Real-world evidence for coverage determination of treatments for rare diseases.

Health technology assessment (HTA) decisions for pharmaceuticals are complex and evolving. New rare disease treatments are often approved more quickly through accelerated approval schemes, creating more uncertainties about clinical evidence and budget impact at the time of market entry. The use of real-world evidence (RWE), including early coverage with evidence development, has been suggested as a means to support HTA decisions for rare disease treatments. However, the collection and use of RWE poses substantial challenges. These challenges are compounded when considered in the context of treatments for rare diseases. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges to developing and using prospective and retrospective RWE for HTA decisions, for rare diseases in particular. We focus attention on key elements of study design and analyses, including patient selection and recruitment, appropriate adjustment for confounding and other sources of bias, outcome selection, and data quality monitoring. We conclude by offering suggestions to help address some of the most vexing challenges. The role of RWE in coverage and pricing determination will grow. It is, therefore, necessary for researchers, manufacturers, HTA agencies, and payers to ensure that rigorous and appropriate scientific principles are followed when using RWE as part of decision-making.

Net prices of new antiobesity medications.

OBJECTIVE: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1s) are effective antiobesity drugs and the subject of intense debate around insurance coverage due to the large prevalence of obesity and overweight. The estimation of the budget impact associated with GLP1 insurance coverage requires estimates of GLP1 prices that account for manufacturer discounts. The authors applied a peer-reviewed method to estimate the net prices of GLP1s after manufacturer discounts. METHODS: The authors estimated manufacturer discounts for each product as the difference between the gross sales estimated at list price and manufacturer-reported revenue. From this difference, the authors subtracted discounts to government programs, including 340B, Medicaid, and the Medicare Part D coverage gap, and attributed the remaining amount to manufacturer discounts provided in the commercial market. RESULTS: Manufacturer discounts for GLP1s approved for obesity were estimated at 41%, which translated into net prices of $717 to $761 per month of supply. Manufacturer discounts for GLP1s approved for type 2 diabetes ranged from 54% to 59%, which translated into net prices of $312 to $469 per month of supply. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of manufacturer discounts underscores the need to consider net price information in studies that inform private and public payers' decision-making around coverage of GLP1s for obesity.

A practical approach for adoption of a hub and spoke model for cell and gene therapies in low- and middle-income countries: framework and case studies.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of biotechnologies, cell and gene therapies are being developed and adopted at an unprecedented pace. However, their access and adoption remain limited, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aims to address this critical gap by exploring the potential of applying a hub and spoke model for cell and gene therapy delivery in LMICs. We establish the identity and roles of relevant stakeholders, propose a hub and spoke model for cell and gene therapy delivery, and simulate its application in Brazil and the Middle East and North Africa. The development and simulation of this model were informed by a comprehensive review of academic articles, grey literature, relevant websites, and publicly available data sets. The proposed hub and spoke model is expected to expand availability of and access to cell and gene therapy in LMICs and presents a comprehensive framework for the roles of core stakeholders, laying the groundwork for more equitable access to these lifesaving therapies. More research is needed to explore the practical adoption and implications of this model.

Medicare drug price negotiation: The complexities of selecting therapeutic alternatives for estimating comparative effectiveness.

Under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are able to negotiate prices for topselling drugs in the Medicare Part B and D programs. In determining initial price offers, CMS will compare the prices and clinical benefits of the drugs subject to negotiation to the prices and clinical benefits of therapeutic alternatives. Despite the central role that the selection of therapeutic alternatives will play in the price negotiations, the available guidance published by CMS provides few details about how the organization will undertake this process, which will be particularly complex for drugs approved for more than one indication. To better inform the selection process, we identified all US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for the first 10 drugs subject to negotiation. Using 2020-2021 Medicare claims data, we identified Medicare Part D beneficiaries using each of the 10 drugs. We extracted medical claims with diagnosis codes for each of the approved indications to report the relative treated prevalence of use by indication for each drug. We reviewed published clinical guidelines to identify relevant therapeutic alternatives for each of the indications. We integrated the evidence on the relative treated prevalence of indications and clinical guidelines to propose therapeutic alternatives for each of the 10 drugs. We describe challenges that CMS may face in selecting therapeutic alternatives.

