Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as an Adjuvant Treatment of Resected Stage IIB or IIC Melanoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab was approved in the US as adjuvant treatment of patients with stage IIB or IIC melanoma post-complete resection, based on prolonged recurrence-free survival vs. placebo in the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 trial. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs. observation as adjuvant treatment of stage IIB or IIC melanoma from a US health sector perspective. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was constructed to simulate patient transitions among recurrence-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, and death. Transition probabilities from recurrence-free and locoregional recurrence were estimated via multistate parametric modeling based on patient-level data from an interim analysis (data cutoff date: 04-Jan-2022). Transition probabilities from distant metastasis were based on KEYNOTE-006 data and network meta-analysis. Costs were estimated in 2022 US dollars. Utilities were based on applying US value set to EQ-5D-5L data collected in trial and literature. RESULTS: Compared to observation, pembrolizumab increased total costs by $80,423 and provided gains of 1.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 1.24 life years (LYs) over lifetime, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68,736/QALY and $65,059/LY. The higher upfront costs of adjuvant treatment were largely offset by reductions in costs of subsequent treatment, downstream disease management, and terminal care, reflecting the lower risk of recurrence with pembrolizumab. Results were robust in one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses. At a $150,000/QALY threshold, pembrolizumab was cost-effective vs. observation in 73.9% of probabilistic simulations that considered parameter uncertainty. CONCLUSION: As an adjuvant treatment of stage IIB or IIC melanoma, pembrolizumab was estimated to reduce recurrence, extend patients' life and QALYs, and be cost-effective versus observation at a US willingness-to-pay threshold.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as an Adjuvant Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma Post-nephrectomy in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab was recently approved as an adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), based on prolonged disease-free survival compared to placebo in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab as monotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of RCC post-nephrectomy, from a US health sector perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model with 4 health states (disease-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus routine surveillance or sunitinib. Transition probabilities were estimated using patient-level KEYNOTE-564 data (cutoff: June 14, 2021), a retrospective study, and published literature. Costs of adjuvant and subsequent treatments, adverse events, disease management, and terminal care were estimated in 2022 US$. Utilities were based on EQ-5D-5L data collected in KEYNOTE-564. Outcomes included costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). Robustness was assessed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Total cost per patient was $549,353 for pembrolizumab, $505,094 for routine surveillance, and $602,065 for sunitinib. Over a lifetime, pembrolizumab provided gains of 0.96 QALYs (1.00 LYs) compared to routine surveillance, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,327/QALY. Pembrolizumab dominated sunitinib with 0.89 QALYs (0.91 LYs) gained while saving costs. At a $150,000/QALY threshold, pembrolizumab was cost-effective versus both routine surveillance and sunitinib in 84.2% of probabilistic simulations. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab is projected to be cost-effective as an adjuvant RCC treatment versus routine surveillance or sunitinib based on a typical willingness-to-pay threshold.

An economic evaluation of risankizumab versus other biologic treatments of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of risankizumab versus other biologic treatments (adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and guselkumab) of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Japan. METHODS: A Markov cohort-level model was constructed to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for each treatment over a lifetime horizon. The model simulated patients' transition through one line of active biologic therapy followed by best supportive care and death. Transition probabilities were informed by network meta-analyses of Psoriasis Activity and Severity Index responses and adverse event-related discontinuation in clinical trials, as well as published real-world evidence and national mortality rates. Costs were evaluated from the health system, societal, and patient out-of-pocket perspectives. RESULTS: Risankizumab was expected to provide 0.30-0.89 additional QALYs versus comparator biologics. Under the health system perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of risankizumab ranged from ¥2,545,812/QALY versus ustekinumab to ¥6,077,134/QALY versus adalimumab. Societal ICERs were lower, ranging from ¥921,770/QALY to ¥4,350,879/QALY. From the patient perspective, risankizumab was estimated to be cost-saving versus four comparators and was associated with ICERs of <¥500,000/QALY versus the remaining comparators. CONCLUSION: Risankizumab was associated with higher QALYs and, based on typical willingness-to-pay benchmarks (¥5-6.7 million/QALY), considered cost-effective versus other biologics for the treatment of psoriasis in Japan.

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.

Health care resource utilization and cost burden of hemophilia B in the United States.

