Patient and Physician Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Maintenance Treatments Following Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

Purpose: This study assessed and compared preferences for treatment attributes of maintenance therapies post-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and in physicians who treat these patients. Patients and Methods: Patients with AML post HSCT and physicians from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia (physicians only) completed a web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE). The DCE used inputs identified via a targeted literature review and qualitative interviews to ascertain relevant treatment attributes and associated levels. Six treatment attributes were selected (chance of 2-year relapse-free survival, quality of life [QoL], risk of serious infections, risk of nausea, chance of achieving transfusion independence, and duration of hospitalization annually), each with three or four levels. The experimental design included 36 choice tasks that presented a pair of hypothetical treatment profiles with varying attribute levels; participants chose a preferred treatment for each choice task. Choice tasks were divided into three blocks of 12 tasks each in the patient survey and 4 blocks of 9 tasks each in the physician survey; survey participants were randomly assigned to one of the blocks. Random parameter logit regression models were used to assess the impact of stated attributes on preferences for maintenance treatment post HSCT. Results: Surveys from 84 patients and 149 physicians were assessed. For patients, QoL was the most important attribute, followed by duration of hospitalization and chance of 2-year relapse-free survival. For physicians, chance of 2-year relapse-free survival was the most important attribute, followed by QoL and risk of serious infections. Conclusion: Differences in how patients and physicians valued post-HSCT maintenance treatment attributes were identified. These differences suggest that patient-centered decision-making may help physicians choose maintenance treatments for patients with AML post HSCT that better meet their treatment needs and improve their treatment satisfaction.

The experience of patients with acute myeloid leukemia in remission post-transplant.

The symptoms of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and its treatment can negatively impact patient functioning and quality of life. Through concept elicitation interviews, we sought to evaluate the experience of patients with AML in remission following hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Thirty patients with AML in remission post-HSCT, and eight clinicians with experience treating such patients, were asked to identify symptoms and impacts associated with AML and/or its treatment. The findings were used to develop an AML conceptual disease model to reflect the experience of these patients. We identified five symptoms and six impacts that were salient to patients with AML in remission post-HSCT. Although clinician and patient perspectives largely aligned, emotional and cognitive impacts were most important to patients, whereas clinicians focused on physical impacts. This model could be used to ensure patient-reported outcome measures included in clinical trials are reflective of the post-HSCT AML patient experience.

Patient-reported outcomes from the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory AML.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform treatment selection and assess treatment value in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We evaluated PROs from the ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939) in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML. PRO instruments consisted of Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Dyspnea Short Form (FACIT-Dys SF), EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and leukemia treatment-specific symptom questionnaires. Clinically significant effects on fatigue were observed with gilteritinib during the first two treatment cycles. Shorter survival was associated with clinically significant worsening of BFI, FACT-Leu, FACIT-Dys SF, and EQ-5D-5L measures. Transplantation and transfusion independence in gilteritinib-arm patients were also associated with maintenance or improvement in PROs. Health-related quality of life remained stable in the gilteritinib arm. Hospitalization had a small but significant effect on patient-reported fatigue. Gilteritinib was associated with a favorable effect on fatigue and other PROs in patients with FLT3-mutated R/R AML.

