Forecasting the Long-Term Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor in Cystic Fibrosis Patients with Homozygous phe508del Mutation.

OBJECTIVES: To forecast lifetime outcomes and cost of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with homozygous phe508del mutation from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed from a US payer perspective. The model included five health states: 1) mild lung disease (percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] >70%), 2) moderate lung disease (40% ≤ FEV1 ≤ 70%), 3) severe lung disease (FEV1 < 40%), 4) lung transplantation, and 5) death. All inputs were derived from published literature. We estimated lumacaftor/ivacaftor's improvement in outcomes compared with a non-CF referent population as well as CF-specific mortality estimates. RESULTS: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with additional 2.91 life-years (95% credible interval 2.55-3.56) and additional 2.42 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% credible interval 2.10-2.98). Lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with improvements in survival and QALYs equivalent to 27.6% and 20.7%, respectively, for the survival and QALY gaps between CF usual care and their non-CF peers. The incremental lifetime cost was $2,632,249. CONCLUSIONS: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor increased life-years and QALYs in CF patients with the homozygous phe508del mutation and moved morbidity and mortality closer to that of their non-CF peers but it came with higher cost.

Clinical, economic, and societal burden of cystic fibrosis and the impact of the CFTR modulator, lumacaftor/ivacaftor: an assessment using linked registry data in Sweden.

AIMS: We aimed to describe the clinical, economic, and societal burdens of cystic fibrosis (CF) and impact of CF transmembrane conductance regulator modulator (CFTRm) treatment on people with CF, caregivers, and healthcare systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study used linked real-world data from Swedish national population-based registries and the Swedish CF Quality Registry to assess clinical, economic, and societal burden and CFTR impact in CF. Records from people with CF and a ten-fold control population without CF matched by sex, birth year, and location were compared during 2019. Outcomes for a subset aged >6 years initiating lumacaftor/ivacaftor (LUM/IVA) in 2018 were compared 12 months pre- and post-treatment initiation. RESULTS: People with CF (n = 743) had >10 times more inpatient and outpatient specialist visits annually vs controls (n = 7406). Those aged >18 had an additional 77·7 (95% CI: 70·3, 85·1) days of work absence, at a societal cost of €11,563 (95% CI: 10,463, 12,662), while caregivers of those aged <18 missed an additional 6.1 (5.0, 7.2) workdays. With LUM/IVA treatment, people with CF (n = 100) had significantly increased lung function (mean change in ppFEV1 [3·8 points; 95% CI: 1·1, 6·6]), on average 0·5 (95% CI: -0·8, -0·2) fewer pulmonary exacerbations and 45·2 (95% CI: 13·3, 77·2) fewer days of antibiotics. Days of work lost by caregivers of people with CF aged <18 decreased by 5·4 days (95% CI: 2·9, 7·9). CONCLUSION: CF is associated with a high clinical economic and societal burden in Sweden. Improvements in clinical status observed in people with CF treated with LUM/IVA were reflected in reduced caregiver and societal burden.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a disease caused by a single faulty gene called CFTR, which affects the lungs, pancreas, and other organs. Medications known as CFTR modulators help improve the function of this faulty gene and have shown benefits for people with CF. In Sweden, two such medicines, lumacaftor and ivacaftor (LUM/IVA), have been available since July 2018 for treating CF. This study looks at the impact of CF on patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system, as well as the benefits of CFTR modulators. Using data from Swedish national healthcare and social insurance registries, the study compared 743 people with CF in 2019 to about 7400 people without CF, matched by sex, birth year, and location. The findings show that people with CF had 24 times higher direct healthcare costs, including outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and CF-related medications, totaling 23,233 Euros. Indirect costs, such as work absences for those over 18 with CF anssd caregivers' absences to care for sick children, were 9,629 Euros, which is five times higher than the general population. Those over 6 years old treated with LUM/IVA showed improved lung health, reduced hospitalizations (though not significantly), and needed fewer antibiotics. Caregivers' work absences decreased, but there was no change in work absences for adults with CF. Overall, treatment with LUM/IVA improved clinical outcomes and reduced the burden on caregivers and society.

CFTR modulators: transformative therapies for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: No funding contributed to the writing of this commentary. Both authors are employed by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has entered into therapeutic development award agreements and licensing agreements to assist with the development of CFTR modulators that may result in intellectual property rights, royalties, and other forms of consideration provided to CFF. Some of these agreements are subject to confidentiality restrictions and, thus, CFF cannot comment on them.

