Cost-effectiveness of rimegepant oral lyophilisate compared to best supportive care for the acute treatment of migraine in the UK.

AIMS: Migraine is the most common disabling headache disorder and is characterized by recurrent throbbing head pain and symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting. Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral lyophilisate calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, is the first treatment approved for both the acute and preventative treatment of migraine, and the first acute therapy approved in over 20-years. The objective was to assess the cost-utility of rimegepant compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK, for the acute treatment of migraine in the adults with inadequate symptom relief after taking at least 2 triptans, or for whom triptans are contraindicated or not tolerated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A de novo model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), structured as a decision tree followed by Markov model. Patients received rimegepant or BSC for a migraine attack and were assessed for response (pain relief at 2-h). Responders and non-responders followed different pain trajectories over 48-h cycles. Non-responders discontinued treatment while responders continued treatment for subsequent attacks, with a proportion discontinuing over time. Data sources included a post-hoc pooled analysis of the phase 3 acute rimegepant trials (NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757), and a long-term safety study (NCT03266588). The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 20-year time horizon. RESULTS: Rimegepant resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of £10,309 per QALY gained vs BSC, which is cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000/QALY. Rimegepant generated +0.44 incremental QALYs and higher incremental lifetime costs (£4,492). Improved QALYs for rimegepant were a result of less time spent with severe and moderate headache pain. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the economic value of rimegepant which was found to be cost-effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults unsuitable for triptans.

Budget impact of lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Three novel acute treatments for migraine-lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant-were approved by the FDA in 2019 and 2020 for adults with migraine with and without aura. American Headache Society guidance recommends that these novel acute treatments be considered for patients who are contraindicated to or fail to respond or tolerate oral triptans, the current standard of acute care. OBJECTIVE: To estimate, from a US commercial plan perspective, the budget impact of adding lasmiditan as an option to a formulary that already includes ubrogepant and rimegepant. METHODS: Epidemiologic data were drawn from US Census data, the American Migraine Prevalence and Preventive study, and the first wave of the OVERCOME US survey, a web-based survey that included 21,000 patients with migraine. A model with a 3-year time horizon was built assuming that demand for the novel acute treatments would not vary based on whether lasmiditan is included in the formulary. The model examined a variety of populations, in particular beneficiaries with previous use of 1 or more oral triptans or contraindicated to triptans and beneficiaries with previous use of 2 or more oral triptans or contraindicated to triptans. Primary outcomes were the incremental differences in total cost and average cost per member per month (PMPM) between scenarios with and without lasmiditan. One-way sensitivity analyses with model parameters that were varied by plus or minus 15% were conducted to assess the effect of key parameters on the incremental total cost over 3 years. RESULTS: The addition of lasmiditan to a formulary that already includes ubrogepant and rimegepant resulted in a total savings of -$927,657 (-1.5% compared with the scenario without lasmiditan) over a 3-year time horizon in the population with previous history of using 1 or more oral triptans or contraindicated to a triptan. In the population with previous history of using 2 or more oral triptans or contraindicated, the addition of lasmiditan resulted in a total budget impact of -$466,518 (-1.3%) over a 3-year time horizon. Most of the cost savings was attributable to reductions in drug acquisition cost. Savings in total costs resulted in average incremental cost per PMPM of -0.03 and -$0.01, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of lasmiditan to the formulary as a novel acute treatment option for migraine alongside ubrogepant and rimegepant resulted in lower budget impact on a 3-year time horizon from a US commercial payer's perspective. This result is important to US commercial payers as they seek to incorporate the emerging novel acute treatments for migraine into their benefit designs. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Milev and Sun are employed by Evidera, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company for work on this project. Pohl, Mason, Njuguna, and Loo are employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma.

Importance: In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved. Results: Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.

