Cost per treatment responder analysis of atogepant compared to rimegepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States. BACKGROUND: Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head-to-head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment. METHODS: An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000-305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9-12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1-12 and 9-12 for atogepant and during weeks 9-12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses). RESULTS: In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9-74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9-60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4-49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1-9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9-75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079-$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901-$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.

Effect of Ubrogepant on Patient-Reported Outcomes When Administered During the Migraine Prodrome: Results From the Randomized PRODROME Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine. The PRODROME trial previously demonstrated that ubrogepant treatment during prodrome prevents the onset of moderate or severe headache. In this analysis of the PRODROME trial, the benefits of ubrogepant treatment during the prodrome on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are evaluated. METHODS: PRODROME was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial that enrolled adults who experienced 2-8 migraine attacks per month with moderate-severe headache pain. Eligible participants treated 2 qualifying prodrome events, defined as a migraine attack with prodromal symptoms when the participant was confident a headache would follow within 1-6 hours. Participants were randomized to treatment sequence A (placebo then ubrogepant 100 mg) or sequence B (ubrogepant 100 mg then placebo). This analysis evaluated the ability to function normally over 24 hours (secondary end point) and at specific time points after dose (additional end point). Other PRO end points included activity limitation over 24 hours and satisfaction with study medication at 8 and 24 hours. RESULTS: Of 518 randomized participants, 477 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population. After treatment of qualifying prodrome events, a significantly greater ability to function normally over 24 hours was observed for participants after treatment with ubrogepant 100 mg compared with placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.66, 95% CI 1.40-1.96; p < 0.0001). As early as 2 hours after dose, a greater proportion of ubrogepant-treated participants reported "no disability, able to function normally" compared with placebo (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.32-2.35; nominal p = 0.0001). Ubrogepant administered during the prodrome was also associated with a greater reduction in activity limitations over 24 hours after dose (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.61-2.67; nominal p < 0.0001). At 8 and 24 hours after dose, rates of being "satisfied" or "extremely satisfied" were greater for ubrogepant than for placebo (8 hours: OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.78-3.15; nominal p < 0.0001; 24 hours: OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.78-3.02; nominal p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Ubrogepant 100 mg administered during the prodrome was associated with significantly greater ability to function normally, greater reduction in activity limitations over 24 hours, and greater satisfaction with study medication, compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04492020. Submitted: July 27, 2020; first patient enrolled: August 21, 2020. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04492020. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that taking ubrogepant 100 mg during a migraine prodrome allows more patients to function normally over the next 24 hours.

Efficacy of Atogepant in Chronic Migraine With and Without Acute Medication Overuse in the Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 PROGRESS Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Atogepant is an oral, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine. We evaluated the efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM) in participants with and without acute medication overuse. METHODS: This subgroup analysis of the phase 3, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PROGRESS trial evaluated adults with a ≥1-year history of CM, ≥15 monthly headache days (MHDs), and ≥8 monthly migraine days (MMDs) during the 4-week baseline period. Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, atogepant 30 mg twice daily (BID), or atogepant 60 mg once daily (QD) for 12 weeks and were analyzed by acute medication overuse status (triptans/ergots for ≥10 days per month, simple analgesics for ≥15 days per month, or combinations of triptans/ergots/simple analgesics for ≥10 days per month). Outcomes included change from baseline in mean MMDs, MHDs, and monthly acute medication use days; ≥50% reduction in mean MMDs across 12 weeks; and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. RESULTS: Of 755 participants in the modified intent-to-treat population, 500 (66.2%) met baseline acute medication overuse criteria (placebo, n = 169 [68.7%]; atogepant 30 mg BID, n = 161 [63.6%]; atogepant 60 mg QD, n = 170 [66.4%]). The least squares mean difference (LSMD) (95% CI) from placebo in MMDs was -2.7 (-4.0 to -1.4) with atogepant 30 mg BID and -1.9 (-3.2 to -0.6) with atogepant 60 mg QD. Mean MHDs (LSMD [95% CI] -2.8 [-4.0 to -1.5] and -2.1 [-3.3 to -0.8]) and mean acute medication use days (LSMD [95% CI] -2.8 [-4.1 to -1.6] and -2.6 [-3.9 to -1.3]) were reduced and a higher proportion of participants achieved ≥50% reduction in MMDs (odds ratio [95% CI] 2.5 [1.5-4.0] and 2.3 [1.4-3.7]) with atogepant 30 mg BID and atogepant 60 mg QD. There was a 52.1%-61.9% reduction in the proportion of atogepant-treated participants meeting acute medication overuse criteria over 12 weeks. Atogepant improved PRO measures. Similar results were observed in the subgroup without acute medication overuse. DISCUSSION: Atogepant was effective in participants with CM, with and without acute medication overuse, as evidenced by reductions in mean MMDs, MHDs, and acute medication use days; reductions in the proportion of participants meeting acute medication overuse criteria; and improvements in PROs. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03855137. Submitted: February 25, 2019; first patient enrolled: March 11, 2019. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03855137. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that atogepant reduces mean MMDs, MHDs, and monthly acute medication use days in adult patients with or without medication overuse.

