Hemoglobin and End-Organ Damage in Individuals with Sickle Cell Disease.

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited, chronic, multifaceted blood disorder. Patients with SCD develop anemia, which has been associated with end-organ damage (EOD). Objectives: This retrospective, observational, repeated-measures study systematically characterizes the relationship between hemoglobin (Hb) level and EOD in adolescent and adult patients with SCD. Methods: The study population comprised patients with SCD aged ≥12 years with available Hb data from a US provider-centric health care database. For each patient, each Hb value over time was included as a separate observation. Study outcomes-the onset of any new EOD, including chronic kidney disease, pulmonary hypertension, stroke, and leg ulcer-were ascertained during the 1-year period after each Hb assessment. The association between Hb levels and risk of new EOD was estimated using multivariable generalized estimating equations. Results: A total of 16,043 unique patients with SCD contributed 44,913 observations. Adjusted odds of any EOD during the 1-year follow-up were significantly lower with higher Hb level. Risk reductions with higher Hb levels for chronic kidney disease, pulmonary hypertension, and leg ulcer were comparable. The risk of new EOD was significantly lower among adolescent and adult patients with higher Hb levels. Conclusions: In patients with SCD, higher Hb levels are associated with a reduced risk of developing EOD. Therapeutic strategies that result in higher Hb levels may offer clinical and economic value for patients with SCD. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2023; 84:XXX-XXX).

Real-world treatment patterns, healthcare use and costs in triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in the USA.

Aim: To estimate treatment patterns and healthcare costs among triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Materials & methods: Eligible patients had ≥1 line of therapy (LOT) each of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and daratumumab in December 2015-September 2018 and received a new LOT. Results: A total of 154 patients were included with a median follow-up of 6.2 months. Median time from diagnosis to new LOT was 41.0 months. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to therapy discontinuation was 4.2 months. Mean per-patient, per-month MM-related costs were USD 35,657. Most frequently observed regimens were lenalidomide or pomalidomide + daratumumab (18.2%), lenalidomide or pomalidomide + proteasome inhibitors (15.6%) and lenalidomide or pomalidomide monotherapy (11.0%). Conclusion: Triple-class exposed RRMM patients receive heterogeneous treatments for a short duration with high healthcare resource utilization and costs.

Estimating outcomes and cost effectiveness using a single-arm clinical trial: ofatumumab for double-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Ofatumumab (Arzerra®, Novartis) is a treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab [double refractory (DR-CLL)]. Ofatumumab was licensed on the basis of an uncontrolled Phase II study, Hx-CD20-406, in which patients receiving ofatumumab survived for a median of 13.9 months. However, the lack of an internal control arm presents an obstacle for the estimation of comparative effectiveness. METHODS: The objective of the study was to present a method to estimate the cost effectiveness of ofatumumab in the treatment of DR-CLL. As no suitable historical control was available for modelling, the outcomes from non-responders to ofatumumab were used to model the effect of best supportive care (BSC). This was done via a Cox regression to control for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. This analysis was included in a partitioned survival model built in Microsoft® Excel with utilities and costs taken from published sources, with costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per annum. RESULTS: Using the outcomes seen in non-responders, ofatumumab is expected to add approximately 0.62 life years (1.50 vs. 0.88). Using published utility values this translates to an additional 0.30 QALYs (0.77 vs. 0.47). At the list price, ofatumumab had a cost per QALY of £130,563, and a cost per life year of £63,542. The model was sensitive to changes in assumptions regarding overall survival estimates and utility values. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential of using data for non-responders to model outcomes for BSC in cost-effectiveness evaluations based on single-arm trials. Further research is needed on the estimation of comparative effectiveness using uncontrolled clinical studies.

Overall Survival Endpoint in Oncology Clinical Trials: Addressing the Effect of Crossover--The Case of Pazopanib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the issues of using overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint in the presence of crossover and the statistical analyses available to adjust for confounded OS due to crossover in oncology clinical trials. METHODS: An indirect comparison was conducted between pazopanib and sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Statistical adjustment methods were used to estimate the true comparative effectiveness of these treatments. Recently, a head-to-head trial comparing pazopanib and sunitinib was completed. This provided the opportunity to compare the OS treatment effect estimated for pazopanib versus sunitinib using indirect comparison and statistical adjustment techniques with that observed in the head-to-head trial. RESULTS: Using a rank-preserving structural failure time model to adjust for crossover in the pazopanib registration trial, the indirect comparison of pazopanib versus sunitinib resulted in an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.97, while an unadjusted analysis resulted in an OS HR of 1.96. The head-to-head trial reported a final OS HR of 0.92 for pazopanib versus sunitinib. CONCLUSION: This case study supports the need to adjust for confounded OS due to crossover, which enables trials to meet ethical standards and provides decision makers with a more accurate estimate of treatment benefit.