Budget impact of oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in adults at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is indicated for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. NMV/r has also been authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in pediatric patients (aged 226512 years and weighing at least 40 kg) who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Understanding the budget impact of introducing NMV/r for the treatment of adults with COVID-19 is of key interest to US payers. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual budget impact of introducing NMV/r in a US commercial health plan setting in the current Omicron COVID-19 era. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of NMV/r on health care costs in a hypothetical 1-million-member commercial health insurance plan over a 1-year period in the US population; clinical and cost inputs were derived from published literature with a focus on studies in the recent COVID-19 era that included vaccinated population and predominance of the Omicron variant. In the base-case analysis, it was assumed the only effect of NMV/r was a reduction in incidence (not severity) of hospitalization or death; its potential effect on post-COVID conditions was assessed in a scenario analysis. Outcomes included the number of hospitalizations, total cost, per patient per year (PPPY) costs, and per member per month (PMPM) costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs. RESULTS: An estimated 29,999 adults were eligible and sought treatment with oral antiviral for COVID-19 over 1 year. The availability of NMV/r was estimated to reduce the number of hospitalizations by 647 with a total budget impact of $2,733,745, $91 PPPY, and $0.23 PMPM. NMV/r was cost saving when including post-COVID conditions with a -$1,510,780 total budget impact, a PPPY cost of -$50, and a PMPM cost of -$0.13. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were most sensitive to the risk of hospitalization under supportive care, risk of hospitalization with NMV/r treatment and cost of NMV/r. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with NMV/r in the current COVID-19 era is estimated to result in substantial cost offsets because of reductions in hospitalization and modest budget impact to potential overall cost savings.

Reimbursement to Pharmacies for Generic Drugs by Medicare Part D Sponsors.

This study evaluates whether organizations that offer Medicare Part D plans (referred to as Part D sponsors) overpay pharmacies for generic drugs.

Drug use and spending under a formulary informed by cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The National Academy of Medicine has called for value-based drug formularies to address health plan prescription drug spending while maintaining access to high-value medicines. Thirty employer-sponsored plans implemented a "Value-Based Formulary-essentials" (VBF-e) program that uses cost-effectiveness evidence to inform cost-sharing and coverage exclusion. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the VBF-e was associated with changes in medication use and patient out-of-pocket spending and health plan spending on prescription drugs and other health care. METHODS: This was a cohort study using a difference-in-differences design from 2015 through 2019 with 1 year of follow-up after VBF-e implementation at Premera Blue Cross, the largest nonprofit health plan in the Pacific Northwest. The VBF-e exposure group was composed of all individuals aged younger than 65 years and enrolled at least 12 months prior to their employer group's VBF-e implementation date. The contemporaneous control group was composed of propensity score-matched individuals with the same inclusion criteria but their employer group that did not implement VBF-e. We prespecified the following outcomes: days of medication on hand overall and by VBF-e tier (high-value generic, brand, and specialty drugs were in tiers 1 to 3, respectively, and low-value drugs were in tier 4 or excluded from coverage); prescription drug spending; and other health care use (emergency department visits, hospital days, and outpatient visits). RESULTS: Comparing 12,111 exposed (mean age = 36.0; 49.8% female sex) participants with 24,222 control participants (mean age = 34.7; 49.6% female sex), VBF-e reduced use of low-value drugs by 0.3 days per member per month (PMPM) (95% CI = -0.5 to -0.1; 17% decrease) for tier 4 drugs and 0.4 days PMPM (95% CI = -0.5 to -0.4; 83% decrease) for excluded drugs. High-value specialty drug use increased by 0.1 days PMPM (95% CI = 0.0-0.1; 123% increase). Health plan spending decreased by $14 PMPM (95% CI = -26 to -4) and member out-of-pocket spending increased by $1 PMPM (95% CI = 1-2). Other health care use did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: An exclusion formulary informed by cost-effectiveness evidence reduced low-value drug use, increased high-value specialty drug use, reduced health plan spending, and increased member out-of-pocket spending without increasing acute care use. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by a grant from the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation's Greater Value Portfolio Program. Study Registration Number: NCT04904055.

Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing.

PURPOSE: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) improves use of primary prophylactic CSF (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Among SOE sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization was done among intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the SOE. RESULTS: Overall, PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms; however, rates of PP-CSF use varied widely by site, ranging from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms; however, PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites. In the intermediate-risk substudy, PP-CSF was five-fold higher among sites randomized to SOE; however, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE. Despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF prescribing ranged from 0% to 33%. CONCLUSION: In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. Although the ability to opt out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power.