Hemophilia B is a rare congenital blood disorder characterized by factor IX deficiency. Clinical profiles of hemophilia B range from mild to severe forms of the disease. The objective of this study was to characterize the economic burden associated with differing clinical profiles of hemophilia B from a US health system perspective. Using the IBM MarketScan database (June 2011-February 2019), a claims-based algorithm was developed to identify 4 distinct profiles (mild, moderate, moderate-severe, and severe) in adult males with hemophilia B based on the frequency of hemorrhage events and factor IX replacement claims. Mean annual health care resource use (HRU) and costs were statistically compared between patients with hemophilia B (N = 454) and 1:1 demographic-matched controls (N = 454), both overall and with stratification by clinical profile. Compared with matched controls, patients with hemophilia B had a significantly higher comorbidity burden (Charlson Comorbidity Index, mean ± standard deviation [SD]: 0.9 ± 1.7 vs 0.3 ± 0.9, P < .001). Across all clinical profiles, patients with hemophilia B had significantly higher HRU vs matched controls (mean ± SD: 0.3 ± 0.6 vs 0.1 ± 0.3 inpatient admissions; 0.6 ± 1.2 vs 0.2 ± 0.6 emergency department visits; 17.7 ± 22.9 vs 8.0 ± 11.0 outpatient visits; all P < .001). Annual total health care costs per patient among patients with hemophilia B were more than 25-fold higher vs matched controls (mean ± SD: $201 635 ± $411 530 vs $7879 ± $29 040, respectively, P < .001). Annual total health care costs per patient increased with increasing severity (mean ± SD: mild, $80 811 ± $284 313; moderate, $137 455 ± $222 021; moderate-severe, $251 619 ± $576 886; severe, $632 088 ± $501 270). The findings of this study highlight the substantial burden of illness associated with hemophilia B.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Pembrolizumab/axitinib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and increased objective response rate versus sunitinib in the phase III trial KEYNOTE-426 among previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab/axitinib versus other first-line treatments of advanced RCC from a US public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three states (progression-free, progressed, death) evaluated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for pembrolizumab/axitinib and other first-line regimens: sunitinib, pazopanib and avelumab/axitinib in the overall population; and sunitinib, cabozantinib and nivolumab/ipilimumab in the subgroup with intermediate/poor prognostic risk. Costs of treatments, adverse events and medical resources were estimated. OS, PFS and treatment duration were extrapolated using parametric models fitted to KEYNOTE-426 data and hazard ratios from network meta-analyses. Utilities were derived through mixed-effects regressions of KEYNOTE-426 EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels data. RESULTS: In the overall population, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $95,725/QALY versus sunitinib and $128,210/QALY versus pazopanib, and was dominant (lower cost, higher effectiveness) versus avelumab/axitinib, with incremental QALY gains of 2.73, 2.40 and 1.80 versus these therapies, respectively. In the intermediate/poor-risk subgroup, base-case ICERs for pembrolizumab/axitinib were $101,030/QALY versus sunitinib, $6989/QALY versus cabozantinib, and $130,934/QALY versus nivolumab/ipilimumab, with incremental QALY gains of 2.62, 1.78 and 1.06 versus these therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In this economic evaluation, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with higher life expectancy and QALYs and, based on typical willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000-$180,000/QALY, was found cost-effective versus other first-line treatments for advanced RCC in the US.

An Economic Evaluation of Pembrolizumab Versus Other Adjuvant Treatment Strategies for Resected High-Risk Stage III Melanoma in the USA.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Over the past 5 years, adjuvant treatment options for surgically resected stage III melanoma have expanded with the introduction of several novel immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies. Pembrolizumab, a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2019 for resected high-risk stage III melanoma based on significantly longer recurrence-free survival versus placebo. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus other adjuvant treatment strategies for resected high-risk stage III melanoma from a US health system perspective. METHODS: A Markov cohort-level model with four states (recurrence-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, death) estimated costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for pembrolizumab versus routine observation and other adjuvant comparators: ipilimumab in the overall population; and dabrafenib + trametinib in the BRAF-mutation positive (BRAF+) subgroup. Transition probabilities starting from recurrence-free were estimated through parametric multi-state modeling based on phase 3 KEYNOTE-054 (NCT02362594) trial data for pembrolizumab and observation, and network meta-analyses for other comparators. Post-recurrence transitions were modeled based on electronic medical records data and trials in advanced/metastatic melanoma. Utilities were derived using quality-of-life data from KEYNOTE-054 and literature. Costs of treatment, adverse events, disease management, and terminal care were included. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and observation were associated with QALYs of 9.24, 7.09, and 5.95 and total costs of $511,290, $992,721, and $461,422, respectively (2019 US dollars). Pembrolizumab was thus dominant (less costly, more effective) versus ipilimumab, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $15,155/QALY versus observation. In the BRAF+ subgroup, pembrolizumab dominated dabrafenib + trametinib and observation, decreasing costs by $62,776 and $11,250 and increasing QALYs by 0.93 and 3.10 versus these comparators, respectively. Results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: As adjuvant treatment for resected stage III melanoma, pembrolizumab was found to be dominant and therefore cost-effective compared with the active comparators ipilimumab and dabrafenib + trametinib. Pembrolizumab increased costs relative to observation in the overall population, with sufficient incremental benefit to be considered cost-effective based on typical willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Time to treatment failure following initiation of fingolimod versus teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis: a retrospective US claims study.