Detangling the Threads of Hairy Cell Leukemia, Beyond the Morphology and Into the Molecular.

Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) makes up 2% of leukemias in the United States and encompasses great molecular heterogeneity. The standard treatment paradigm involves purine nucleoside analogues in the upfront setting with high complete response rate to initial therapy but frequent relapses. There is an increasing role for BRAF inhibitors, with or without rituximab, in refractory and even in untreated patients. The response to purine analogues in HCL variant cases, otherwise classified as splenic lymphoma with prominent nucleolus in the 5th WHO edition classification, is less robust. Several antibodies, small molecular inhibitors, and combination regimens have been explored in HCL but data is frequently limited by case reports or small case series. Here we review available treatment options including their efficacy and safety profiles. We also explore investigational agents and potential future targets. The goal is to present a comprehensive therapeutic review of this rare disease entity and outline the ever increasing and novel therapeutic management options which interrupt key pathways in the pathogenesis of this malignancy.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive treatment failure on quality of life, disability, and direct and indirect costs among individuals with episodic migraine in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US). BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt-in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0-3 days/month; moderate-to-high: 4-14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0-1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: Among individuals with moderate-to-high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0-1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive-naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0-1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive-naive 26.8 (2.9) (p < 0.001) and 0-1 TF 30.1 (3.3) (p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive-naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive-naive, p = 0.006; 0-1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations (p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0-1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive-naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups (p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low-frequency EM group. CONCLUSIONS: In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF.

Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice. METHODS: An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12. RESULTS: There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles. CONCLUSION: In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