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk. RESULTS: Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Health care costs and resource use of managing hemophilia A: A targeted literature review.

BACKGROUND: Hemophilia A (HA) is a rare, inherited, serious bleeding disorder characterized by a deficiency of blood clotting factor VIII (FVIII). HA is associated with considerable economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To identify, review, and summarize published studies on the health care resource use and costs of managing HA in the United States using a targeted literature review. METHODS: A comprehensive and targeted literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews covering the period 2010 to 2022. We supplemented the search by searching gray literature (relevant abstracts, posters, and presentations of relevant scientific conferences from the past 6 years [2016 to 2022], reference lists, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports, and other sources). Eligibility criteria were developed based on the population, interventions, comparators, and outcomes framework. For comparability, costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: A total of 40 publications, including 17 full-text papers, 21 abstracts, and 2 Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports, met eligibility criteria. Total annual health care costs per patient ranged from $213,874 to $869,940 and are mainly driven by the cost and intensity of prophylaxis with FVIII replacement concentrates, bypassing agents, and, most recently, emicizumab. Generally, we observed substantial heterogeneity in estimated treatment costs for HA, which varied depending on HA severity, treatment type and intensity, age, weight, and inhibitor status. Patients with inhibitors incurred much higher costs, but annual FVIII treatment costs are increasing over time among a subset of adult patients without inhibitors. Only 2 studies reported indirect costs; these were $13,220 and $27,978 annually among patients without and with inhibitors, respectively. Parents of children with HA spent $8,252 on non-mental health services and $258 on mental health services annually. CONCLUSIONS: The annual health care costs of managing HA are substantial and vary widely, depending on the study population definitions and intensity of prophylaxis. Total health care costs are dominated by the cost of prophylaxis. Indirect costs are also important. More robust studies in various settings, subpopulations, and assessing the impact of emerging therapies are required to fully elucidate the changing societal and economic impact, particularly regarding indirect costs and productivity loss for individuals living with HA. DISCLOSURES: Drs Solari and Thornhill are employees of Spark Therapeutics and Roche Group Shareholders. Ms Chen and Drs Cheng and Sullivan are employees of Curta, Inc. Spark Therapeutics paid Curta, Inc., to conduct the literature search. This study was funded by Spark Therapeutics. Spark Therapeutics was involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, article review, and the decision to submit the report for publication. Medical writing support was provided by Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company.

Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) of First-Line Therapies (1L) for Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (la/mUC).

To compare efficacy outcomes for all approved and investigational first-line (1L) treatment regimens for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with standard of care (SOC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified phase 2 and 3 randomized trials investigating 1L treatment regimens in la/mUC published January 2001-September 2021. Three networks were formed based on cisplatin (cis) eligibility: cis-eligible/mixed (cis-eligible patients and mixed populations of cis-eligible/ineligible patients), cis-ineligible (strict; exclusively cis-ineligible patients), and cis-ineligible (wide; including studies with investigator's choice of carbo). Analyses examined comparative efficacy by hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratio (OR) for overall response rate (ORR), with 1L regimens vs. SOC. SOC was gemcitabine + cis (GemCis) or carboplatin (GemCarbo), cis-eligible/mixed network, and GemCarbo cis-ineligible networks. Of 1906 SLR identified citations, 55 trials were selected for data extraction. The NMA comprised 11, 6, and 8 studies in the cis-eligible/mixed, cis-ineligible (strict), cis-ineligible (wide) networks, respectively. In a meta-analysis of SOC control arms, median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) in months varied by network: 13.19 (12.43, 13.95) cis-eligible/mixed, 11.96 (10.43, 13.48) cis-ineligible (wide), and 9.74 (6.71, 12.76) cis-ineligible (strict). Most differences in OS, PFS, and ORR with treatment regimens across treatment networks were not statistically significant compared with SOC. Outcomes with current 1L regimens remain poor, and few significant improvements over SOC have been made, despite inclusion of recent clinical trial data, highlighting an unmet need in the la/mUC patient population.