Objective: Disease modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) aim to delay progression and reduce relapses. Evidence is limited on the comparative effectiveness of the oral DMTs fingolimod and teriflunomide. This study evaluated time to treatment failure among patients with MS who initiated fingolimod versus teriflunomide in real-world settings.Methods: The retrospective cohort included 18-64 year old patients diagnosed with MS who initiated fingolimod or teriflunomide during 12 September 2012 to 30 September 2015 within MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Claims. Patients were followed from treatment initiation (index date) until first treatment failure or censoring. Treatment failure was defined as the first occurrence of MS relapse (identified using a validated algorithm) or treatment discontinuation (≥60 day supply gap). Treatment failure was examined through Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression adjusting for 1 year baseline factors (age, gender, plan type, region, index year, prior DMT use, baseline relapses, Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] and MS symptoms).Results: On average, patients treated with fingolimod (n = 2704) were younger (43.6 versus 49.8 years) with lower CCI (0.4 versus 0.7) and more relapses at baseline (0.46 versus 0.42) than those treated with teriflunomide (n = 1859). Median time to treatment failure was 19.5 months with fingolimod versus 9.6 months with teriflunomide (p < .001). After controlling key demographic and clinical characteristics through multivariable regression, fingolimod was associated with 38.9% lower hazards of treatment failure versus teriflunomide (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.611; 95% CI: 0.559-0.669; p < .001).Conclusions: In a large cohort of US adults with MS, controlling for key baseline characteristics, fingolimod was associated with significantly longer time to treatment failure and lower risk of treatment failure compared with teriflunomide.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of resected high-risk stage III melanoma in the United States.

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant pembrolizumab relative to observation alone following complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma with lymph node involvement, from a US health system perspective. Materials and methods: A Markov cohort model with four health states (recurrence-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with pembrolizumab vs observation over a lifetime (46-year) horizon. Using a parametric multi-state modeling approach, transition probabilities starting from recurrence-free were estimated based on patient-level data from KEYNOTE-054 (NCT02362594), a direct head-to-head phase 3 trial. Post-recurrence transition probabilities were informed by real-world retrospective data and clinical trials in advanced melanoma. Health state utilities and adverse event-related disutility were derived from KEYNOTE-054 trial data and published literature. Costs of drug acquisition and administration, adverse events, disease management, and terminal care were estimated in 2018 US dollars. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, adjuvant pembrolizumab and observation were associated with total QALYs of 9.24 and 5.95, total life-years of 10.54 and 7.15, and total costs of $489,820 and $440,431, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for pembrolizumab vs observation were $15,009/QALY and $14,550/life-year. Across the range of input values and assumptions tested in deterministic sensitivity analyses, pembrolizumab ranged from being a dominant strategy to having an ICER of $57,449/QALY vs observation. The ICER was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY in 90.2% of probabilistic simulations. Limitations: Long-term extrapolation of outcomes was based on interim results from KEYNOTE-054, with a median follow-up of 15 months. Conclusions: Based on common willingness-to-pay benchmarks, pembrolizumab is highly cost-effective compared with observation alone for the adjuvant treatment of completely resected stage III melanoma in the US.