Budget impact analysis of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer from a US payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women and has the highest mortality rate of gynecological cancers. Niraparib was recently approved by the FDA for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with advanced epithelial OC in complete or partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) regardless of biomarker status. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the direct economic impact on US payers of adding niraparib as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced OC. METHODS: The model considered 2 scenarios: a current scenario in which niraparib does not have regulatory approval for first-line maintenance therapy and a future scenario in which niraparib has regulatory approval for first-line maintenance therapy. The budget impact was calculated as the difference in cost between the 2 scenarios. The budget impact model (BIM) considered 2 different US health care payer perspectives: a commercial health plan and a Medicare plan. Both payer perspectives were assumed to have a hypothetical 1 million affiliates that were covered. Epidemiological data was used to estimate the eligible incident population of patients with OC. Active surveillance, bevacizumab (as a monotherapy), and olaparib (as a monotherapy restricted to patients with the breast cancer gene [BRCA] mutation) were included in the model as alternative maintenance treatment options (maintenance treatment options required 1% market share for inclusion). Cost categories considered in the BIM included diagnostic testing, treatment acquisition and administration, treatment-emergent adverse events, and subsequent therapy. Results were presented as an incremental budget impact to payers over 3 years. RESULTS: For a commercial health plan of 1 million affiliates, the estimated impact of adding niraparib as a first-line maintenance treatment option for advanced epithelial OC was calculated as $87,906, $93,106, and $87,037 for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average budget impact per member per month was $0.007. For a Medicare health plan of 1 million affiliates, the estimated impact was calculated as $206,785, $219,017, and $204,739 for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average budget impact per member per month was $0.018. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that budget impact was most sensitive to the treatment duration and market share of niraparib, the non-treatment-specific data on overall survival rates, and the treatment duration of bevacizumab. Treatment of drug-specific adverse events had little impact on the budget model. CONCLUSIONS: The model estimated a minimal budget impact to both a commercial or Medicare health plan following the introduction of niraparib as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced epithelial OC who are in complete or partial response to first-line PBC regardless of biomarker status. DISCLOSURES: This study was financially supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Liu, Hawkes, Maiese, and Hurteau are employees of GlaxoSmithKline. Travers was employed by GlaxoSmithKline at the time of this study. Spalding and Walder are employees of FIECON Ltd., which was contracted by GlaxoSmithKline to develop the budget impact model used in this study.

Economic Benefit from Improvements in Quality of Life with Upadacitinib: Comparisons with Tofacitinib and Methotrexate in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the economic benefit of upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy from improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data were analyzed from two trials of upadacitinib (SELECT-NEXT and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY) and one trial of tofacitinib (ORAL-Standard) that collected HRQOL measurements using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey in patients with RA. Direct medical costs per patient per month (PPPM) for patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and methotrexate were derived from observed SF-36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores in the SELECT trials using a regression algorithm. Direct medical costs PPPM for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily were obtained from a published analysis of SF-36 PCS and MCS scores observed in the ORAL-Standard trial. Short-term (12-14 weeks) and long-term (48 weeks) estimates of direct medical costs PPPM were compared between upadacitinib and tofacitinib and between upadacitinib and methotrexate. RESULTS: Over 12 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $252 lower (95% CI $72, $446) for upadacitinib-treated patients versus tofacitinib-treated patients. Medical costs PPPM at weeks 24 and 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $1759; 95% CI $1162, $2449) were significantly lower for upadacitinib than for tofacitinib. Over 14 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $399 lower (95% CI $158, $620) for patients treated with upadacitinib monotherapy compared with those treated with methotrexate alone. Direct medical costs at week 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $2044; 95% CI $1221, $2846) were significantly lower for upadacitinib monotherapy compared with methotrexate alone. CONCLUSION: In the short and long term, upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy were associated with significantly lower direct medical costs for patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02675426, NCT02706951, and NCT00853385.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dipeptidylpeptidase-4 Inhibitors Added to Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in China.