The effectiveness and value of novel treatments for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Seidner, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Tice reports contracts to his institution, University of California, San Francisco, from ICER during the conduct of this study. Wherry has nothing to disclose.

Adherence to lumacaftor-ivacaftor therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis in France.

BACKGROUND: Lumacaftor-ivacaftor combination is a promising treatment for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. Optimal adherence is essential to achieve full health outcomes benefits. METHODS: This retrospective study used pharmacy refills data to calculate proportion of days covered (PDC). Adherence was defined as a PDC ≥80%. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine factors associated with medication adherence. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included in the final cohort for analysis. The mean PDC was 96%  ± 14 at 6 months, and 91% ± 17 at 12 months. The proportion of adherent patients was 89% and 83% at 6 and 12 months respectively. Age and ppFEV1 were found to affect medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the medico-economic impact of CFTR modulator therapy, high adherence rates to lumacaftor-ivacaftor found in this study are encouraging.

Orphan Drug Pricing and Costs: A Case Study of Kalydeco and Orkambi.

BACKGROUND: A common narrative is that high prices are necessary for "orphan drugs" because of the fewer patients. In the context of state health insurance systems, the high prices create significant challenges because of limited budgets. RESULTS: This study carefully examines both costs and revenues of two drugs for cystic fibrosis (ivacaftor and lumacaftor), showing that, for this important example, prices are not high because of fewer patients. The study then explores the justifications usually given for high orphan drug prices, including the need to support research and development for new drugs. Each of these standard justifications is shown to be inadequate; instead, it appears that the exercise of market power in the presence of insurance is the dominant driver of high prices. INTERPRETATION: Insurers need to re-examine how they address high-priced drugs.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor in the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a chronic, progressive, genetic disease affecting more than 30,000 people in the United States and 70,000 people globally. The goals of treatment are to slow disease progression, reduce pulmonary exacerbations, relieve chronic symptoms, and improve the patient's quality of life. Lumacaftor/ivacaftor is a new therapy for CF that has demonstrated good clinical outcomes, including improved absolute percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%). However, given the high cost of therapy, there is a need to evaluate the overall value of lumacaftor/ivacaftor in CF management. OBJECTIVES: To (a) conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of lumacaftor/ivacaftor to understand the overall effectiveness of the drug compared with its costs and (b) conduct a budget impact analysis (BIA) to understand the potential financial effect of introducing a new drug in a health plan. METHODS: Two static decision models were developed using Microsoft Excel to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of lumacaftor/ivacaftor over a 1-year time frame from a payer perspective. Model inputs included drug costs (wholesale acquisition costs), drug monitoring schedules (package inserts), drug monitoring costs (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid physician fee schedule and published literature), FEV1% predicted and pulmonary exacerbation values (clinical trials), and cost to treat pulmonary exacerbations (published literature). The outcomes in the CEA included total cost of therapy; average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), defined as cost per FEV1% predicted; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference in the ratio of cost per FEV1% predicted of lumacaftor/ivacaftor and placebo. Outcomes in the BIA included total budget impact; cost per member per month (PMPM), defined as total budget impact per hypothetical plan population; and cost per treated member per month (PTMPM), defined as total budget impact per target CF population. All costs were adjusted to 2016 dollars, and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model robustness given uncertainty in model inputs and study assumptions. RESULTS: The annual cost of therapy per patient for lumacaftor/ivacaftor was $379,780. The ACER for lumacaftor/ivacaftor was $151,912, while the ICER for lumacaftor/ivacaftor compared with placebo was $95,016 per FEV1% predicted. The annual total budget impact due to the inclusion of lumacaftor/ivacaftor on the health plan formulary was $266,046. The PMPM cost was $0.02 and the PTMPM cost was $6.21. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CF, lumacaftor/ivacaftor has demonstrated better clinical effectiveness compared with placebo alongside an increased drug acquisition cost. However, the therapy may be a viable alternative to existing standard therapy over a short time horizon. Health care payers, both private and public, need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the financial effect when considering expansion of new drug coverage in CF management. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Covvey and Kamal have received research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Covvey, Giannetti, and Kamal have received research funding from the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. Kamal serves as a consultant to the Lynx Group (Cranbury, NJ) and Manticore Consulting Group (Scottsdale, AZ). Mukherjee has nothing to disclose. A related poster abstract was presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO.