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed with 3 health states: progression-free survival (PFS), postprogression survival, and dead. The patient population, as based on the CLL14 trial, comprised previously untreated unfit patients with CLL (mean age 71.1 years, 33.1% female). The distribution of patients in each health state over time was estimated using extrapolated PFS and overall survival (OS) curves for VenG and GClb, based on CLL14 data 2 or more years after treatment cessation. PFS and OS for the other comparators were estimated using hazard ratios vs VenG, based on a network metaanalysis. Adverse events, utility values, and costs were obtained from published literature. The model estimated life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs. The time horizon was 20 years, with a cycle time of 28 days. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.0% per year, and costs were estimated from a US health care payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In this cross-trial analysis of unfit CLL patients, in the base case, VenG had lower projected total costs than all comparators investigated. VenG also had larger projected health benefits (more QALYs gained) than GClb, BR, Ibr, and Ibr + R. VenG was therefore more effective and less costly than these comparators (dominant). Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G showed higher QALYs gained vs VenG (0.022, 0.672, and 0.961, respectively), and substantially higher projected costs vs VenG ($1,488,400, $1,579,737, and $1,656,154, respectively). Thus, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G would cost more than $1,000,000 per QALY gained vs VenG. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G were not cost-effective compared with VenG. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-duration VenG for 12 months is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for unfit CLL patients compared with other available options and provides value for money to US health care payers at a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Future studies with longer trial follow-up and more mature survival data may help to confirm longer-term cost benefits of VenG. DISCLOSURES: Genentech Inc. and AbbVie provided financial support for this study. Genentech Inc., AbbVie, and Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company participated in the design, study conduct, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as the writing, review, and approval of the manuscript. Venetoclax is being developed in a collaboration between Genentech Inc. and AbbVie. Ravelo and Shapouri are employed by Genentech Inc. and have ownership interests. Manzoor and Sail are employed by AbbVie and have ownership interests. Chatterjee, van de Wetering, and Qendri, employees of Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company, received consultancy fees from AbbVie. Davids has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Verastem; research funding from Ascentage Pharma, Genentech Inc., MEI Pharma, Pharmacyclics, Surface Oncology, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem; and has served on board of directors or advisory committees for AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem. This study was presented as a poster at ASH 61st Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Inkjet-printed PEDOT:PSS multi-electrode arrays for low-cost in vitro electrophysiology.

Multi-electrode arrays (MEAs) have become a key element in the study of cellular phenomena in vitro. Common modern MEAs are still based on costly microfabrication techniques, making them expensive tools that researchers are pushed to reuse, compromising the reproducibility and the quality of the acquired data. There is a need to develop novel fabrication strategies, able to produce disposable devices that incorporate advanced technologies beyond the standard metal electrodes on rigid substrates. Here we present an innovative fabrication process for the production of polymer-based flexible MEAs. The device fabrication exploited inkjet printing, as this low-cost manufacturing method allows for an easy and reliable patterning of conducting polymers. Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS) was used as the sole conductive element of the MEAs. The physical structure and the electrical properties of the plastic/printed MEAs (pMEAs) were characterised, showing a low impedance that is maintained also in the long term. The biocompatibility of the devices was demonstrated, and their capability to successfully establish a tight coupling with cells was proved. Furthermore, the pMEAs were used to monitor the extracellular potentials from cardiac cell cultures and to record high quality electrophysiological signals from them. Our results validate the use of pMEAs as in vitro electrophysiology platforms, pushing for the adoption of innovative fabrication techniques and the use of new materials for the production of MEAs.

Topical treatment utilization for patients with atopic dermatitis in the United States, and budget impact analysis of crisaborole ointment, 2.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), a chronic inflammatory skin disease, is often treated with topical corticosteroids (TCS) and topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI). Crisaborole ointment is a non-steroidal, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of mild-to-moderate AD. In December 2016, crisaborole was approved in the US for mild-to-moderate AD in patients ≥2 years of age. AIMS: To evaluate real-world utilization and cost of TCS and TCI in the US and estimate the budget impact of crisaborole over 2 years from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: TCS and TCI prescriptions in 2015 for patients ≥2 years of age with ≥1 AD diagnosis in the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Research Databases were analyzed for patients receiving TCI or TCS alone or in combination (TCS/TCI population) and patients receiving TCI alone or in combination with TCS (TCI population). A budget impact model used TCS and TCI market shares, annual use, and cost per prescription. Crisaborole uptake rates of 4.7% (TCS) and 20.2% (TCI), with an annual increase of 1% in year 2, were assumed. Budget impact was calculated as total and per-member-per-month (PMPM) cost over 2 years for a health plan of 1 million members. RESULTS: Annual prescriptions/patient ranged from 1.36-6.41; annual cost/patient was $53-$1,465. The budget impact of crisaborole over 2 years in the TCS/TCI population was $350,946 (PMPM, $0.015), with increases of $162,106 in year 1 (PMPM, $0.014) and $188,841 in year 2 (PMPM, $0.016). The budget impact in the TCI population was -$22,871, with decreases of $11,160 in year 1 and $11,712 in year 2 (each PMPM, -$0.001). For both populations, one-way sensitivity analyses showed that budget impact was most sensitive to changes in crisaborole cost and annual use. CONCLUSIONS: From US payer perspectives, adoption of crisaborole results in modest pharmacy budget impact/savings.