Purpose: Dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, including linagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin, are used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in China. This study assessed the economic outcomes of different DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin in the Chinese context. Materials and Methods: In this study, the validated Chinese Outcomes Model for T2DM (COMT) was conducted to project economic outcomes from the perspective of Chinese healthcare service providers. Efficacy and safety, medical expenditure, and utility data were derived from the literature, which were assigned to model variables. The primary outputs of the model included the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the potential uncertainties of parameters. Results: Of the five competing strategies, alogliptin 25 mg strategy yielded the most significant health outcome, which associated with improvements in discounted QALY of 0.007, 0.014, 0.011, and 0.022 versus linagliptin 5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and vildagliptin50 mg, respectively. The sitagliptin 100 mg strategy was the cheapest option. The ICER of alogliptin 25 mg against sitagliptin 100 mg strategy was $6,952 per additional QALY gained, and the rest of the strategies were dominated or extended dominated. The most influential parameters were the cost of DPP-4 inhibitors and their treatment efficacy. Conclusions: These results suggested that alogliptin was a preferred treatment option compared with other DPP-4 inhibitors for Chinese patients whose T2DM are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

A Prospective Economic Analysis of Early Outcome Data From the Alliance A041202/ CCTG CLC.2 Randomized Phase III Trial Of Bendamustine-Rituximab Compared With Ibrutinib-Based Regimens in Untreated Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: The Alliance A041202/CCTG CLC.2 trial demonstrated superior progression-free survival with ibrutinib-based therapy compared to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis of Canadian patients to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with these therapies. METHODS: Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months. Health state utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D instrument with Canadian tariffs applied to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were applied to resource utilization data (expressed in 2019 US dollars). We examined costs and QALYs associated ibrutinib, ibrutinib with rituximab (IR), and BR therapy. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were enrolled; two patients were excluded from the analysis. On-protocol costs (associated with protocol-specified resource use) were higher for patients receiving ibrutinib (mean $189,335; P < 0.0001) and IR (mean $219,908; P < 0.0001) compared to BR (mean $51,345), driven by higher acquisition costs for ibrutinib. Total mean costs (over 2-years) were $192,615 with ibrutinib, $223,761 with IR, and $55,413 with BR (P < 0.0001 for ibrutinib vs. BR and P < 0.0001 for IR vs. BR). QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR; therefore, a formal cost-utility analysis was not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Direct medical costs are higher for patients receiving ibrutinib-based therapies compared to chemoimmunotherapy in frontline chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with the cost of ibrutinib representing a key driver.

Adverse Events and Economic Burden Among Patients Receiving Systemic Treatment for Mantle Cell Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Limited published real-world data describe adverse events (AEs) among patients treated for mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL). The aim of this retrospective study was to describe treatment patterns, AEs, and associated healthcare costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had two or more claims coded for MCL diagnosis, the first claim date (07/01/2012-05/31/2017) was the index date. Patients with pre-index MCL diagnosis or systemic treatment, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were excluded. Cohorts by regimen were followed for up to three lines of therapy. RESULTS: Patients (n=395; median age 72 years; 31% female) were observed over a total of 576 lines of therapy, the most common being bendamustine plus rituximab; rituximab monotherapy; R-CHOP; and ibrutinib. The most frequent AEs were hypertension (40.5%), anemia (37.7%), and infection (36.1%). However, hepatotoxicity ($19,645), stroke ($18,893), and renal failure ($9,037) were associated with the highest medical costs per patient per month. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving common systemic treatments for MCL, AEs occurred frequently; some imposed substantial inpatient care costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tofacitinib compared with adalimumab and etanercept in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis; Iranian experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Tofacitinib (TFC) in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not responded well to methotrexate from the Iranian payer's perspective. METHODS: An individual microsimulation Markov model was developed to compare TFC with etanercept (ETN) and Adalimumab (ADA) over a life-time horizon. Treatment efficacy was estimated based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response improvement criteria in 6 months. Changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were mapped onto utility values to calculate outcomes in terms of QALYs. Direct medical costs were taken from national databases. Uncertainty in model parameters was evaluated by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that TFC was cost-effective in both scenarios. Although TFC was associated with lower QALYs than ETN (6.664 versus 6.876), it was also associated with lower costs over a life-time horizon ($42,565.04 versus $58,696.29). Additionally, TFC was found to be the dominant strategy with a lower cost ($50,299.91 versus $51,550.29) and higher QALYs gained (6.900 versus 6.687) compared to ADA. CONCLUSION: TFC was found to be cost-effective in patients with severe RA who do not respond well to methotrexate compared to ADA, ETN in Iran.

