Budget impact analysis of venetoclax for the management of acute myeloid leukemia from the perspective of the social security and the private sector in Argentina.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the budget impact of the incorporation of venetoclax for the treatment of patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) over 75 years of age or those with comorbidities and contraindications for the use of intensive chemotherapy, from the perspective of the social security and the private third-party payers in Argentina. METHODS: A budget impact model was adapted to estimate the cost difference between the current scenario (azacitidine, decitabine and low doses of cytarabine) and the new scenario (incorporation of venetoclax) for a third-party payer over a time horizon of three years. Input parameters were obtained from a literature review, validated or complemented by expert opinion using a modified Panel Delphi approach. All direct medical costs were estimated by the micro-costing approach and were expressed in US dollars (USD) as of September 2020 (1 USD = 76.18 Argentine pesos). RESULTS: For a third-party payer with a cohort of 1,000,000 individuals covered, incorporating venetoclax was associated with an average budget impact per-member per-month (PMPM) of $0.11 USD for the social security sector and $0.07 USD for the private sector. The duration of treatment with venetoclax was the most influential parameter in the budget impact results. CONCLUSION: The introduction of venetoclax was associated with a positive and slight budget impact. These findings are informative to support policy decisions aimed to expand the current treatment landscape of AML.

Lengthy and Variable Delays in Oncology Drug Coverage Determination.

This cohort study examines the variability in time to pharmacy and therapeutics committees' determinations of coverage of approved oncology drugs across multiple payers.

Utilization Management Trends in Medicare Part D Oncology Drugs, 2010-2020.

This study examines the exposure of Medicare Part D beneficiaries to utilization management, such as prior authorization, for oral oncology drugs.

[New, more expensive - Not necessarily better]. / Nouveau et (beaucoup) plus cher ­ Meilleur ? - Chroniques génomiques.

The prices of new oncology drugs are frequently above 100,000 US dollars, and this does not generally correlate with significantly improved clinical efficacy. In the absence of effective regulation and of real competition, companies tend to charge « what the market can bear ¼. Regulatory intervention is required, notably at the EU level.

Treatment patterns and economic burden among newly diagnosed cervical and endometrial cancer patients.

Aim: This study evaluated treatment patterns, healthcare resource use and healthcare costs among newly diagnosed US patients with cervical or endometrial cancer. Materials & methods: The authors identified patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2018, described them by line of therapy (LOT), then summarized all-cause per patient per month healthcare resource use and healthcare costs per LOT. Results: Among 1004 patients with cervical cancer and 2006 patients with endometrial cancer, 65.2 and 71.4%, respectively, received at least LOT1. Common treatment modalities in LOT1 were surgery (cervical, 58.0%; endometrial, 92.6%), radiation therapy (cervical, 49.8%; 24.7%) and systemic therapy (cervical, 53.3%; endometrial, 26.1%). Mean per patient per month costs per LOT were pre-treatment (cervical, US$17,210; endometrial, US$14,601), LOT1 (cervical, US$10,929; endometrial, US$6859), LOT2 (cervical, US$15,183; endometrial, US$10,649) and LOT3+ (cervical, US$19,681; endometrial, US$9206). Conclusion: Overall, newly diagnosed patients with cervical or endometrial cancer received guideline-recommended treatment. Outpatient visits mainly drove healthcare costs across LOTs.

[Administrative delays of temporary recommendation for use: Impact on access to innovation in melanoma]. / Délais administratifs des RTU, effet sur l'accès à l'innovation dans le mélanome.

INTRODUCTION: Melanoma has benefited in recent years from therapeutic innovations, which have improved overall survival of patients. France has developed a regulatory arsenal allowing faster access to innovative drugs before marketing authorization: temporary authorization for use (ATU) and temporary recommendation for use (RTU). METHOD: We describe here the decision-making processes that led to the non-publication of the decree on the funding of three RTU in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, and we analyse the fate of these drugs in order to quantify the potential loss of chance. RESULTS: On 03AUG2018, the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Product Safety (ANSM) published 3 RTU in order to give rapid access to major innovations in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib. These drugs have respectively demonstrated reductions in the risk of recurrence by 35 %, 43% and 55% for target populations of 2200, 1900 and 650 patients per year. Despite a favourable opinion on reimbursement from the French National Authority for Health (HAS), the decrees on reimbursement will never be published, prohibiting the use of these products before the marketing authorisation, and depriving many patients of a potential cure. CONCLUSION: Despite a favourable opinion from scientists and health agencies for the rapid availability of a drug, the French public health code does not systematically imply access to a therapeutic innovation. The reform of access to innovation implemented on 01JUL2021 may help tackle this issue.

