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.

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.

Assessment of Dasatinib Versus Nilotinib as Upfront Therapy for Chronic Phase of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Qatar: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The economic outcome research of approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors for treating the chronic phase of chronic myeloid leukemia in developing is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dasatinib and nilotinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia patients. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed linking clinical effectiveness (defined as major molecular response) and/or complete cytogenetic response, utility, and cost data over a 12-month period. Patients are recruited from Qatar Cancer Registry. The probability of primary clinical outcome is calculated from DASISION (dasatinib) and ENESTnd (nilotinib) trials. Direct healthcare costs were derived from the national healthcare payer system, whereas adverse effects data were derived from local incident reporting system. RESULTS: In the first-line treatments of chronic myeloid leukemia patients, nilotinib has greater major molecular response (39% nilotinib vs 12% dasatinib) and complete cytogenetic response (24% nilotinib vs 16% dastinib) response outcomes, and more adverse effects than dasatinib (13.3% vs 4%). Moreover, nilotinib is more cost-effective with annual costs (USD63,589.59) and after 12 months of follow-up. Despite the lower acquisition annual cost of dasatinib (USD59,486.30), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of nilotinib (vs dasatinib) per major molecular response/complete cytogenetic response achieved was USD15,481.10 per year. There were no cases in both arms that progressed to accelerated or blast phase. At a threshold of 3 times gross domestic product per capita of Qatar and according to World Health Organization recommendation, the nilotinib use is still cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Upfront therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia-chronic phase patients by nilotinib plan appears to be more cost-effective than dasatinib.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12-24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. METHODS: We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. RESULTS: At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tofacitinib compared with adalimumab and etanercept in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis; Iranian experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Tofacitinib (TFC) in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not responded well to methotrexate from the Iranian payer's perspective. METHODS: An individual microsimulation Markov model was developed to compare TFC with etanercept (ETN) and Adalimumab (ADA) over a life-time horizon. Treatment efficacy was estimated based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response improvement criteria in 6 months. Changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were mapped onto utility values to calculate outcomes in terms of QALYs. Direct medical costs were taken from national databases. Uncertainty in model parameters was evaluated by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that TFC was cost-effective in both scenarios. Although TFC was associated with lower QALYs than ETN (6.664 versus 6.876), it was also associated with lower costs over a life-time horizon ($42,565.04 versus $58,696.29). Additionally, TFC was found to be the dominant strategy with a lower cost ($50,299.91 versus $51,550.29) and higher QALYs gained (6.900 versus 6.687) compared to ADA. CONCLUSION: TFC was found to be cost-effective in patients with severe RA who do not respond well to methotrexate compared to ADA, ETN in Iran.

Cost-Effectiveness of 5-Aminosalicylate Therapy in Combination With Biologics or Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

INTRODUCTION: Medications are major cost drivers in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Recent analyses suggest that there is no added efficacy in continuing nor harm in stopping 5-aminosalicylate (ASA) therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease escalated to biological therapies or tofacitinib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of discontinuing 5-ASA therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis on biological therapies or tofacitinib, compared with continuing 5-ASA therapy. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-ASA with biologic therapy and tofacitinib compared with the same treatment without 5-ASA. Our primary outcome was to determine whether biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy was cost-effective compared with biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA combination therapy using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year. Owing to the uncertainty surrounding outcome probabilities, probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 simulations were also performed. We conducted a sensitivity analysis comparing biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA therapy compared with biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy, whereby vedolizumab was the first biologic used, followed by infliximab and finally tofacitinib. RESULTS: Our model shows that biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominates (cheaper and more effective) combination therapy of biologics/tofacitinib with 5-ASA. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses simulations resulted in biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominating 100% of the scenarios, with mean cost savings of $24,483.01 over 2 years. When vedolizumab was the first-line therapy in the sensitivity analysis, biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy continued to dominate the combination of 5-ASA and biologic/tofacitinib therapy. DISCUSSION: This analysis in patients with ulcerative colitis who require treatment with biologics or tofacitinib demonstrates that continuing 5-ASA therapy is not a cost-effective strategy. Discontinuation of 5-ASA therapy in these patients is safe and less expensive and should be recommended.