Patient-reported migraine-specific quality of life, activity impairment and headache impact with once-daily atogepant for preventive treatment of migraine in a randomized, 52-week trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. METHODS: In this 52-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, adults with 4-14 monthly migraine days received atogepant 60 mg once-daily or standard care. Health outcome endpoints collected from participants randomized to atogepant included change from baseline in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v2.1) Role Function-Restrictive (RFR), Role Function-Preventive (RFP) and Emotional Function (EF) domain scores, change in Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D) Performance of Daily Activities (PDA) and Physical Impairment (PI) domain scores, and change in Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) total score. RESULTS: Of 744 randomized participants, 521 received atogepant 60 mg in the modified intent-to-treat population. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in MSQ-RFR score were 30.02 (95% confidence interval = 28.16-31.87) at week 12 and 34.70 (95% confidence interval = 32.74-36.66) at week 52. Improvements were also observed in other MSQ domains, AIM-D PDA, PI and HIT-6 total scores. A ≥5-point improvement from baseline in HIT-6 score was observed in 59.9% of participants at week 4 and 80.8% of participants at week 52. CONCLUSION: Over 52 weeks, atogepant 60 mg once-daily was associated with sustained improvements in quality of life and reductions in activity impairment and headache impact.Trial Registration: NCT03700320.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive medication failure on quality of life, functioning, and costs among individuals with migraine across several European countries: need for effective preventive treatment.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0-1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: Among individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0-1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P < 0.005), numerically higher scores on the Mental Component Summary (39.5 vs 38.5; P = 0.145), significantly higher scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment (39.1 vs 34.0; P < 0.05), and significantly higher prevalence of depression symptoms (62% vs 47%; P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (42% vs 31%; P < 0.01). The ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group also had significantly more functional impairment as assessed by mean numbers of migraine-specific missed work days (7.8 vs 4.3) and household activities days (14.3 vs 10.6) in the past 6 months (P < 0.001) as well as the prevalence of absenteeism (19% vs 13%), overall work impairment (53% vs 42%), and activity impairment (53% vs 47%) (all P < 0.05). Emergency department visits (0.7 vs 0.5; P = 0.001) and hospitalizations (0.5 vs 0.3; P < 0.001) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group, while indirect costs (€13,720 vs €11,282) and the proportion of individuals with non-adherence during the past 7 days (73% vs 64%) were numerically higher. CONCLUSIONS: Increased burden, quality-of-life impairment, and functional impairment exist among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 MHDs and more treatment failures. While cause and directionality cannot be determined, these results suggest the need for effective preventive migraine treatments.

Effect of Atogepant for Preventive Migraine Treatment on Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3 ADVANCE Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist atogepant is indicated for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. We evaluated changes in patient-reported outcomes with atogepant in adults with migraine. METHODS: In this phase 3, 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial (ADVANCE), adults with 4-14 migraine days per month received atogepant (10, 30, or 60 mg) once daily or placebo. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive (RFR) domain at week 12 and mean monthly Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D) Performance of Daily Activities (PDA) and Physical Impairment (PI) domains across the 12-week treatment period. Exploratory endpoints included change in MSQ Role Function-Preventive (RFP) and Emotional Function (EF) domains; AIM-D total scores; and change in Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 scores. RESULTS: Of 910 participants randomized, 873 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant: 10 mg [n = 214]; 30 mg [n = 223]; and 60 mg [n = 222]; placebo [n = 214]). All atogepant groups demonstrated significantly greater improvements vs placebo in MSQ RFR that exceeded minimum clinically meaningful between-group difference (3.2 points) at week 12 (least-square mean difference [LSMD] vs placebo: 10 mg [9.9]; 30 mg [10.1]; 60 mg [10.8]; all p < 0.0001). LSMDs in monthly AIM-D PDA and PI scores across the 12-week treatment period improved significantly for the atogepant 30 (PDA: -2.54; p = 0.0003; PI: -1.99; and p = 0.0011) and 60 mg groups (PDA: -3.32; p < 0.0001; PI: -2.46; p < 0.0001), but not for the 10 mg group (PDA: -1.19; p = 0.086; PI: -1.08; p = 0.074). In exploratory analyses, atogepant 30 and 60 mg were associated with nominal improvements in MSQ RFP and EF domains, other AIM-D outcomes, and HIT-6 scores at the earliest time point (week 4) and throughout the 12-week treatment period. Results varied for atogepant 10 mg. DISCUSSION: Atogepant 30 and 60 mg produced significant improvements in key patient-reported outcomes including MSQ-RFR scores and both AIM-D domains. Nominal improvements also occurred for other MSQ domains and HIT-6, reinforcing the beneficial effects of atogepant as a new treatment for migraine prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03777059. Submitted: December 13, 2018; First patient enrolled: December 14, 2018. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT03777059. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that daily atogepant is associated with improvements in health-related quality-of-life measures in patients with 4-14 migraine days per month.