Real-world durability of relapse rate reduction in patients with multiple sclerosis receiving fingolimod for up to 3 years: a retrospective US claims database analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world durability of reduction in relapse rates among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) receiving fingolimod therapy over a longer-term period of follow-up. METHODS: Patients with MS who initiated fingolimod were identified from a US claims database (January 1, 2009 to September 30, 2016) and followed for 3 years post-initiation. Annualized relapse rates (ARRs) were calculated during the 1-year pre-initiation period, and during each year over the 3-year follow-up period. Time from fingolimod initiation to discontinuation (≥60-day treatment gap) was also summarized. RESULTS: Among 1599 fingolimod initiators, 1158 (72%) had continuous fingolimod use up to the start of year 2 and 937 (59%) had continuous fingolimod use up to the start of year 3. The mean baseline ARR during the 1-year pre-initiation period for all initiators was 0.51. After fingolimod initiation, mean ARRs were consistently lower in each year of follow-up: 0.25 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.28) in year 1 for all fingolimod initiators, 0.22 (0.18, 0.25) in year 2 for patients with continuous fingolimod use up to the start of year 2, and 0.23 (0.19, 0.27) in year 3 for patients with continuous fingolimod use up to the start of year 3. Median time on treatment was 33 months for all patients initiating fingolimod. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MS who received continuous fingolimod therapy experienced a sustained reduction in relapse rates (>50% vs. baseline) during each year of a 3-year follow-up period.

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs crizotinib and platinum doublet chemotherapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US third-party payer's perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressive disease, death) was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Ceritinib's efficacy inputs (progression-free and overall survival) were estimated from ASCEND-4; parametric survival models extrapolated data beyond the trial period. The relative efficacy of ceritinib vs chemotherapy was obtained from ASCEND-4, the relative efficacy of ceritinib vs crizotinib was estimated using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. Drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and medical costs were obtained from publicly available databases and the literature, and inflated to 2016 US dollars. Treatment-specific stable-state utilities were derived from trials and progressive-state utility from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated for ceritinib vs each comparator. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness. RESULTS: In the base case, first-line ceritinib was associated with total direct costs of $299,777 and 3.28 QALYs (from 4.61 life years gained [LYG]) over 20 years. First-line crizotinib and chemotherapy were associated with 2.73 and 2.41 QALYs, 3.92 and 3.53 LYG, and $263,172 and $228,184 total direct costs, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $66,064 for ceritinib vs crizotinib and $81,645 for ceritinib vs chemotherapy. In the first 2 years following treatment initiation, ceritinib dominated crizotinib by conferring greater health benefits at reduced total costs. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect comparison method was used. CONCLUSIONS: Ceritinib is cost-effective compared to crizotinib and chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated ALK-positive metastatic NCSLC in the US.

Cost per responder associated with biologic therapies for Crohn's disease, psoriasis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic therapies have demonstrated efficacy and safety in several chronic systemic disorders. The authors indirectly compared response rates and costs per responder associated with biologic treatments for moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (CD), psoriasis (Ps), and/or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify phase 3 randomized controlled trials of biologics for CD (adalimumab, infliximab), Ps (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, ustekinumab 45 mg, ustekinumab 90 mg), or methotrexate-refractory RA (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab). Food and Drug Administration-approved dosing schedules were evaluated. Published response rates were extracted, with response defined in CD, Ps, and RA as: ≥70-point reduction in CD Activity Index at 12 months; ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at 3 months; and ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology component scores at 6 months. Within each indication, mixed-treatment comparison meta-analyses were conducted to derive pooled estimates and 95% CIs of response rate difference versus placebo for each biologic, adjusting for cross-trial variation in control-arm response rates. Cost per responder was estimated for each biologic as projected per patient drug costs (2011 US$) divided by response rate difference. RESULTS: Altogether, 23 publications were selected. In CD, 12-month cost per responder was estimated at $116,291 (95% CI $71,637-208,348) for adalimumab and $125,169 (95% CI $60,532-267,101) for infliximab. Among biologics approved in Ps, 3-month cost per responder was lowest for adalimumab ($9,756; 95% CI $8,668-11,131), infliximab ($12,828; 95% CI $11,772-13,922), and ustekinumab 45 mg ($13,821; 95% CI $12,599-15,167). In RA, biologics with the lowest 6-month cost per responder were adalimumab ($27,853; 95% CI $19,284-40,270), etanercept ($29,140; 95% CI $14,170-61,030), and tocilizumab ($31,363; 95% CI $14,713-64,232). CONCLUSION: Meta-analyses of clinical trials found considerable variation in cost-effectiveness of biologic therapies for CD, Ps, and RA. These results may help determine biologic utilization in these chronic diseases.