Utilization of intravenous bisphosphonates in patients with bone metastases secondary to breast, lung, or prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Cancer patients with bone metastases (BMets) are predisposed to skeletal complications. Bone-targeted therapies such as denosumab or intravenous bisphosphonates (IVBs) reduce the risk of these complications. This study characterized patterns of IVB use in these patients in the USA. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study using the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Commercial and Medicare databases (2002-2011). Subjects with ≥1 claims of diagnosis of breast, lung, or prostate cancer (BC, LC, or PC) and ≥1 claims of BMets diagnosis were included. The date of first BMet diagnosis claim was the "index date." Key exclusion criteria were diagnosis of other primary cancer, receipt of IVB, or <6 months continuous enrollment pre-index. Cumulative incidence of treatment initiation, interruption, and discontinuation were estimated. Proportions of IVB claims with chemotherapy administered on the same day and with renal monitoring within 2 weeks prior were summarized. Multivariate regressions assessing factors associated with IVB initiation were conducted. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of IVB initiation at 12 months post-index was greatest for BC followed by PC and LC, and it declined with age in all tumor types, e.g., in BC from 62 % at age <50 years to 47 % at age ≥75 years. At 12 months, IVB treatment interruption ranged from 16 % (LC) to 31 % (PC), with discontinuation ranging from 46 % (BC) to 83 % (LC). CONCLUSIONS: IVBs are used more frequently in patients with BMets secondary to BC than PC or LC. Many patients interrupt or discontinue IVB therapy within 12 months of initiation potentially impacting effectiveness.

Health-care utilization and costs with fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in asthma patients at risk for exacerbations.

Although studies have established that adding long-acting beta agonists (LABA) to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy among patients with inadequately controlled asthma is associated with better outcomes than increasing ICS dosage, outcomes with ICS versus fixed-dose ICS/LABA combination among patients with recent asthma exacerbation or frequent use of rescue medication are unavailable. This study was designed to compare health-care utilization/costs among patients with recent asthma exacerbation or frequent rescue medication use who received fluticasone propionate (FP) alone versus fixed-dose FP/salmeterol combination (FSC). A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large health insurance data set. Patients with one or more claims with asthma diagnosis, two or more prescriptions for FSC (250/50- or 100/50-mg formulations) or FP (220- or 110-mg formulations), and one or more asthma exacerbations or five or more short-acting beta agonist (SABA) prescriptions within 1 year before initial receipt of study medications were included. Health-care utilization/costs and controller therapy compliance were compared for patients receiving FSC versus FP using multivariate regression analysis controlling for FP dose and baseline characteristics. A total of 7779 patients met inclusion criteria (5769, FSC, and 2010, FP) with comparable mean follow-up (FSC, 685 days; FP, 670 days; p = 0.151). Controlling for FP dosage and baseline characteristics, FSC patients had lower risks of asthma-related exacerbations, fewer SABAs and systemic corticosteroids, higher costs of asthma medications and total asthma-related health care, and lower total asthma-related health-care costs excluding study medication cost. In asthma patients with recent exacerbation or frequent SABA use, receipt of FSC reduced asthma-related exacerbation risks and rescue medication use versus receipt of FP.

Retrospective Study of the Prevalence, Predictors, and Consequences of Nonadherence With Lapatinib in Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer Who Were Previously Treated With Trastuzumab.

Background. Lapatinib is an oral small molecule dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has been shown to improve time to progression versus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab. Objective. To describe extent, predictors, and consequences of nonadherence with lapatinib in women with MBC who were previously treated with trastuzumab. Methods. This was a retrospective observational study using data from a large health insurance claims databases spanning January 2000 to March 2010. Measures of lapatinib adherence included medication possession ratio (MPR), time to discontinuation (end of supply), time to first treatment interruption (gap during treatment of 30 days without supply), and duration of continuous therapy (time to gap of 30 days without supply or end of supply). Predictors of nonadherence to lapatinib and the association between nonadherence and outcomes, utilization, and costs were examined using multiple regression analysis. Results. A total of 666 patients met all inclusion criteria. Mean initial lapatinib dosage was 1161 mg daily; 63% received index lapatinib in combination with capecitabine. Mean MPR was 87%; 22% of patients had MPR < 80%. Median time to lapatinib discontinuation was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval = 8.0-10.2). Twenty-seven percent of patients had one or more treatment interruptions during follow-up. Median duration of continuous therapy was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval = 5.1-6.1). Concomitant therapy with a taxane was a predictor of nonadherence (odds ratio for MPR < 80% = 10.30; P < .001). There was a statistically significant association between nonadherence to lapatinib and greater number of outpatient visits (P = .028). Conclusions. In women with MBC who were previously treated with trastuzumab, mean adherence to lapatinib in typical clinical practice is relatively high overall, although there is a small group of patients with high nonadherence. Targeted efforts to improve adherence to lapatinib in this subgroup may be warranted.