Development and validation of a novel patient-reported outcome measure in people with episodic migraine and chronic migraine: The Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the content validity and psychometric properties of the Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary (AIM-D). BACKGROUND: Measuring treatment effects on migraine impairment requires a psychometrically sound patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure developed consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance. METHODS: The AIM-D was created from concepts that emerged during qualitative interviews with five clinicians experienced in treating migraine and concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 40 adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). The initial version was refined based on three waves of cognitive interviews with 38 adults with EM or CM and input from a panel of clinical and measurement experts. The AIM-D was psychometrically evaluated using data from 316 adults with EM or CM who participated in a 13-week prospective observational study. Study participants completed PRO assessments including the AIM-D and a daily headache diary. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to determine the factor structure. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the AIM-D were assessed. Additional PRO measures including the Patient Global Impression - Severity (PGI-S), Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive domain, and Headache Impact Test were used for psychometric evaluation of the AIM-D. RESULTS: Based on CE interviews with adults with migraine and input from an expert panel, activity impairment was identified as the target in the preliminary conceptual framework, which had two domains: performance of daily activities (PDAs) and physical impairment (PI). Revision of the draft AIM-D through multiple rounds of cognitive interviews and expert panel meetings resulted in a content valid 11-item version. Exploratory factor analysis supported both one- and two-domain structures for the AIM-D, which were further supported by confirmatory factor analysis (factor loadings all >0.90). The AIM-D domains (PDA and PI) and total score showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.95-0.97), acceptable test-retest reliability for weekly average scores (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.60 for participants with no change in PGI-S between baseline and week 2), and good convergent and known-groups validity. There was evidence of responsiveness based on changes in PGI-S score and monthly migraine days. CONCLUSION: The AIM-D is a content valid and psychometrically sound measure designed to evaluate activity impairment and is suitable for use in clinical trials of preventive treatments for EM or CM.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, is approved in the USA to reduce risk of cardiovascular (CV) death in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established CV disease, based on EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) trial results. Empagliflozin reduced major adverse CV event (MACE) by 14%, CV death by 38%, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 35% vs placebo, each on top of standard of care (SoC). SGLT-2 inhibitors canagliflozin and dapagliflozin have also been compared with placebo, all on top of SoC, in CV outcome trials. In the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) Program, canagliflozin reduced MACE by 14% and HHF by 33%. Dapagliflozin reduced HHF by 27% in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (Multicenter Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Cardiovascular Events). This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or SoC, in US adults with T2DM and established CV disease. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individual patient-level discrete-event simulation was conducted to predict time-to-event for CV and renal outcomes, and specific adverse events over patients' lifetimes. Occurrence of events in EMPA-REG OUTCOME was estimated based on event-free survival curves with time-dependent covariates. An HR for canagliflozin or dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin on each clinical event was estimated from published CANVAS, DECLARE-TIMI 58, and EMPA-REG OUTCOME data using indirect treatment comparison. Public sources provided US costs and utilities. RESULTS: The model predicted longer survival for empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and SoC mainly due to direct reduction in CV death. Empagliflozin dominated canagliflozin, yielding more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.38) at a lower cost (-US$306). Compared with dapagliflozin and SoC, empagliflozin yielded 0.50 and 0.84 incremental QALYs at US$1517 and US$27 539 incremental costs, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$3054/QALY and US$32 848/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was projected to dominate canagliflozin and be highly cost-effective compared with dapagliflozin and SoC using US healthcare costs.