Improving the Affordability of Anticancer Medicines Demands Evidence-Based Policy Solutions.

The high cost of many new anticancer medicines significantly impedes breakthrough discoveries from reaching patients. A commonly heard refrain is that high prices are necessary to compensate for the high costs of research and development (R&D). Yet, there are promising policy proposals aimed at improving affordability without compromising innovation. In seeking new policy solutions, we argue for a shift away from entrenched opinion toward an evidence-based discourse that is grounded in experiments and real-world pilot studies. We offer a novel perspective and practical recommendations on how empirical evidence could and should be gathered to inform evidence-based policy interventions that lead to sustainable medicine prices in oncology.See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Res Commun 2022;2:39-47).

Treatment patterns and economic burden among cervical and endometrial cancer patients newly initiating systemic therapy.

Aim: To evaluate treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and all-cause healthcare costs among patients with cervical or endometrial cancer newly initiating systemic therapy. Methods: We identified patients with cervical or endometrial cancer newly initiating systemic therapy - a claims-based proxy for advanced disease - between 2014 and 2019, described them by line of therapy (LOT), and summarized the per patient per month (PPPM) HCRU and healthcare costs per LOT. Results: Among 1229 patients with cervical cancer and 2659 patients with endometrial cancer, LOT1 therapies included systemic only (cervical, 50.1%; endometrial, 83.2%) and systemic with radiation therapy (cervical, 49.9%; endometrial, 16.8%). Mean PPPM total costs were: LOT1 (cervical, US$15,892; endometrial, US$11,363), LOT2 (US$20,193; US$14,019) and LOT3+ (US$16,576; US$14,645). Conclusions: Overall, patients received guideline-concordant care and experienced significant economic burden, which increased with LOT.

The budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a US health plan formulary for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and thyroid cancer with RET alterations.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80% to 85% of all lung cancers. Thyroid cancer, while generally not as lethal as lung cancer, has a large prevalent population and a rapidly increasing incidence in the United States. Pralsetinib is a highly potent, selective rearranged during transfection (RET) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer tumors. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a 1 million-member US health plan formulary for the treatment of patients with metastatic RET fusion-positive NSCLC, advanced or metastatic RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), or advanced or metastatic RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer (non-MTC). METHODS: A budget impact model with a 3-year time horizon was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the number of eligible RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients in a plan and quantify associated treatment costs (2020 USD). Comparators in the analyses included pralsetinib, selpercatinib, and cabozantinib, as well as indication-specific use of pembrolizumab, pemetrexed/carboplatin combination, vandetanib, lenvatinib, and sorafenib. Drug acquisition, molecular testing, treatment monitoring, and adverse event management costs were included to estimate total annual costs and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs in current (without pralsetinib) and potential future market scenarios, where pralsetinib is assumed to split the projected RET inhibitor market share with selpercatinib. The number of treated patients was based on age- and sex-adjusted incidence of disease, the proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced or metastatic disease, and projected RET testing rates. Treatment duration was based on progression-free survival or duration of response data from clinical trials. Medical resources were monetized using standardized sources such as Medicare reimbursement and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). RESULTS: The model estimated that there would be approximately 6 new treatment-eligible patients in a 1 million-member plan annually. Monthly WAC is $19,243 for pralsetinib and $20,600 for selpercatinib at the recommended starting dose. Adoption of pralsetinib, with corresponding increases in pralsetinib market share, would be slightly cost saving to a payer, decreasing the overall budget impact to the health plan by $49,985 in year 3 (-$0.0042 PMPM; -$0.0030, -$0.0006, and -$0.0005 for NSCLC, MTC, and thyroid cancer [non-MTC], respectively). In year 3, drug costs were the key driver of total costs (~80%-98%) and cost savings. All other medical resource categories were cost-neutral or nominally cost saving or additive in the budget impact analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying the budget impact associated with the adoption of new targeted precision therapies is an important consideration for payers. For eligible NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients, our analysis suggests that adoption of pralsetinib is expected to result in modest cost savings for US payers. DISCLOSURES: Support for this study was provided by Blueprint Medicines Corporation. This study was conducted by Veritas Health Economics Consulting, Inc., in collaboration with Blueprint Medicines, which was involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Duff is an employee of Veritas Health Economics Consulting, which received research funding from Blueprint Medicines to develop the budget impact model. Norregaard and Sullivan are employees of Blueprint Medicines. Bargiacchi and Brener were employees of Blueprint Medicines at the time of the research study. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Virtual Learning Event, April 2021.