Population-based utilization and costs associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for first-line treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia among elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Following approval of imatinib, a breakthrough tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), survival significantly improved by more than 20% since 2001 among treated chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients. Subsequently, more expensive second-generation TKIs with varying selectivity profiles have been approved. Population-based studies are needed to evaluate the real-world utilization of TKI therapies, particularly given their escalating costs and recommendations for maintenance therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utilization patterns of first-line TKIs, overall and by specific agent, among elderly CML patients in the United States, and the cost implications. METHODS: CML patients aged 65 years and older at diagnosis between 2007 and 2015 were identified from population-based cancer registries in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. The percentage of CML patients receiving imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib within the first year of diagnosis was calculated along with time to first-line treatment initiation. Bivariate comparisons and Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with TKI initiation. Average monthly patient responsibility, including patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, stratified by Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) status were also calculated. RESULTS: Among the 1,589 CML patients included, receipt of any TKI within 1 year of diagnosis increased from 66.2% to 78.9%. In 2015, the distribution of first-line TKI therapies was 41.3% imatinib, 28.3% dasatinib, and 9.3% nilotinib. Almost 60% of patients initiated TKI treatment within 3 months of diagnosis. Multivariable analysis indicated that TKI use in the first year was lower among the very elderly (aged > 75 years vs. 65-69 years: HR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.63-0.83), patients with more comorbidities (Hierarchical Condition Category risk score > 2 vs. HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.62-0.88), and patients ineligible for LIS (HR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.65-0.87). Average monthly patient OOP cost was significantly lower for LIS-eligible versus LIS-ineligible patients: imatinib (2016: $12 vs. $487), dasatinib (2016: $34 vs. $557), and nilotinib (2016: $1 vs. $526). CONCLUSIONS: TKI use has increased significantly since 2007. While imatinib remained the most frequently prescribed first-line agent, by 2015 newer TKIs represented one third of the market share. Utilization patterns indicated persistent age, comorbidity, and financial barriers. TKI use is indicated for long-term therapy, and increased adoption of newer, more expensive agents raises concerns about the sustained affordability of CML treatment, particularly among unsubsidized patients. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. There are no reported conflicts of interest.

Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan.

Importance: With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%. Exposures: The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact. Results: In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the biological drugs, the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis is still a challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of biological drugs and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in the Spanish context. METHODS: A Markov model was built to simulate the progression of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in a cohort of patients. The model used a time horizon of 10 years. The perspective chosen was the National Health Service, with a discount rate of 3%, and a threshold of €30,000/quality adjusted life-year (QALY). It carried out a one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The comparison of infliximab with adalimumab and golimumab estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €43,928.07/QALY and €31,340.69/QALY, with a difference of - 0.43 and - 0.82 QALY, respectively. Vedolizumab vs infliximab achieved an ICER of €122,890.19/QALY with a gain of 0.46 QALY. The comparison of infliximab with tofacitinib yielded an estimated ICER of €270,503.19/QALY, with a slight gain in QALY (0.16). The one-way sensitivity analysis showed a robust study. CONCLUSION: For a threshold of €30,000/QALY, adalimumab was the most cost-effective treatment versus infliximab for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy Initiation Strategies for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