Cost-effectiveness of gilteritinib for relapsed/refractory FLT3mut+ acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and confirmed feline McDonough sarcoma (FMS)-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene mutations (FLT3mut+) have a poor prognosis and limited effective treatment options. Gilteritinib is the first targeted therapy approved in the United States and Europe for R/R FLT3mut+ AML with significantly improved efficacy compared with existing treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate gilteritinib against salvage chemotherapy (SC) and best supportive care (BSC) over a lifetime horizon among adult patients with R/R FLT3mut+ AML from a US third-party payer's perspective. METHODS: The model structure of this cost-effectiveness analysis included a decision tree to stratify patients based on their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) status, followed by 2 separate 3-state partitioned survival models to predict the long-term health status conditional on HSCT status. The ADMIRAL trial data and literature were used to predict probabilities of patients being in different health states until a conservative cure point at year 3. Afterwards, living patients followed the survival outcomes of long-term survivors with AML. Model inputs for utilities, medical resource use, and costs were based on the ADMIRAL trial, published literature, and public sources. All costs were inflated to 2019 US dollars (USD). Total incremental costs (in 2019 USD), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon with a 3.0% annual discount rate, the base-case model estimated that gilteritinib led to an increase of 1.29 discounted QALYs at an additional cost of $148,106 vs SC, corresponding to an ICER of $115,192 per QALY; for BSC, results were an increase of 2.32 discounted QALYs, $249,674, and $107,435, respectively. The base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses. The estimated probabilities of gilteritinib being cost-effective vs SC and BSC were 90.5% and 99.8%, respectively, in the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Gilteritinib is a cost-effective novel treatment for patients with R/R FLT3mut+ AML in the United States. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Astellas Pharma, Inc., which was involved in all stages of the research and manuscript development. Garnham, Pandya, and Shah are employees of Astellas and hold stock/stock options. Zeidan consulted and received personal fees/honoraria and research funding from Astellas. Zeidan also has received research funding from Celgene/BMS, Abbvie, Astex, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Trovagene/Cardiff Oncology, Incyte, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen, Aprea, and ADC Therapeutics; has participated in advisory boards; has consulted with and/or received honoraria from AbbVie, Otsuka, Pfizer, Celgene/BMS, Jazz, Incyte, Agios, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Acceleron, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, BeyondSpring, Cardiff Oncology, Takeda, Ionis, Amgen, Janssen, Syndax, Gilead, Kura, Aprea, Lox Oncology, Genentech, Servier, Jasper, Tyme, and Epizyme; has served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, Abbvie, Geron, Gilead, Kura, Lox Oncology, BioCryst, and Celgene/BMS; and has received travel support for meetings from Pfizer, Novartis, and Cardiff Oncology. Qi and Yang are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., which received consulting fees from Astellas for work on this study. Part of this material was presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia: Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Maintenance therapy is one strategy to prolong survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We evaluated real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML receiving HSCT after complete remission with first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: A global, retrospective chart review to evaluate maintenance therapy and outcomes in patients with FLT3-mutated AML after HSCT. RESULTS: Data from 1208 charts from eight countries showed that most patients (n = 765 [63.3%]) received no maintenance therapy after HSCT, 219 (18.1%) received FLT3 inhibitor maintenance therapy, and 224 (18.5%) received other types of maintenance therapy. No systematic differences were observed in healthcare resource utilization across the three groups. Clinical benefit was observed with FLT3 inhibitor maintenance over no maintenance therapy with relapse-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.57 [95% CI 0.34-0.94], P < .05). FLT3 inhibitor and other maintenance also demonstrated overall survival benefit over no maintenance (adjusted HR 0.50 [95% CI 0.28-0.89] and 0.46 [95% CI 0.23-0.91], respectively; both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world maintenance therapies after HSCT in patients with FLT3-mutated AML were heterogeneous. While overall use of healthcare resources was not significantly increased in patients receiving maintenance therapy versus those who did not, clinical outcomes were improved.

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractory FLT3 mut+ acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan.

AIMS: To estimate the economic impact of the introduction of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) FLT3 mutation-positive (FLT3 mut+) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) from a US payer's perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) was developed to evaluate the 3-year total budgetary impact of treating adults with R/R FLT3 mut+ AML eligible for gilteritinib in a hypothetical US health plan. Total costs (drugs/administration, hospitalization, monitoring, adverse events, transfusions, subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, post-progression, and FLT3 testing) were estimated before and after gilteritinib entry. The budget impact was the total cost difference between the two scenarios. The target population size and cost inputs were based on public data or published literature, drug market share was informed by market research data, and the model included recommended treatments for R/R FLT3 mut+ AML per clinical guidelines. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSAs) and scenario analyses varying key model inputs and assumptions were conducted to test for robustness. RESULTS: In a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 20.9 adults with R/R FLT3 mut+ AML were estimated to be eligible for gilteritinib. Of these, it was assumed 30.0% would be treated with gilteritinib in Year 1 following gilteritinib entry, increasing the total plan budget by $663,795 and the per-member-per-month (PMPM) cost by $0.055. In Years 2-3, the market share of gilteritinib increased to 45.0%, increasing the total plan budget impact by $1,078,371 and $1,087,230, and the PMPM cost by $0.090 and $0.091, respectively. The model results remained robust in DSAs and scenario analyses, with the largest impact observed when the projected uptake of gilteritinib was changed. LIMITATIONS: The results of this BIM are contingent upon the model's assumptions and inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Adding gilteritinib to the formulary for the treatment of adults with R/R FLT3 mut+ AML had a minimal budget impact from a US payer's perspective.

Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization in patients with FLT3-mutated and wild-type acute myeloid leukemia: A medical chart study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) among patients with FLT3-mutated (FLT3mut ) and FLT3-wild-type (FLT3wt ) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: Data were abstracted from medical charts of patients with AML from 10 countries. Patients were grouped based on their FLT3 mutation status, age (18-64 or ≥65), and whether they were newly diagnosed (ND) or relapsed/refractory (R/R). RESULTS: Charts of 1027 AML patients were included (183 FLT3mut 18-64 ND; 136 FLT3mut ≥65 ND; 181 FLT3mut R/R; 186 FLT3wt 18-64 ND; 159 FLT3wt ≥65 ND; 182 FLT3wt R/R). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in treatment patterns for AML. Among ND patients 18-64, the most common initial treatment was standard-to-intermediate dose cytarabine-based therapies (43.2% for FLT3mut and 55.9% for FLT3wt ); among ND patients ≥65, the most common initial treatment was hypomethylating agent-based therapies (36.0% and 47.2%). Among R/R patients, the most common initial treatment after R/R was best supportive care only (39.8% and 24.7%). HRU was substantial across cohorts during both event-free and post-event periods. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns of AML were heterogeneous and FLT3mut AML was treated more aggressively than FLT3wt disease. HRU was substantial for all cohorts, particularly after relapse or treatment failure.

Hospitalization Costs for Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery Treated With Intravenous Acetaminophen (IV-APAP) Plus Other IV Analgesics or IV Opioid Monotherapy for Postoperative Pain.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the impact on hospitalization costs of multimodal analgesia (MMA), including intravenous acetaminophen (IV-APAP), versus IV opioid monotherapy for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. METHODS: Utilizing the Truven Health MarketScan® Hospital Drug Database (HDD), patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), or surgical repair of hip fracture between 1/1/2011 and 8/31/2014 were separated into postoperative pain management groups: MMA with IV-APAP plus other IV analgesics (IV-APAP group) or an IV opioid monotherapy group. All patients could have received oral analgesics. Baseline characteristics and total hospitalization costs were compared. Additionally, an inverse probability treatment weighting [IPTW] with propensity scores analysis further assessed hospitalization cost differences. RESULTS: The IV-APAP group (n = 33,954) and IV opioid monotherapy group (n = 110,300) differed significantly (P < 0.0001) across baseline characteristics, though the differences may not have been clinically meaningful. Total hospitalization costs (mean ± standard deviation) were significantly lower for the IV-APAP group than the IV opioid monotherapy group (US$12,540 ± $9564 vs. $13,242 ± $35,825; P < 0.0001). Medical costs accounted for $701 of the $702 between-group difference. Pharmacy costs were similar between groups. Results of the IPTW-adjusted analysis further supported the statistically significant cost difference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery who received MMA for postoperative pain management, including IV-APAP, had significantly lower total costs than patients who received IV opioid monotherapy. This difference was driven by medical costs; importantly, there was no difference in pharmacy costs. Generalizability of the results may be limited to patients admitted to hospitals similar to those included in HDD. Dosing could not be determined, so it was not possible to quantify utilization of IV-APAP or ascertain differences in opioid consumption between the 2 groups. This study did not account for healthcare utilization post-discharge.

Disease burden and treatment outcomes in second-line therapy of patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the variable burden of disease of patients with advanced estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer and assess the current treatment landscape after failure of first-line endocrine therapy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed (2000-2011) by searching Medline via PubMed, and Embase and Cochrane databases, to assess disease burden (i.e. societal, humanistic, and/or economic burden) and treatment landscape for second-line therapy of ER+ advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. RESULTS: Only 1 study was identified that evaluated burden of disease based on ER status (ER+, ER-negative, or ER-unknown); this study was a subgroup analysis assessing the impact of breast cancer recurrence over 10 years. The investigators reported that only minor differences in survival and medical costs were noted based on ER status in relapsing patients. Regardless of ER status, patients with breast cancer recurrence consumed more healthcare resources and were associated with more costly care than those without recurrence. A total of 7 studies were identified related to treatment outcomes of second-line therapy in ER+ patients. A combined international population totaled >3800 patients who had progressed on prior hormonal therapy, including tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors. Three trials performed a comparative efficacy/safety assessment of an ER antagonist vs. aromatase inhibitor, 1 trial compared an aromatase inhibitor to megestrol acetate, and 1 trial compared 2 aromatase inhibitors. Among each of the studies evaluated, no significant differences were observed in the primary efficacy endpoint, and the safety profiles were similar. Two additional studies demonstrated a similar or better efficacy and safety profile based on different dosing evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the economic and humanistic burden associated with ER status, and this gap warrants further research. With increasing drug resistance and greater economic burden associated with breast cancer recurrence, there is an unmet medical need for improved treatment in this patient population.