Cost-Effectiveness of 5-Aminosalicylate Therapy in Combination With Biologics or Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

INTRODUCTION: Medications are major cost drivers in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Recent analyses suggest that there is no added efficacy in continuing nor harm in stopping 5-aminosalicylate (ASA) therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease escalated to biological therapies or tofacitinib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of discontinuing 5-ASA therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis on biological therapies or tofacitinib, compared with continuing 5-ASA therapy. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-ASA with biologic therapy and tofacitinib compared with the same treatment without 5-ASA. Our primary outcome was to determine whether biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy was cost-effective compared with biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA combination therapy using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year. Owing to the uncertainty surrounding outcome probabilities, probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 simulations were also performed. We conducted a sensitivity analysis comparing biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA therapy compared with biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy, whereby vedolizumab was the first biologic used, followed by infliximab and finally tofacitinib. RESULTS: Our model shows that biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominates (cheaper and more effective) combination therapy of biologics/tofacitinib with 5-ASA. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses simulations resulted in biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominating 100% of the scenarios, with mean cost savings of $24,483.01 over 2 years. When vedolizumab was the first-line therapy in the sensitivity analysis, biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy continued to dominate the combination of 5-ASA and biologic/tofacitinib therapy. DISCUSSION: This analysis in patients with ulcerative colitis who require treatment with biologics or tofacitinib demonstrates that continuing 5-ASA therapy is not a cost-effective strategy. Discontinuation of 5-ASA therapy in these patients is safe and less expensive and should be recommended.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12-24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. METHODS: We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. RESULTS: At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Importance: There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS). Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186 777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17 000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629 347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557 865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with first-line ibrutinib compared to chemoimmunotherapy treatment among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization and costs of Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who received ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in first line (1 L). METHODS: Fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) claims data were used to identify adults with a CLL/SLL diagnosis initiating 1 L ibrutinib single agent or CIT between 4 March 2016 and 30 September 2017 (index date). HRU and costs (Medicare spending) were evaluated during 1 L Oncology Care Model (1 L OCM) episodes (the first six months post-index) and over the observed 1 L duration. Patients' baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Mean monthly cost differences (MMCDs) obtained from ordinary least square regressions were used to compare costs between ibrutinib and CIT cohorts. RESULTS: In the Medicare FFS dataset (ibrutinib: n = 2014; CIT: n = 2050), ibrutinib patients incurred significantly higher monthly pharmacy costs (1 L OCM: MMCD = $4878, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD= $4892, p < .0001) that were fully offset by lower monthly medical costs (1 L OCM: MMCD= -$8289, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$5888, p < .0001), yielding a monthly total healthcare cost reduction (1 L OCM: MMCD=-$3411, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$996, p < .0001) relative to CIT patients. In the MA dataset (ibrutinib: n = 293; CIT: n = 303), ibrutinib was also associated with a monthly total healthcare cost reduction (1 L OCM: MMCD=-$10,459; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$5492). CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare patients with CLL/SLL, 1 L ibrutinib single agent was associated with total monthly cost savings relative to 1 L CIT, driven by lower monthly medical costs that fully offset higher monthly pharmacy costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the biological drugs, the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis is still a challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of biological drugs and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in the Spanish context. METHODS: A Markov model was built to simulate the progression of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in a cohort of patients. The model used a time horizon of 10 years. The perspective chosen was the National Health Service, with a discount rate of 3%, and a threshold of €30,000/quality adjusted life-year (QALY). It carried out a one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The comparison of infliximab with adalimumab and golimumab estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €43,928.07/QALY and €31,340.69/QALY, with a difference of - 0.43 and - 0.82 QALY, respectively. Vedolizumab vs infliximab achieved an ICER of €122,890.19/QALY with a gain of 0.46 QALY. The comparison of infliximab with tofacitinib yielded an estimated ICER of €270,503.19/QALY, with a slight gain in QALY (0.16). The one-way sensitivity analysis showed a robust study. CONCLUSION: For a threshold of €30,000/QALY, adalimumab was the most cost-effective treatment versus infliximab for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