OBJECTIVES: Overall survival in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase is not significantly different by treatment with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but emerging evidence reveals differences in costs and safety profiles. We evaluated the 1-year cost-effectiveness of TKI initiation with imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib among a hypothetical cohort of incident patients with CML from a US payer's perspective. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model to assess quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), healthcare costs, net monetary benefit, and incremental cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies. We used published studies and data from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan database for model parameters. To calculate TKI costs, we used the 2018 Federal Supply Schedule estimates for generic imatinib and branded second-generation TKIs. We evaluated cost-effectiveness under various willingness-to-pay thresholds. We accounted for uncertainty with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, imatinib was favored over dasatinib and nilotinib at a lower cost per QALY gained. Imatinib remained the favored strategy after 1-way variations in TKI costs, TKI switching, QALYs, adverse event risk, and CML progression. When we assessed model uncertainty with prespecified parameter distributions, imatinib was cost-saving compared with dasatinib in 40% of 100 0000 simulations and was favored over all simulations compared with nilotinib. First-line treatment with second-generation TKIs was cost-effective in 50% of simulations at a $200 000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Generic availability of imatinib provides a more cost-effective treatment approach in the first year compared with other available TKIs for newly diagnosed patients with CML.

Costs and Health Outcomes Associated with Tofacitinib Treatment for Active Psoriatic Arthritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory condition associated with significant direct and indirect costs. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. Economic evaluations, alongside clinical data, help inform papers and formulary decisions in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes and costs of including tofacitinib in treatment strategies for PsA from a third-party U.S. payer perspective, using a health economic model. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate treatment sequences (up to 4 lines of advanced PsA therapy) with or without tofacitinib. Patients included in the model had active PsA and a previous inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy. The analysis time horizon was 2 years; decision points for continuing/switching treatments occurred quarterly, based on clinical response (assessed using the primary rheumatoid measure of efficacy, American College of Rheumatology [ACR]20 response only) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Costs included those related to ADRs and drug acquisition, monitoring, and administration. Other endpoints of PsA, such as assessment of enthesitis and dactylitis, were not integrated into the model. RESULTS: Treatment strategies including tofacitinib were associated with cost savings versus strategies without tofacitinib across all modeled scenarios, with an estimated 2-year cost saving of up to $8,454,858, based on 1 million insurants. Similarly, costs per member per month and per ACR20 responder were lower for sequences including tofacitinib versus sequences without. These savings arose because of lower ADR and drug acquisition/administration costs for sequences including tofacitinib. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that including tofacitinib in the treatment of active PsA in csDMARD-IR or TNFi-IR patients is a cost-saving alternative to sequences without tofacitinib, potentially reducing costs for PsA advanced therapies by up to $8.4 million over 2 years for payers insuring 1 million individuals. DISCLOSURES: This work was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Bungey is an employee of Decision Resources Group, which received financial support from Pfizer Inc to develop the treatment-cost model used in the development of this manuscript. Chang-Douglass was an employee of Decision Resources Group at the time of the analysis. During development of this publication, Chang-Douglass started a role at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The publication only reflects her views and does not reflect the views of NICE. Hsu, Cappelleri, Young, and Woolcott are employees of Pfizer Inc and own stock or stock options in Pfizer Inc. The data reported in this manuscript have been previously presented at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Scientific Meeting; October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, IL, and the AMCP Annual Meeting and Expo; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer, with or without brain metastases, receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors.

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK + NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1 year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1 year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p = 0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK + NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK + NSCLC with BM versus no BM.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and the Relationship With Adherence, Costs, and Health Care Utilization in Commercially Insured Patients With Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: A Retrospective Claims-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association among tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) out-of-pocket costs, adherence, and health care costs and utilization in a large group of commercially insured patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with CML aged 18 to 64 years were identified using IBM MarketScan Commercial Database between April 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. Patients were required to be continuously enrolled 3 months before and 12 months after TKI (imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib) initiation. TKI adherence is estimated using the proportion of days covered (PDC), defined as the percentage of the PDC by the prescription fill during the 12-month study period (adherent patients have PDC ≥80%). Health care cost differences between adherent and nonadherent patients were estimated using generalized linear models. Health care utilization was compared using negative binomial regression models. All models were controlled for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 863 patients, where 355 (41.1%) patients were classified as adherent. Over the study period, nonadherent patients incurred US$10,974 more in medical costs (P<0.001), and US$1663 more in non-TKI pharmacy costs (P<0.01). Adherent patients incurred US$28,184 more in TKI pharmacy costs (P<0.001) that resulted in US$18,305 more in overall total health care costs (P<0.001). Adherent patients, however, were estimated to be less likely to have all-cause hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio, 0.32; P<0.001), or CML-specific hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio, 0.31; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CML with better adherence experienced fewer hospitalizations, resulting in medical service cost savings. These lower medical costs, however, were more than offset by higher TKI medication costs observed during the first year of TKI therapy.