Quantifying the Risk Continuum for Cardiovascular Death in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: In type 2 diabetes (T2D), the most common causes of death are cardiovascular (CV) related, accounting for >50% of deaths in some reports. As novel diabetes therapies reduce CV death risk, identifying patients with T2D at highest CV death risk allows for cost-effective prioritization of these therapies. Accordingly, the primary goal of this study was to quantify the risk continuum for CV death in a real-world T2D population as a means to identify patients with the greatest expected benefit from cardioprotective antidiabetes therapies. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with T2D receiving services through an integrated health-care system and used data generated through electronic medical records (EMRs). Quantifying the risk continuum entailed developing a prediction model for CV death, creating an integer risk score based on the final prediction model and estimating future CV death risk according to risk score ranking. RESULTS: Among 59,180 patients with T2D followed for an average of 7.5 years, 15,691 deaths occurred, 6,033 (38%) of which were CV related. The EMR-based prediction model included age, established CV disease and risk factors and glycemic indices (c statistic = 0.819). The 10% highest-risk patients according to prediction model elements had an annual CV death risk of ∼5%; the 25% highest-risk patients had an annual risk of ∼2%. CONCLUSIONS: This study incorporated a prediction modelling approach to quantify the risk continuum for CV death in T2D. Prospective application allows us to rank individuals with T2D according to their CV death risk, and may guide prioritization of novel diabetes therapies with cardioprotective properties.

Real-World Glycemic Lowering Effectiveness of Linagliptin Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes by Age, Renal Function, and Race.

INTRODUCTION: To assess real-world effectiveness of linagliptin in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) across a range of ages and renal function. Effectiveness was assessed in different races, with a focus on African Americans (AA). METHODS: This was a non-interventional retrospective cohort study using data in the Optum clinical database from adults with T2DM initiating linagliptin. Date of the first linagliptin prescription was the index date. Outcomes included change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and the percentage of persons achieving an HbA1c < 7% (53 mmol/mol) during the 60-180 days following linagliptin initiation. Analyses of age by renal function were conducted. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess change in HbA1c, controlling for an a priori list of covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 11,001 persons were included. Mean pre-index HbA1c value was 8.2% (66 mmol/mol), with higher levels in younger versus older persons and AAs versus other race groups. Persons initiating linagliptin had an average HbA1c reduction of 0.51% (5.6 mmol/mol). Without adjusting for age, renal function, race, and pre-index HbA1c, greater reductions in HbA1c were observed in younger versus older persons, persons with higher versus lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and AAs versus white or Asians. After multivariate analysis, variables significantly associated with a greater HbA1c reduction included higher pre-index HbA1c and older age. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the HbA1c-lowering effectiveness of linagliptin across age, race, and renal function categories among a large real-world population of adults with T2DM.

Digital Whole Slide Imaging Compared With Light Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology.

CONTEXT.­: The adoption of digital capture of pathology slides as whole slide images (WSI) for educational and research applications has proven utility. OBJECTIVE.­: To compare pathologists' primary diagnoses derived from WSI versus the standard microscope. Because WSIs differ in format and method of observation compared with the current standard glass slide microscopy, this study is critical to potential clinical adoption of digital pathology. DESIGN.­: The study enrolled a total of 2045 cases enriched for more difficult diagnostic categories and represented as 5849 slides were curated and provided for diagnosis by a team of 19 reading pathologists separately as WSI or as glass slides viewed by light microscope. Cases were reviewed by each pathologist in both modalities in randomized order with a minimum 31-day washout between modality reads for each case. Each diagnosis was compared with the original clinical reference diagnosis by an independent central adjudication review. RESULTS.­: The overall major discrepancy rates were 3.64% for WSI review and 3.20% for manual slide review diagnosis methods, a difference of 0.44% (95% CI, -0.15 to 1.03). The time to review a case averaged 5.20 minutes for WSI and 4.95 minutes for glass slides. There was no specific subset of diagnostic category that showed higher rates of modality-specific discrepancy, though some categories showed greater discrepancy than others in both modalities. CONCLUSIONS.­: WSIs are noninferior to traditional glass slides for primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin in Comparison to Sitagliptin and Saxagliptin Based on Cardiovascular Outcome Trials in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Established Cardiovascular Disease.