Risk of asthma exacerbation, asthma-related health care utilization and costs, and adherence to controller therapy in patients with asthma receiving fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalation powder 100 µg/50 µg versus mometasone furoate inhalation powder.

OBJECTIVE: National asthma treatment guidelines recommend low/medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) as initial therapy in mild asthma patients. However, low doses of a fixed-dose combination of ICS and long-acting ß-agonists are sometimes used. This study compares asthma-related outcomes and health care utilization and costs in clinical practice in patients starting fluticasone propionate 100 µg and salmeterol 50 µg via Diskus (FSC) or mometasone furoate (MF). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare asthma-related outcomes in asthma patients who received FSC or MF, using a large health insurance claims dataset spanning January 2004-December 2008. Patients with ≥1 claim with an asthma ICD-9-CM diagnosis code and ≥2 FSC or MF prescriptions were included, stratified into FSC or MF groups by study drug received first and matched using propensity score. RESULTS: A total of 18,283 patients met inclusion criteria (14,044 FSC and 4239 MF); 3799 matched pairs were identified (mean follow-up: FSC 548 days, MF 537 days). FSC patients had lower risk of asthma-related exacerbation (Hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95, p = .002), defined as either asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits/hospitalizations or receipt of systemic corticosteroids (SCSs); fewer SCS claims (mean 0.28 vs. 0.33, p = .021); and fewer asthma-related physician office (PO) and hospital outpatient (HO) visits (mean 1.17 vs. 1.63, p < .001). However, asthma-related ED visits were higher with FSC (p = .004), and FSC patients had higher total costs of asthma-related health care ($953 vs. $862, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In asthma patients initiating ICS therapy, MF had lower asthma-related ED visits. However, FSC may reduce the use of SCS and asthma-related PO/HO visits.

Quality-Adjusted Survival with Ribociclib Plus Fulvestrant Versus Placebo Plus Fulvestrant in Postmenopausal Women with HR±HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer in the MONALEESA-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: MONALEESA-3 demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for ribociclib plus fulvestrant (R+F) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study estimated quality-adjusted (QA) survival outcomes for patients receiving R+F vs. placebo (P)+F in MONALEESA-3. METHODS: Kaplan-Meier OS was partitioned into health states: (1) toxicity (TOX)=time spent with grade 3 -4 adverse events before progression (DP); (2) progression (PROG)=time between DP and death; and (3) time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST)=time not in TOX or PROG. QA time was calculated by combining estimated mean time in each health state with treatment-group specific health-state utility values estimated using EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Outcomes included QA progression-free survival (QAPFS), QAOS, and QA TWiST (Q-TWiST). Q-TWiST was calculated with health-state utility values for TOX and PROG defined relative to TWiST. RESULTS: Mean PFS and OS were significantly greater with R+F vs. P+F (difference 0.56 and 0.19 years). Mean time in TOX and TWiST were greater with R+F; mean time in PROG was greater with P+F. QAPFS was 0.45 years (95% CI 0.27 -0.63) greater with R+F than P+F (P <.001). QAOS was numerically greater with R+F vs. P+F (0.16 years, 95% CI 0.07 -0.45, P = .0569). Q-TWiST was 0.23 years greater with R+F (95% CI 0.07 -0.45, P = .0069). In a sensitivity analysis using an estimate of disutility for PROG, the difference in QAOS was 0.23 years (95% CI 0.08 -0.41, P = .0022). CONCLUSION: R+F in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC improves QAPFS, resulting in clinically important improvements in Q-TWiST and may improve QAOS.