Recommendations for economic evaluations of cell and gene therapies: a systematic literature review with critical appraisal.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus exists on the ideal methodology to evaluate the economic impact and value of new, potentially curative gene therapies. We aimed to identify and describe published methodologic recommendations for the economic evaluation of gene therapies and assess whether these recommendations have been applied in published evaluations. METHODS: This study was conducted in three stages: a systematic literature review of methodologic recommendations for economic evaluation of gene therapies; an assessment of the appropriateness of recommendations; and a review to assess the degree to which the recommendations were applied in published evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 2,888 references were screened, 83 articles were reviewed to assess eligibility, and 20 papers were included. Fifty recommendations were identified, and 21 reached consensus thresholds. Most evaluations were based on naive treatment comparisons and did not apply consensus recommendations. Innovative payment mechanisms for gene therapies were rarely considered. The only widely applied recommendations related to modeling choices and methods. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological recommendations for economic evaluations of gene therapies are generally not being followed. Assessing the applicability and impact of the recommendations from this study may facilitate the implementation of consensus recommendations in future evaluations.

Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of high-throughput, gene panel-based, next-generation sequencing (NGS) into routine cancer care is widely supported, but hampered by concerns about cost. To inform policies regarding genomic testing strategies, we propose a simple metric, cost per correctly identified patient (CCIP), that compares sequential single-gene testing (SGT) vs. multiplex NGS in different tumor types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A genomic testing cost calculator was developed based on clinically actionable genomic alterations identified in the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets. Using sensitivity/specificity data for SGTs (immunohistochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, and fluorescence in situ hybridization) and NGS and marker prevalence, the number needed to predict metric was monetarized to estimate CCIP. RESULTS: At base case, CCIP was lower with NGS than sequential SGT for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, colorectal, gastric cancers, and cholangiocarcinoma. CCIP with NGS was also favorable for squamous NSCLC, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers, but with overlapping confidence intervals. CCIP favored SGT for prostate cancer. Alternate scenarios using different price estimates for each test showed similar trends, but with incremental changes in the magnitude of difference between NGS and SGT, depending on price estimates for each test. CONCLUSIONS: The cost to correctly identify clinically actionable genomic alterations was lower for NGS than sequential SGT in most cancer types evaluated. Decreasing price estimates for NGS and the rapid expansion of targeted therapies and accompanying biomarkers are anticipated to further support NGS as a preferred diagnostic standard for precision oncology.

Designing a Value-Based Formulary for a Commercial Health Plan: A Simulated Case Study of Diabetes Medications.

OBJECTIVES: The healthcare expenditure for managing diabetes with glucose-lowering medications has been substantial in the United States. We simulated a novel, value-based formulary (VBF) design for a commercial health plan and modeled possible changes in spending and utilization of antidiabetic agents. METHODS: We designed a 4-tier VBF with exclusions in consultation with health plan stakeholders. The formulary information included covered drugs, tiers, thresholds, and cost sharing amounts. The value of 22 diabetes mellitus drugs was determined primarily in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Using pharmacy claims database (2019-2020), we identified 40 150 beneficiaries who were on the included diabetes mellitus medicines. We simulated future health plan spending and out-of-pocket costs with 3 VBF designs, using published own price elasticity estimates. RESULTS: The average age of the cohort is 55 years (51% female). Compared with the current formulary, the proposed VBF design with exclusions is estimated to reduce total annual health plan spending by 33.2% (current: $33 956 211; VBF: $22 682 576), saving $281 in annual spending per member (current: $846; VBF: $565) and $100 in annual out-of-pocket spending per member (current: $119; VBF: $19). Implementing the full VBF with new cost shares, along with exclusions, has the potential to achieve the greatest savings, compared with the 2 intermediate VBF designs (ie, VBF with prior cost sharing and VBF without exclusions). Sensitivity analyses using various price elasticity values showed declines in all spending outcomes. CONCLUSION: Designing a VBF with exclusions in a US employer-based health plan has the potential to reduce health plan and patient spending.

Survival Outcomes of Patients With Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase Fusion-Positive Cancer Receiving Larotrectinib Versus Standard of Care: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Using Real-World Data.