A Budget Impact Model of the Addition of Telotristat Ethyl Treatment to the Standard of Care in Patients with Uncontrolled Carcinoid Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Carcinoid syndrome, a rare condition in patients with neuroendocrine tumours, characterised by flushing and diarrhoea, severely affects patients' quality of life. The current carcinoid syndrome standard of care includes somatostatin analogues, but some patients experience uncontrolled symptoms despite somatostatin analogue therapy. Telotristat ethyl is a novel treatment approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US FDA that significantly reduces bowel movement frequency in patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. OBJECTIVE: We developed a model to evaluate the 5-year budget impact of introducing telotristat ethyl to standard care in Swedish patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. METHODS: Treatment response in the 12-week phase III TELESTAR trial (NCT01677910) informed telotristat ethyl efficacy; subsequently, health states were captured by a Markov model using 4-week cycles. TELESTAR open-label extension data informed telotristat ethyl discontinuation. The number of treatment-eligible patients was estimated from literature reviews reporting the prevalence, incidence and mortality of carcinoid syndrome. A Swedish database study informed real-world costs related to carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease costs. Telotristat ethyl market share was assumed to increase annually from 24% (year 1) to 70% (year 5). RESULTS: Over the 5-year model horizon, 44 patients were expected to initiate telotristat ethyl treatment. The cumulative net budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to current standard of care was €172,346; per-year costs decreased from €66,495 (year 1) to €29,818 (year 5). Increased drug costs from adding telotristat ethyl were offset by reduced costs elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: The expected budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to the standard of care in Sweden was relatively low, largely because of the rarity of carcinoid syndrome.

Patient Preferences for Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize patients' preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify English-language studies of adult patients with RA that measured patients' preferences for DMARD or health states and treatment outcomes relevant to DMARD decisions. Study quality was assessed using a published quality assessment tool. Data on the importance of treatment attributes and associations with patient characteristics were summarized across studies. RESULTS: From 7951 abstracts, we included 36 studies from a variety of countries. Most studies were in patients with established RA and were rated as medium- (n = 19) or high-quality (n = 12). The methods to elicit preferences varied, with the most common being discrete choice experiment (DCE; n = 13). Despite the heterogeneity of attributes in DCE studies, treatment benefits (disease improvement) were usually more important than both non-serious (6 of 8 studies) and serious adverse events (5 of 8), and route of administration (7 of 9). Among the non-DCE studies, some found that patients placed high importance on treatment benefits, while others (in patients with established RA) found that patients were quite risk averse. Subcutaneous therapy was often but not always preferred over intravenous therapy. Patient preferences were variable and commonly associated with the sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results showed that many patients place a high value on treatment benefits over other treatment attributes, including serious or minor side effects, cost, or route of administration. The variability in patient preferences highlights the need to individualize treatment choices in RA.

Cost Effectiveness of Ceritinib and Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib improved survival in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the long-term economic outcomes of using ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the Chinese healthcare setting. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with ceritinib, alectinib or crizotinib. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the hazard ratios of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib by pooling published trials. Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. The primary outputs included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Treatment with alectinib and ceritinib yielded an additional 1.00 and 1.09 QALYs and incremental costs of $62,232 and $15,165, resulting in an ICER of $62,231 and $13,905 per QALY compared with crizotinib, respectively. Parameters related to drug costs and progression-free survival were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ceritinib and alectinib had a 99.9% and 0% probability of being cost effective, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28,410/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that compared with crizotinib and alectinib, ceritinib is a cost-effective option for treatment-naïve patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.

Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Ceritinib and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatments for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

INTRODUCTION: A trial-based assessment was completed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib as a first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rearrangement of anaplastic lymphoma kinase. METHODS: Based on the disease situation of advanced NSCLC, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the costs and benefits of ceritinib and platinum-based chemotherapy. The cost information and health utilities were obtained from published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. The stability of the model was verified by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base case analysis results indicated that compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, ceritinib therapy would increase benefits in a 5-, 10- and 15-year time horizon, with extra costs of $230,661.61, $149,321.52 and $136,414.43 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The most sensitive parameter in the model analysis was the cost of ceritinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that at the current price of ceritinib, the chance of ceritinib being cost-effective was 0 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $27,142.85 per quality-adjusted life-year (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China). CONCLUSION: As a first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC with rearrangement of anaplastic lymphoma kinase, ceritinib is unlikely to be cost-effective at the current price from the Chinese healthcare perspective. To meet the treatment demands of patients, it may be a better option to reduce the price or provide appropriate drug assistance policies.

Treatment patterns, adverse events, healthcare resource use and costs among commercially insured patients with mantle cell lymphoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden in younger, commercially insured patients treated for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). METHODS: Adults with ≥1 treatment for MCL between 1 November 2013-31 December 2017 were identified from IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US; index date was first treatment. Patients carried ≥1 MCL diagnosis, were newly treated, and were enrolled continuously for ≥12 months prior to and ≥30 days following index. Patients receiving the four most common MCL regimens were included. Measures included frequency of incident AEs, resource use, and costs overall and by number of AEs. Adjusted logistic regression and generalized linear modeling evaluated risk of hospitalization and all-cause costs per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and nine treated patients had a drug-specific code and were classified to a specific treatment regimen. Of those patients, 1785 patients received at least one of the four most commonly used MCL regimens (R-CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B-R, and ibrutinib) at some point over follow-up (median 23 months). R-CHOP was the most common regimen observed in the first line (26%), followed by rituximab monotherapy (19%), B-R (15%), and ibrutinib (5%). The median age was 57 years; median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0. Among patients receiving the four most common regimens, 63% of patients experienced ≥1 incident AE (R-CHOP 77%, B-R 58%, and ibrutinib 52%). An increasing number of incident AEs was associated with increased hospitalization risk (odds ratio = 2.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.1-2.7) and increased mean costs PPPM (cost ratio = 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.2). DISCUSSION: This is the largest study describing treatment patterns and clinical and economic impact of MCL treatment. The most common regimens were R-CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B-R, and ibrutinib. The majority of treated patients experienced at least one incident AE, with hospitalization risk and all-cause costs increasing as the number of AEs increased.

[Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System]. / Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde.

Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.

Momelotinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis.

Introduction: The abnormally activated JAK-STAT pathway plays a central role in the pathogenesis of BCR/ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), simultaneously providing a theoretical and clinical basis for the development of small-molecule compounds targeting JAK. The first approved drug, ruxolitinib, demonstrated a rapid and durable improvement of symptoms and splenomegaly accompanied with better overall survival in myelofibrosis (MF) patients. However, ruxolitinib-related adverse effects and resistance are limitations, so there is an urgent need to develop new JAK inhibitors to retain the efficacy of ruxolitinib and avoid its deficiency. Areas covered: This review discusses the preclinical and clinical studies of momelotinib (MMB) aiming to gain a deeper understanding of the advantages and clinical limitations of this drug. Expert opinion: The clinical trial data available thus far indicate that MMB is not inferior to ruxolitinib in spleen response and symptoms response, with the improvement of anemia surprising. The only obstacle that may slowdown its approval is treatment-emerged peripheral neuropathy (PN). If we can minimize MMB's treatment-related PN by administration optimization, MMB promises to be a good choice of individualized treatment for MF patients mainly manifesting as anemia.