Retrospective comparison of early versus late treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol after an asthma exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma are well established. Early use of inhaled anti-inflammatories following and exacerbation could be beneficial. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study compared the risk of asthma-related exacerbations [hospitalization, emergency department visit, and/or treatment with systemic corticosteroid] in patients receiving treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in a single inhaler (FSC) within 90 days following an initial asthma-related exacerbation (early treatment) versus patients receiving the treatment subsequently (late treatment). Data were from a large health insurance claims database spanning from January 1998 to April 2008. Subjects included patients with ≥1 prescription for FSC ≤ 1 year after first asthma-related exacerbation. Patients with early treatment were matched to those with late treatment by propensity score and compared in terms of healthcare utilization and costs after initiation of FSC. RESULTS: A total of 14,861 patients met study inclusion criteria, including 10,793 early and 4068 late treatment patients. After matching, 3555 pairs were well matched on all pretreatment characteristics and duration of follow-up (mean 722 vs. 717 days, p = .634). Early versus late treatment was associated with longer time to first asthma-related exacerbation (hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.88, p < .001), fewer short-acting ß-agonists prescriptions (3.3 vs. 3.6, p = .031), higher outpatient yearly per patient pharmacy costs ($1320 vs. $1163, p = .008), and lower yearly per patient asthma-related emergency department visit costs ($80 vs. $105, p = .032). Total yearly per patient asthma-related costs were similar ($2197 vs. $2064, p = .203). CONCLUSIONS: Earlier use of FSC following an asthma exacerbation was associated with reduced risk of future asthma-related exacerbation and lower use of rescue medications.

Preferences of Canadian Patients and Physicians for Treatment of HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer.