Effect of adalimumab on clinical laboratory parameters in patients with Crohn's disease: results from the CHARM trial.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional deficiencies and anemia are common in Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: We evaluated the effect of adalimumab on changes in laboratory values using data from CHARM, in which patients were randomized to adalimumab 40 mg every other week (eow), adalimumab 40 mg weekly, or placebo for 56 weeks. Mean changes in laboratory values from baseline to Weeks 26 and 56 were compared between adalimumab and placebo using analysis of covariance models. Percentages of patients with suboptimal laboratory values at Weeks 26 and 56 were compared between treatment groups using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests. Pearson correlation coefficients for associations between changes in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score and changes in laboratory values were estimated at Weeks 4, 26, and 56. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis included 778 patients randomized to adalimumab eow (N = 260), adalimumab weekly (N = 257), or placebo (N = 261). Baseline abnormalities in laboratory values were common across treatment groups. CMH tests revealed significantly lesser rates of suboptimal laboratory values with adalimumab vs. placebo at Week 26, including hypoalbuminemia, calcium deficiency, low hemoglobin, low hematocrit, low red blood cell count, elevated platelet count, and elevated C-reactive protein concentration (all P < 0.05). These improvements persisted at Week 56. Improvements in CDAI from baseline to Weeks 4, 26, and 56 were significantly correlated with changes from baseline for albumin, hemoglobin, and C-reactive protein (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab therapy for moderately to severely active CD was associated with significant improvements in nutritional, hematologic, and inflammatory markers.

Effect of adalimumab on work productivity and indirect costs in moderate to severe Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of adalimumab on work productivity and indirect costs in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) using a meta-analysis of clinical trials. METHODS: Study-level results were pooled from all clinical trials of adalimumab for moderate to severe CD in which work productivity outcomes were evaluated. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire outcomes (absenteeism, presenteeism and total work productivity impairment [TWPI]) were extracted from adalimumab trials. Meta-analyses were used to estimate pooled averages and 95% CIs of one-year accumulated reductions in work productivity impairment with adalimumab. Pooled averages were multiplied by the 2008 United States national average annual salary ($44,101) to estimate per-patient indirect cost savings during the year following adalimumab initiation. RESULTS: The four included trials (ACCESS, CARE, CHOICE and EXTEND) represented a total of 1202 employed adalimumab-treated patients at baseline. Each study followed patients for a minimum of 20 weeks. Pooled estimates (95% CIs) of one-year accumulated work productivity improvements were as follows: -9% (-10% to -7%) for absenteeism; -22% (-26% to -18%) for presenteeism; and -25% (-30% to -20%) for TWPI. Reductions in absenteeism and TWPI translated into per-patient indirect cost savings (95% CI) of $3,856 ($3,183 to $4,529) and $10,964 ($8,833 to $13,096), respectively. CONCLUSION: Adalimumab provided clinically meaningful improvements in work productivity among patients with moderate to severe CD, which may translate into substantial indirect cost savings from an employer's perspective.

Comparison of skeletal complications and treatment patterns associated with early vs. delayed zoledronic acid therapy in multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: This study retrospectively compared the risks of skeletal-related events (SREs) and zoledronic acid (ZOL) treatment discontinuation associated with early vs. delayed ZOL therapy for patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected from a physician-administered medical chart review among US patients with a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic MM treated after 01/01/2002. Early and delayed ZOL therapy were defined, respectively, as initiating ZOL ≤ 60 days (N = 126) vs. > 60 days (N = 186) after the first symptomatic MM diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier analysis with a log-rank test was performed to compare the risk of SREs between the cohorts. Cox proportional hazard modeling compared the risk of SREs associated with early vs. delayed ZOL treatment, controlling for demographic factors, stage of MM, bone health status, and presence of major comorbidities at diagnosis. Time to ZOL discontinuation was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, following patients from the date of ZOL initiation. RESULTS: Time to the first SRE was significantly longer for patients who received early treatment with ZOL (P = .005). At 2 years after diagnosis, the SRE-free rate was 74.6% vs. 56.5% in the early vs. delayed treatment group, respectively. Early ZOL therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of any SRE (hazard rate [HR] = .625 vs. delayed ZOL therapy; P = .029). At 2 years from ZOL therapy initiation, rates of ZOL discontinuation were 9.6% vs. 16.4% among patients with early vs. delayed therapy, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Early treatment with ZOL was associated with significantly reduced risks of SREs and with better treatment persistence compared with delayed treatment.

Copayment level, treatment persistence, and healthcare utilization in hypertension patients treated with single-pill combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between drug copayment level and persistence and the implications of non-persistence on healthcare utilization and costs among adult hypertension patients receiving single-pill combination (SPC) therapy. METHODS: Patients initiated on SPC with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) + calcium channel blocker, ARB + hydrochlorothiazide, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors + hydrochlorothiazide were identified in the MarketScan Database (2006-2008). Multivariate models were used to assess copayment level as a predictor of 3-month and 6-month persistence. Three levels of copayment were considered (low: ≤$5, medium: $5-30, high: >$30 for <90-day supply; low: ≤$10, medium: $10-60, high: >$60 for ≥90-day supply). Separate models examined the implications of persistence during the first 3 months on outcomes during the subsequent 3-month period, including utilization and changes in healthcare costs from baseline. National- and state-level outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Analyses of 381,661 patients found significantly lower 3-month and 6-month persistence to therapies with high copayments. Relative to high-copayment drugs, risk-adjusted odds ratios at 3 months were 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26, 1.32) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.30) for low- and medium-copayment medications, respectively. The strength of the association between copayment and persistence varied across states. Non-persistent patients had significantly more cardiovascular-related hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.30, 1.43) and emergency room (ER) visits (IRR = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.43, 1.59) than persistent patients. Non-persistence was associated with significantly larger increases in all-cause medical services cost by $277 (95% CI: $225, $329), but lesser increases in prescription costs by -$81 (95% CI: -$85, -$76). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the possibility of confounding from unobserved factors (e.g., patient income), and the lack of blood pressure data. CONCLUSIONS: High copayment for SPC therapy was associated with significantly worse persistence among hypertensive patients. Persistence was associated with substantially lower frequencies of hospitalizations and ER visits and net healthcare cost savings.