Time to Next Treatment, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Costs Associated with Ibrutinib Use Among U.S. Veterans with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is the most common adult leukemia, accounting for ≈ 37% of all leukemias in the United States. Limited real-word evidence is available on the outcomes of ibrutinib use among previously untreated patients in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) population diagnosed with CLL/SLL. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate time to next treatment (TTNT) among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL who initiated ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in first line (1L) and 1L ibrutinib versus ibrutinib in later lines (2L+) and (b) compare health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs between the 1L ibrutinib and CIT cohorts. METHODS: Adults with CLL/SLL and claims for 1L single-agent ibrutinib or CIT (index date = first prescription claim date) were included from Veterans Health Administration Data (April 1, 2013-March 31, 2018). A subset of the CIT 1L cohort with evidence of ibrutinib in 2L/3L was defined as the ibrutinib 2L+ cohort. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate TTNT, and generalized linear models were used to determine all-cause per patient per month (PPPM) HRU and costs during 1L among propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts. RESULTS: After PSM, 614 patients were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 1L CIT cohorts, and 149 were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts. The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly longer TTNT compared with each of the 1L CIT and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts (P <0.0001 and P =0.0001, respectively) and was less likely to have a next line of treatment than the CIT 1L cohort (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.42-0.65; P < 0.0001) and the 2L+ ibrutinib cohort (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.22-0.69; P = 0.0012). The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly fewer inpatient visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.28-0.52; P ≤ 0.05) and outpatient visits PPPM (RR =0.72; 95% CI = 0.68-0.77; P ≤ 0.5) compared with the CIT 1L cohort. Additionally, the 1L ibrutinib cohort had $7,308 significantly lower monthly medical costs (95% CI = -$9,892 to -$4,895; P ≤ 0.05) versus the 1L CIT cohort, resulting in comparable monthly total health care cost (medical and pharmacy) between real-world 1L patients treated by ibrutinib and CIT (-$2,160; 95% CI = -$4,840-$347; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL, 1L ibrutinib use was associated with significantly longer TTNT versus that of 1L CIT. Similarly, early treatment with ibrutinib was associated with longer TTNT as compared to ibrutinib use in later lines of therapy. Moreover, 1L ibrutinib was associated with lower HRU and medical costs compared with 1L CIT, completely offsetting the higher pharmacy costs related to 1L ibrutinib treatment. DISCLOSURES: This research was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. The analyses were performed by STATinMED Research. Huang is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs and may own company stock. Sundaram was an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs at the time this study was conducted. Borra and Janjan are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to the study sponsor. Wang, Li, and Shrestha were employees of STATinMED Research at the time this study was conducted.

Movement of Poly-ADP Ribose (PARP) Inhibition into Frontline Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

Niraparib maintenance in frontline management of ovarian cancer: a cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Niraparib maintenance after frontline chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer extends progression free survival. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. METHODS: Decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus niraparib maintenance following chemotherapy for five groups: all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients (overall), those with homologous recombination deficiency, those harboring BRCA mutations (BRCA), homologous recombination deficiency patients without BRCA mutations (homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA), and non-homologous recombination deficiency patients. Drug costs were estimated using average wholesale prices. Progression free survival was estimated from published data and used to estimate projected overall survival. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios per quality adjusted life year were calculated. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of niraparib were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality adjusted life year saved. RESULTS: For the overall group, the cost of observation was US$5.8 billion versus $20.5 billion for niraparib maintenance, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $72 829. For the homologous recombination deficiency group, the observation cost was $3.0 billion versus $14.8 billion for niraparib maintenance (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $56 329). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for the BRCA, homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA, and non-homologous recombination deficiency groups were $58 348, $50 914, and $88 741, respectively. For the overall and homologous recombination deficiency groups, niraparib remained cost effective if projected overall survival was 2.2 and 1.5 times progression free survival, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, maintenance therapy with niraparib was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was improved when analyzing those patients with homologous recombination deficiency and BRCA mutations. Efforts should continue to optimize poly-ADP-ribose polymerase utilization strategies.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.