Venetoclax for Treating Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Venetoclax is licensed to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) ID944, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited AbbVie, the manufacturer, to submit evidence on the use of venetoclax, within its licensed indication. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), Warwick Evidence, was asked to provide an independent and critical review of the submitted evidence. Evidence came from three single-arm trials in CLL patients with or without 17p deletion [del(17p])/TP53 chromosomal abnormalities. The anticipated licensed indication specified that venetoclax-eligible del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to, or be deemed unsuitable for, B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi) therapy, and that non-del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to both chemoimmunotherapy and BCRi therapy. The three trials were heterogeneous in terms of both del(17p)/TP53 status and previous exposure to BCRi therapy. The M13-982 study investigated 158 R/R CLL patients with the 17p deletion, but only a small number had received previous BCRi therapy; the M12-175 study investigated 67 patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, some with the 17p deletion, but very few previously treated with BCRi therapy; and the M14-032 study included 105 patients previously treated with BCRi therapy (either idelalisib or ibrutinib), some of whom had unknown mutation status. The ERG concluded that the study populations did not directly conform to those specified in the licensed indication or in the NICE scope. Outcomes reported included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); adverse events were reported for the pooled population of all three studies, as well as separately for each study. The median PFS was 41.4 and 27.2 months among patients in the M12-175 and M13-982 trials, respectively, whereas the median PFS was not reached in the M14-032 trial. Some results were designated academic in confidence and cannot be reported here. The submission provided a de novo partitioned survival cost-effectiveness model with three health states: pre-progression, post-progression and dead. Transition probabilities between health states were estimated using Weibull models for PFS and OS. The ERG judged the model structure to be appropriate. Venetoclax was compared with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with or without del(17p)/TP53 mutation status, and with palliative care (PC). To populate the del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax arm, the submission pooled del(17p)/TP53 patients from all three studies and fitted Weibull models for PFS and OS. PFS and OS models for non-del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax patients were obtained by applying hazard ratios (HRs) to the del(17p)/TP53 OS and PFS models, derived using Cox's regression analysis comparing del(17p)/TP53 and non-del(17p)/TP53 patients pooled from the M14-032 and M12-175 studies. The ERG expressed reservations about the company's pooling procedure, but acknowledged its expedience given the small evidence base. For the BSC comparator arm, the submission used the rituximab + placebo arm from a randomised controlled trial comparing idelalisib + rituximab versus placebo + rituximab ('study 116'). Weibull regression data for OS and PFS were taken from the idelalisib STA (ID764) submitted by Gilead to NICE. The ERG considered the use of the study 116 rituximab arm to be inconsistent with the licensed indication for venetoclax because these patients had neither not responded to nor were inappropriate for BCRi therapy, being eligible to be randomised to idelalisib. Another difficulty was the requirement for a technical correction in survival analysis because of considerable switching from rituximab to idelalisib. The ERG considered that post-progression survival of patients from the idelalisib arm of study 116 provided a more appropriate representation of BSC since these patients had not responded to BCRi therapy, consistent with venetoclax's licensed indication. For PC, the company submission used data from the UK CLL Forum. The company's base-case analysis indicated that venetoclax was clinically effective, but the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for del(17p)/TP53 (£39,940/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) and non-del(17p)/TP53 (£47,370/QALY gained) patients were well above the NICE threshold of £20,000-30,000/QALY. The ERG identified two errors in the implementation of the company's parametric models-one related to the implementation of HRs, and the other to the derivation of the Weibull shape parameters obtained from the Gilead idelalisib submission. The ERG made plausible adjustments to the company's base-case and corrected errors, resulting in a reduced estimate of the cost effectiveness of venetoclax in non-del(17p)/TP53 and del(17p)/TP53 indications; in the ERG's preferred base case, using post-progression survival of patients in the idelalisib arm of study 116 as the BSC comparator, deterministic ICERs were higher than the company's base-case for both indications: £57,476/QALY gained for del(17p)/TP53 and £77,779/QALY gained for non-del(17p)/TP53. The NICE Appraisal Committee's preliminary recommendation was that venetoclax used within its licensed indication should not be recommended for use in the National Health Service (NHS). In response to the preliminary recommendation, the company submitted new analyses; however, at a subsequent appraisal committee meeting, the original recommendation was upheld and the committee concluded there were large uncertainties around the clinical effectiveness of venetoclax and BSC, and that under the committee's preferred assumptions, the ICERs were higher than those generally considered cost effective, even when end-of-life criteria were taken into account. The company submitted further evidence, and the final guidance recommended venetoclax for use with the Cancer Drugs Fund for the two populations in this technology appraisal.