Medication adherence among patients with advanced prostate cancer using oral therapies.

Aims: In light of the extended overall survival and improved quality of life provided by advanced prostate cancer (PC) oral therapies, this study aimed to describe treatment adherence to advanced PC oral therapies and evaluate associated patient characteristics and subsequent healthcare resource utilization (HRU). Patients & methods: Patients with advanced PC initiating apalutamide, enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate were identified from administrative data (October 1, 2014-September 30, 2019). Adherence and persistence at six months postinitiation were used to evaluate patient factors and HRU. Results: Aged ≥75 years, Black race, chemotherapy use and higher pharmacy paid amounts were associated with poor adherence/persistence, which translated to higher HRU. Conclusions: Strategies to increase adherence and persistence may improve patient outcomes and associated HRU.

Lay abstract This study included 27,262 patients with advanced prostate cancer who started taking one of three oral cancer medications (apalutamide, enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate) between October 2014 and September 2019. Patients who were black, aged 75 years or older, who had chemotherapy or who had higher prescription costs had the most difficulty following dosing guidelines or staying on treatment. Patients who did not follow dosing guidelines required more healthcare services. In light of the extended survival and improved quality of life that oral cancer medication for advanced prostate cancer provides, helping patients to take the correct medication dose, at the right time, and for the recommended length of time may improve their outcomes and reduce medical costs.

Examining the association between oncology drug clinical benefit and the time to public reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: We examined if oncology drug indications with high clinical benefit, as measured by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), received public reimbursement status faster than those with lower clinical benefit from the time of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) recommendation. METHODS: Oncology drug indications submitted to pCODR between July 2011 and October 2018 were examined. Included indications had a regulatory approval date, completed the pCODR review process, received a positive pCODR recommendation, and been funded by at least one province. Trials cited for clinical efficacy were used to determine the clinical benefit (per ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS) of drug indications. RESULTS: Eighty-four indications were identified, yielding 65 ASCO-VF and 50 ESMO-MCBS scores. The mean ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores were 44.9 (SD = 21.1) and 3.3 (SD = 1.0), respectively. The mean time to provincial reimbursement from pCODR recommendation was 13.2 months (SD = 9.3 months). Higher ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores had low correlation with shorter time to reimbursement, (ρ = -0.21) and (ρ = 0.24), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, ASCO-VF (p = 0.40) and ESMO-MCBS (p = 0.31) scores were not significantly associated with time to reimbursement. Province and year of pCODR recommendation were associated with time to reimbursement in both ASCO and ESMO models. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology drug indications with higher clinical benefit do not appear to be reimbursed faster than those with low clinical benefit. This suggests the need to prioritize oncology drug indications based on clinical benefit to ensure quicker access to oncology drugs with the greatest benefits.

Comparison of Prices and Affordability of Cancer Medicines in 16 Countries in Europe and Latin America.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that high prices of cancer medicines may limit patient access. Since information on prices for cancer medicines and their impact on affordability is lacking for several countries, particularly for lower income countries, this study surveys prices of originator cancer medicines in Europe and Latin America and assesses their affordability. METHODS: For 19 cancer medicines, public procurement and ex-factory prices, as of 2017, were surveyed in five Latin American (LATAM) countries (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) and 11 European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Price data (public procurement prices in LATAM and ex-factory prices in Europe) in US dollar purchasing power parities (PPP) were analyzed per defined daily dose. Affordability was measured by setting medicines prices in relation to national minimum wages. RESULTS: The prices of cancer medicines varied considerably between countries. In European countries with higher levels of income, PPP-adjusted prices tended to be lower than in European countries of lower income and LATAM countries. Except for one medicine, all surveyed medicines were considered unaffordable in most countries. In European countries of lower income and LATAM countries, more than 15 days' worth of minimum wages would be required by a worker to purchase one defined daily dose of several of the studied medicines. CONCLUSIONS: The high prices and large unaffordability of cancer medicines call for strengthening pricing policies with the aim of ensuring affordable treatment in cancer care.

Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BMs) and the subgroup of active BMs from the United States (US) payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 regimens in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs: (1) tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (TTC); (2) placebo, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (PTC). And subgroup analysis of active BMs was also performed. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) were estimated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $200,000/QALY. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses. Additional scenario analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Compared with PTC, the ICER yielded by TTC was $418,007.01/QALY and the INHB was -1.08 QALYs in patients with BMs. In the subgroup of active BMs, the ICER and the INHB were $324,465.03/QALY and -0.71 QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of tucatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost-effective probability of TTC was low at the current WTP threshold in the patients with BMs and the subgroup of active BMs. CONCLUSION: Tucatinib is unlikely to be cost-effective in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs from the US payer perspective but shows better economics in patients with active BMs. Selecting a favorable population, reducing the price of tucatinib or offering appropriate drug assistance policies might be considerable options to optimize the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib.

Combining repurposed drugs to treat colorectal cancer.

The drug development process, especially of antineoplastic agents, has become increasingly costly and ineffective. Drug repurposing and drug combination are alternatives to de novo drug development, being low cost, rapid, and easy to apply. These strategies allow higher efficacy, decreased toxicity, and overcoming of drug resistance. The combination of antineoplastic agents is already being applied in cancer therapy, but the combination of repurposed drugs is still under-explored in pre- and clinical development. In this review, we provide a set of pharmacological concepts focusing on drug repurposing for treating colorectal cancer (CRC) and that are relevant for the application of new drug combinations against this disease.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms.

PURPOSE: The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms. METHODS: We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here. RESULTS: For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD. CONCLUSION: We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.

Current Attitudes toward Unfunded Cancer Therapies among Canadian Medical Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Despite successes in the development of innovative anticancer therapies, the fiscal and capacity restraints of the Canadian public healthcare system result in challenges with drug access. A meaningful proportion of systemic therapies ultimately do not receive public funding despite supporting clinical evidence. In this study, we assessed Canadian medical oncologists' current attitudes toward discussing publicly unfunded cancer treatments with patients and predictors of different practices. METHODS: A web-based survey consisting of multiple choice and case-based scenarios was distributed to medical oncologists identified through the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada directory. RESULTS: A total of 116 responses were received. Almost all respondents reported discussing publicly unfunded treatments, including those who did so for Health Canada (HC) approved treatments (50%) and those who discussed off-label treatments (i.e., not HC approved) as guided by national guidelines (48%). Respondents in practice for over 15 years versus less than 5 years (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.50, p = 0.002) and those who worked in a community practice versus comprehensive cancer center (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.91, p = 0.04) were significantly less likely to discuss off-label treatment options with their patients. Almost half of respondents (47%) indicated that their institution did not permit the administration of unfunded treatments. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in medical oncologists' practices when it comes to discussing unfunded therapies. Given the limitations within Canada's publicly funded healthcare system, physicians are faced with the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex balance between patient care and available resources. Engagement of relevant stakeholders and policy makers is crucial in the continued evaluation of Canada's drug funding process.

Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020.

Importance: Increasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine the value of rapidly increasing oncology drugs; however, this assumes that these analyses are unbiased. Objective: To analyze the characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies and to determine characteristics associated with whether an oncology drug is found to be cost-effective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2020. Exposures: Each drug was analyzed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year, the funding of the study, the authors' conflict of interest, the threshold of willingness-to-pay, from what country's perspective the analysis was done, and whether a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness analysis had been done. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective. Results: There were 116 drug approvals with 254 studies and country perspectives. Of the country perspectives, 132 (52%) were from the US. Forty-seven of 78 drugs with cost-effective studies had been shown to improve overall survival, whereas 15 of 38 of drugs without a cost-effectiveness study had been shown to improve overall survival. Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective than studies without funding (odds ratio, 41.36; 95% CI, 11.86-262.23). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, pharmaceutical funding was associated with greater odds that an oncology drug would be found to be cost-effective. These findings suggest that simply disclosing potential conflict of interest is inadequate. We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.