INTRODUCTION: In the cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT) EMPA-REG OUTCOME, TECOS and SAVOR-TIMI 53, empagliflozin [sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor], sitagliptin and saxagliptin [both dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors] + standard of care (SoC) were compared to SoC in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of empagliflozin + SoC in comparison to sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC based on the respective CVOT. METHODS: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was calibrated to reproduce the CVOT outcomes. EMPA-REG OUTCOME baseline characteristics and CVOT specific treatment effects on risk factors for cardiovascular disease [glycated haemogloblin A1c (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, lipids] were applied. Three-year observed cardiovascular events of empagliflozin + SoC versus sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC were derived from EMPA-REG OUTCOME and an indirect treatment comparison. Relative risk (RR) adjustments to calibrate the CDM were estimated after consecutive attempts of running the model until the observed and CDM-predicted outcomes matched closely. The drug-specific treatment effects were considered up until treatment switch (when HbA1c reached 8.5%), after which, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 82 risk equations predicted events based on co-existing risk factors and treatment intensification to basal-bolus insulin were applied. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Costs and quality of life data were derived from UK national sources and published literature. A 50-year time horizon and discount rate of 3.5% were applied. RESULTS: The CDM projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 6.408, 5.917 and 5.704 and total costs of 50,801 GBP, 47,627 GBP and 48,071 GBP for empagliflozin + SoC, sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC, respectively. The incremental CE ratio (ICER) of empagliflozin + SoC versus sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC was 6464 GBP/QALY and 3878 GBP/QALY, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that empagliflozin + SoC is cost-effective compared to sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC at a willingness to pay threshold of 20,000 GBP/QALY. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH.

Comparison of all-cause, stroke, and bleed-specific healthcare resource utilization among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: We compared healthcare utilization outcomes and persistence among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: Using a nationwide, US administrative claims database, a retrospective matched-cohort of newly diagnosed NVAF patients (age≥18 years) treated with dabigatran or warfarin (propensity score matched 1:1) in 01/01/2011-12/31/2013 was evaluated. All-cause, stroke-, and bleed-specific per patient per month (PPPM) healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), incidence rate of hospitalization for stroke or bleed, 30-day readmission, and persistence were reported. RESULTS: In total, 18,890 dabigatran patients were matched to corresponding warfarin patients. Compared to warfarin users, dabigatran users PPPM had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations (0.04 vs 0.05), total outpatient visits (3.98 vs 5.87), and lower 30-day readmissions (14.5% vs 17.4%, all p < 0.001). Dabigatran users had lower incidence rate for stroke (0.65 vs 1.06) and bleed (1.69 vs 2.20), stroke (0.0006 vs 0.0011, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific hospitalizations (0.002 vs 0.003, p = 0.008), and stroke (0.03 vs 0.04, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific outpatient visits (0.07 vs 0.08, p = 0.018), and significantly lower non-persistence (62.1% vs 66.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among newly diagnosed newly treated NVAF patients, dabigatran users had significantly lower all-cause, stroke- and bleed-specific HCRU, lower risk of hospitalization for stroke or bleed events, lower 30-day readmissions, and higher persistence than warfarin users.

Factors influencing dabigatran or warfarin medication persistence in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Factors influencing differences in persistence between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remain unclear. AIM: Compare differences in persistence between new dabigatran and warfarin users in patients newly diagnosed with NVAF, adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, patient out-of-pocket cost and other covariates. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using a US claims database of Medicare and commercially insured patients with NVAF aged≥ 18 years. Persistence and monthly out-of-pocket costs for dabigatran or warfarin were calculated and adjusted for covariates using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Unadjusted persistence was significantly lower among dabigatran users (n = 1025) compared with matched warfarin users (38 vs 46%). Adjusting for covariates rendered this difference insignificant (hazard ratio = 0.930).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation using real-world evidence in elderly US Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been approved by the US FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Newly published real-world evidence based on the US population found that elderly Medicare patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban experienced statistically significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding, and statistically nonsignificant decreases in thromboembolic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with dabigatran. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban for the treatment of US Medicare NVAF patients. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted to compare dabigatran and rivaroxaban. The model considered thromboembolic stroke, bleeding events, and AMI based on the published real-world event risks. Model outputs included clinical event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Dabigatran patients experienced fewer ICH and major extracranial bleeding events than rivaroxaban patients, but more stroke and AMI events. Dabigatran was found to yield lower costs and higher QALYs than rivaroxaban, with incremental costs of -$3534 and incremental QALYs of 0.004. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with a positive net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY) for dabigatran over rivaroxaban for all model inputs tested. CONCLUSIONS: In this study using US Medicare real-world data, dabigatran was found to dominate rivaroxaban. The analyses were limited by the short follow-up period of the real-world data and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