Compliance, persistence, healthcare resource use, and treatment costs associated with aliskiren plus ARB versus ACE inhibitor plus ARB combination therapy: in US patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is currently equivocal on the added benefits of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the combination of either an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) plus an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) or aliskiren, the first-in-class direct renin inhibitor, plus an ARB. OBJECTIVE: To compare the compliance, persistence, healthcare resource utilization, and healthcare costs associated with aliskiren plus ARB versus ACEI plus ARB combination therapies among adult patients diagnosed with hypertension. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥18 years) initiated on either combination therapy were identified in the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008). The ARB components considered were candesartan, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan, telmisartan, and valsartan. The ACEI components included benazepril, captopril, enalapril, fosinopril, lisinopril, moexipril, perindopril, quinapril, ramipril, and trandolapril. Outcomes measured during the 6-month study period included the proportion of days covered (PDC), treatment discontinuation, healthcare resource utilization, and changes in healthcare costs (study period minus 6-month baseline values). Risk-adjusted differences in outcomes between treatments and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariate regression models, controlling for demographics, region, co-morbidities, prescription drug use, and resource utilization during the baseline period. RESULTS: Adjusting for baseline characteristics, aliskiren plus ARB patients (n = 1395) demonstrated a significantly higher PDC (67.0% vs 54.3%; difference 12.7%; 95% CI 10.6, 14.7) and a significantly lower discontinuation rate (50.4% vs 68.6%; odds ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.40, 0.54) than ACEI plus ARB patients (n = 16 507). Aliskiren plus ARB patients had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.73; 95% CI 0.61, 0.86) and significantly fewer all-cause emergency room (ER) visits (adjusted IRR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61, 0.85) than ACEI plus ARB patients. Compared with ACEI plus ARB therapy, aliskiren plus ARB therapy was associated with significantly larger increases in prescription costs by $US264 post therapy initiation (95% CI 153, 375), but with non-significantly greater reductions in total healthcare costs by -$583 (95% CI -2409, 1242).[2008 values]. CONCLUSION: In adult hypertensive patients, treatment with aliskiren plus ARB was associated with significantly better compliance/persistence and fewer hospitalizations and ER visits compared with ACEI plus ARB therapy. Reductions in total healthcare costs were non-significantly different between patients treated with aliskiren plus ARB versus ACEI plus ARB, despite the increased prescription costs associated with aliskiren plus ARB therapy.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab among patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with co-morbidities: Subanalysis of results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is associated with a variety of major physical and mental co-morbidities. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental burden of co-morbidities on patient-reported outcomes and evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in psoriasis patients with co-morbidities. STUDY DESIGN: Data were obtained from the initial 16-week, double-blind treatment period of REVEAL (Randomized controlled EValuation of adalimumab Every other week dosing in moderate to severe psoriasis triAL), a randomized, multicenter, phase III clinical trial. INTERVENTION: Patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were randomized in a 2 : 1 ratio to receive adalimumab 80 mg (two 40 mg injections administered subcutaneously) at baseline followed by one 40 mg injection every other week from week 1 to week 15 or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical severity (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI]) and patient-reported outcomes (Dermatology Life Quality Index [DLQI], Short Form 36 [SF-36] health survey, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment [WPAI] questionnaire) were assessed during the trial. The effect of selected co-morbidities (i.e. hypertension, psoriatic arthritis, hyperlipidemia, obesity, depression, other forms of arthritis, diabetes mellitus, and other cardiovascular diseases) on patient-reported outcomes was evaluated using multivariate analysis of covariance models. Subgroup analyses were performed by co-morbidity type to statistically compare the clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcome benefits, and safety of adalimumab with placebo in the presence of these conditions. RESULTS: Study co-morbidities were each independently associated with significantly greater impairment on at least one general patient-reported outcome measured at baseline (all p < 0.05), with the exception of hyperlipidemia. During the 16-week study, adalimumab patients demonstrated significantly greater PASI 75 response rates (defined as a reduction of at least 75% in PASI scores from baseline) compared with placebo patients for all co-morbidity subgroups. Adalimumab provided consistent improvements in DLQI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scores, and WPAI total scores from baseline to week 16 within co-morbidity subgroups. Rates of serious adverse events (AEs), serious infectious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were comparable between adalimumab and placebo for patients with co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Co-morbidities were associated with additionally impaired health-related quality of life and work productivity in patients with psoriasis. Adalimumab significantly improved efficacy and patient-reported outcomes and was well tolerated in patients with co-morbidities.

Economic consequence of switching to citalopram after its generic entry for adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with escitalopram: a 6-month retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate, from a third-party payer's perspective, the effects of switching from escitalopram to citalopram, after the generic entry of citalopram, on hospitalization and healthcare costs among adult MDD patients who were on escitalopram therapy. METHODS: Adult MDD patients treated with escitalopram were identified from Ingenix Impact claims database. MDD- and mental health (MH)-related hospitalization rates and healthcare costs were compared between 'switchers' (patients who switched to citalopram after its generic entry) and 'non-switchers'. MDD- and MH-related outcomes were defined as having a primary or a secondary diagnosis of ICD-9-CM = 296.2x, 296.3x and ICD-9-CM = 290-319, respectively. A propensity score matching method that estimated the likelihood of switching using baseline characteristics was used. Outcomes were examined for both 3-month and 6-month post-index periods. RESULTS: The sample included 3,427 matched pairs with balanced baseline characteristics. Switchers were more likely to incur an MDD-related (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52) and MH-related hospitalization (OR = 1.34) during the 6-month post-index period (both p < 0.05). Compared to switchers, non-switchers had significantly lower MDD- and MH-related hospitalization costs ($248.3 and $219.8 lower, respectively) and medical costs ($277.4 and $246.4 lower, respectively) (all p < 0.05). Although non-switchers had significantly higher MDD- and MH-related prescription drug costs, overall they had significantly lower total MDD- and MH-related healthcare costs ($109.9 and $93.6 lower, respectively; both p < 0.001). The 3-month results were consistent with these 6-month findings. LIMITATIONS: The study limitations included limited generalizability of study findings, inability to differentiate switching from escitalopram to citalopram due to medical reasons versus non-medical reasons, and exclusion of indirect costs from cost calculations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients maintaining on escitalopram, switchers from escitalopram to citalopram experienced higher risk of MDD- and MH-related hospitalization and incurred higher total MDD- and MH-related healthcare costs. The economic consequences of therapeutic substitution should take into account total healthcare costs, not just drug acquisition costs.