PURPOSE: Larotrectinib, a highly specific tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor, previously demonstrated high response rates in single-arm trials of patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer, but there are limited data on comparative effectiveness against standard-of-care (SoC) regimens used in routine health care practice, before widespread adoption of TRK inhibitors as SoC for TRK fusion-positive cancers. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison, a validated methodology that balances population characteristics to facilitate cross-trial comparisons, was used to compare the overall survival (OS) of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from three larotrectinib trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431) were compared with published aggregate real-world data from patients with locally advanced/metastatic TRK fusion-positive cancer identified in the Flatiron Health/Foundation Medicine database. OS was defined as the time from advanced/metastatic disease diagnosis to death. After matching population characteristics, the analyses included (1) a log-rank test of equality to test whether the two groups were similar before larotrectinib initiation; and (2) estimation of treatment effect of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC. These analyses are limited to prognostic variables available in real-world data. RESULTS: Eighty-five larotrectinib patients and 28 non-TRK-inhibitor SoC patients were included in the analyses. After matching, log-rank testing showed no difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P = .31). After matching, larotrectinib was associated with a 78% lower risk of death, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.52]; P = .001); median OS was 39.7 months (95% CI: 16.4, NE [not estimable]) for larotrectinib and 10.2 months (95% CI: 7.2, 14.1) for SoC. CONCLUSION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses suggest longer OS with larotrectinib, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC, in adult patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer.

Impact of Ruxolitinib Cream on Work Productivity and Activity Impairment and Associated Indirect Costs in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: Pooled Results From Two Phase III Studies.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that can negatively impact work productivity and daily activities. Ruxolitinib cream, a Janus kinase inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with atopic dermatitis in two phase III studies (TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2). OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis sought to describe the effects of ruxolitinib cream on work productivity and activity impairment from pooled data from the phase III studies, to estimate indirect costs due to atopic dermatitis, and to estimate the incremental cost savings with ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle cream. METHODS: Patients in both studies were ≥ 12 years old with atopic dermatitis for ≥ 2 years, an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 2 or 3, and a 3-20% affected body surface area at baseline. Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to receive ruxolitinib cream (0.75% or 1.5%) or vehicle cream for 8 weeks. Patient self-reported productivity in the efficacy-evaluable population was assessed at weeks 2, 4, and 8 using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Specific Health Problem version 2.0. Statistical significance for the two doses versus vehicle was calculated using an analysis of covariance. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment overall work impairment scores were converted to a model of costs per employed patient due to lost productivity and incremental cost savings from ruxolitinib cream treatment using a human capital approach. RESULTS: Of 1249 patients enrolled (median age, 32 years; female sex, 61.7%), 1208 were included in the efficacy-evaluable population. Patients applying 0.75% or 1.5% ruxolitinib cream had significant changes in overall work impairment (- 17.9% [0.75% strength] and - 15.0% [1.5% strength] vs - 5.7% for vehicle; p < 0.0001 for both) and daily activity impairment (- 20.6% [0.75% strength] and - 21.5% [1.5% strength] vs - 10.6% for vehicle; p < 0.0001 for both). These corresponded to estimated lost productivity costs in 2021 US dollars of $1313 (0.75% strength) and $1242 (1.5% strength) versus $2008 (vehicle) over the 8-week trial period. Compared with a patient receiving vehicle, incremental annual indirect cost savings were estimated to be $5302 with 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and $4228 with 1.5% ruxolitinib cream. CONCLUSIONS: Ruxolitinib cream therapy is associated with improved work productivity and daily activity compared with vehicle and is estimated to reduce the indirect cost burden on the patient. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03745638 (registered 19 November, 2018) and NCT03745651 (registered 19 November, 2018).

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens. METHODS: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%). CONCLUSION: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Medicare Drug Price Negotiation in the United States: Implications and Unanswered Questions.

The United States is a relatively free-pricing market for pharmaceutical manufacturers to set list prices at the product launch. Few drug price controls exist, and federal price negotiation as a policy has historically been politically untenable. After decades of debate on whether the federal government, specifically the Medicare program, should more actively manage drug prices, the US Congress passed legislation authorizing Medicare to directly negotiate prices with manufacturers. The purpose of this article is to describe elements and implementation of the price negotiation provisions and then comment on the potential impacts on payers, innovations, and the pharmaceutical industry. While impacting only a few drugs each year in the beginning, price negotiation in the Medicare program will have secondary and long-term effects in the US market and beyond. It is clear that in the United States, the Medicare market for drugs will no longer be a free-pricing environment in the industry.