All-Cause, Stroke-, and Bleed-Specific Healthcare Costs: Comparison among Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) Newly Treated with Dabigatran or Warfarin.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare all-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific healthcare costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: Administrative claims data from the MarketScan® Databases for 2009-2014 were used. Patients with NVAF newly treated with dabigatran were matched 1:1 to those treated with warfarin. All-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($US, year 2015 values) up to a 12-month follow-up period were analyzed. Stroke- or bleed-specific costs were defined as hospitalizations with stroke or bleed as the primary discharge diagnosis and outpatient claims with stroke or bleed diagnosis in any position. Differences in costs between dabigatran and warfarin users were assessed using descriptive and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 18,980 dabigatran-treated patients were matched to corresponding warfarin-treated patients. Adjusted all-cause total healthcare, inpatient, and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran cohort ($US3053 vs. 3433; $US904 vs. 1194; $US1594 vs. 1894, respectively; all p < 0.001), but mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher ($US556 vs. 345, p < 0.001). Stroke-specific total healthcare and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US30.37 vs. 40.99 and $US7.36 vs. 12.20, respectively; p < 0.05 for both values). Similarly, bleed-specific total healthcare and inpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US50.00 vs. 73.49 and $US27.75 vs. 48.66, respectively; p < 0.01 for both values). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving dabigatran had significantly lower total all-cause, inpatient, and outpatient costs but higher pharmacy costs than those receiving warfarin. In addition, stroke-specific total and outpatient costs and bleed-specific total and inpatient costs were significantly lower in dabigatran users compared with warfarin users.

Healthcare utilization and costs for patients initiating Dabigatran or Warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) such as dabigatran, when compared to warfarin, have been shown to potentially reduce the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) together with lower healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and similar total costs. This study expands on previous work by comparing HCRU and costs for patients newly diagnosed with NVAF and newly initiated on dabigatran or warfarin, and is the first study specifically in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using data from administrative health care claims during the study period 01/01/2010-12/31/2012. Cox regression analyses were used to compare all-cause risk of first hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. Medical, pharmacy, and total costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were compared between dabigatran and warfarin users. RESULTS: A total of 1110 patients initiated on dabigatran were propensity score-matched with corresponding patients initiated on warfarin. The mean number of hospitalizations (0.92 vs. 1.13, P = 0.012), ER visits (1.32 vs. 1.56, P < 0.01), office visits (21.43 vs. 29.41; P < 0.01), and outpatient visits (10.86 vs. 22.02; P < 0.01) were lower among dabigatran compared to warfarin users. Patients initiated on dabigatran had significantly lower risk of first all-cause ER visits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.98] compared to those initiated on warfarin. Adjusted mean pharmacy costs PPPM were significantly greater for dabigatran users ($510 vs. $250, P < 0.001); however, mean medical costs PPPM ($1912 vs. $1956, P = 0.55) and mean total costs PPPM ($2381 vs. $2183, P = 0.10) were not significantly different compared to warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran users had significantly lower HCRU compared to warfarin users. In addition, dabigatran users had lower risk of all-cause ER visits. Despite higher pharmacy costs, the two cohorts did not differ significantly in medical or total all-cause costs.