(1) Background: Past research suggests that patients with advanced breast cancer prefer treatments with improved clinical outcomes and lower risk of side effects. Evidence on preferences of Canadian patients and physicians for treatments for advanced breast cancer is limited. (2) Methods: Patients' and physicians' preferences for treatments for HR+/HER2-, pre-/peri-menopausal advanced breast cancer were assessed by an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Treatment alternatives were characterized by seven attributes regarding dosing, efficacy, and toxicities, with levels corresponding to those for ribociclib plus a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI), NSAI, and tamoxifen. For patients, impacts of advanced breast cancer on quality of life (QOL) and ability to work/perform activities of daily living also were assessed. Patients were recruited by a Canadian breast cancer patient advocacy group through email and social media. Physicians were recruited by email. (3) Results: Among 118 patients starting the survey, 23 completed ≥ 1 DCE question (19%). Among 271 physicians who were sent the e-mail invitation, 21 completed ≥ 1 DCE question (8%). For both patients and physicians, the increased probability of remaining alive and without cancer progression over 2 years was the most important attribute. A treatment with attributes consistent with ribociclib plus NSAI was chosen by patients and physicians in 70% and 88% of the time, respectively. A substantial proportion of patients reported worrying about future diagnostic tests and their cancer getting worse; (4) Conclusions: Canadian patients and physicians are generally concordant in preference for advanced breast cancer treatments, preferring ribociclib plus NSAI to other options.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib Plus a Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitor in Pre-/Perimenopausal, HR+ and HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The MONALEESA-7 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) [with goserelin] for pre-/perimenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of ribociclib plus NSAI vs NSAI monotherapy and tamoxifen monotherapy from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system. METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ribociclib plus an NSAI vs an NSAI and vs tamoxifen was estimated using a semi-Markov cohort model developed in Microsoft Excel with a 15-year time horizon and states for progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead. Survival distributions for progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and time to discontinuation as well as health-state utilities were estimated using data from MONALEESA-7. Direct costs of advanced breast cancer treatment were based on Canadian-specific values from published sources. Costs ($CAN 2019) and QALYs were discounted at 1.5% annually. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus an NSAI was estimated to yield gains of 1.42 life-years and 1.17 QALYs vs an NSAI, and 2.61 life-years and 2.12 QALYs vs tamoxifen, at incremental costs of $209,701 and $220,836, respectively. In probabilistic analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ribociclib plus an NSAI was estimated to be $178,872 per QALY gained vs an NSAI and $104,400 per QALY gained vs tamoxifen. Results of deterministic analyses were similar (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $177,245 and $103,316 vs NSAI and tamoxifen, respectively). Results were sensitive to parametric distributions used for projecting progression-free survival and the time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: At its current list price, ribociclib used in combination with NSAI is likely to be co-effective relative to an NSAI alone or tamoxifen alone if the willingness-to-pay threshold is less than approximately $178,000 per QALY. These results have informed deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment in Canada and may be useful for decision makers in other settings.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib in Combination with Fulvestrant for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer Who Have Received No or Only One Prior Line of Endocrine Therapy: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The MONALEESA-3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC from a Canadian healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant, was estimated using a semi-Markov cohort model developed in Microsoft Excel, with states for progression-free, post-progression, and dead. A 15-year time horizon was used. Survival distributions for progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS), and time to discontinuation (TTD) were based on parametric survival distributions fit to data from MONALEESA-3. Health-state utilities were estimated using EQ-5D index values collected in MONALEESA-3. Direct costs of ABC treatment (medication and administration costs, follow-up and monitoring, adverse events, subsequent treatments) were based on Canadian-specific values from published sources. Costs (2019 CAN$) and QALYs were discounted at 1.5% annually. RESULTS: In the base case, ribociclib plus fulvestrant was estimated to result in gains of 1.19 life-years and 0.96 QALYs versus fulvestrant, at an incremental cost of $151,371. The ICER of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant was $157,343 per QALY gained based on the mean of probabilistic analyses. Results were sensitive to parametric distributions used for projecting long-term TTD, PFS, and PPS. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with HR+/HER2- ABC, ribociclib plus fulvestrant is projected to result in substantial gains in QALYs compared with fulvestrant. At its current list price, ribociclib used in combination with fulvestrant is likely to be cost effective in these patients at a threshold ICER of $157,343. These results may be useful in deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Lifetime Costs for Treated Follicular Lymphoma Patients in the US.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the lifetime costs of patients receiving treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) in the United States. METHODS: A Markov model was programmed in heRo3 with a 6-month cycle length, 35-year time horizon (lifetime projection), and health states for line of treatment, response, receipt of maintenance therapy among responders, transformation to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), development of second primary malignancy (SPM), and death. The model was used to estimate the expected lifetime costs of FL (in 2019 USD), including costs of drug acquisition and administration, transplant procedures, radiotherapy, adverse events, follow-up, DLBCL, SPM, end-of-life care, and indirect costs. Model inputs were based on published sources. RESULTS: In the US, patients with FL receiving treatment have a life expectancy of approximately 14.5 years from initiation of treatment and expected lifetime direct and indirect costs of US$515,884. Costs of drugs for induction therapy represent the largest expenditure (US$233,174), followed by maintenance therapy costs (US$88,971) and terminal care costs (US$57,065). Despite the relatively advanced age of these patients, indirect costs (due to patient morbidity and mortality and caregiver lost work time) represent a substantial share of total costs (US$40,280). Treated FL patients spend approximately 6.9 years in the health states associated with first-line therapy. Approximately 66 and 46% continue to second- and third-line therapies, respectively. The mean (95% credible interval) of expected lifetime costs based on the probabilistic sensitivity analyses was US$559,202 (421,997-762,553). CONCLUSIONS: In the US, the expected lifetime costs of care for FL patients who receive treatment is high. The results highlight the potential economic benefits that might be achieved by treatments for FL that prevent or delay disease progression.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Ribociclib Plus Fulvestrant versus Palbociclib Plus Letrozole as First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus endocrine therapy are recommended for first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, not all CDK4/6i trials have reported significant overall survival (OS) benefit, and there have been no head-to-head trials. Two trials have reported OS outcomes in first-line patients: MONALEESA-3 reported significant OS benefit with first- or second-line ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB+FUL) versus placebo plus fulvestrant (PBO+FUL), while PALOMA-1 reported no significant OS benefit for palbociclib plus letrozole (PAL+LET) versus LET in first-line postmenopausal patients. Matched-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) are an established method for comparing efficacy of treatments from different trials. We used an MAIC to compare first-line patients from MONALEESA-3 and PALOMA-1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An unanchored MAIC of progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in first-line patients with HR+/HER2- ABC treated with RIB+FUL versus PAL+LET was conducted using individual patient data from MONALEESA-3 and aggregated data from PALOMA-1. To match patients in PALOMA-1, patients in MONALEESA-3 were limited to those with no prior endocrine therapy for ABC and no (neo) adjuvant LET ≤12 months before enrollment. PFS and OS were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 329 and 178 patients from RIB+FUL and PBO+FUL arms, respectively, of MONALEESA-3 were matched to 84 and 81 patients from PAL+LET and LET arms of PALOMA-1. After weighting, OS was significantly longer for RIB+FUL versus PAL+LET (hazard ratio [HR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.77; p = 0.0020). PFS favored RIB+FUL versus PAL+LET, although the difference was not statistically significant (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.54-1.10; p = 0.1553). CONCLUSION: Using MAIC to adjust for trial differences, OS comparisons favored RIB+FUL over PAL+LET as first-line treatment in postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. These exploratory results suggest a significant increase in OS benefit with RIB treatment compared with PAL.

Stepping down to fluticasone propionate or a lower dose of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination in asthma patients recently initiating combination therapy.

Clinical guidelines recommend add-on therapy with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma whose disease is not adequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) alone. For those achieving control with add-on therapy, careful reduction in ICS dose followed by withdrawal of LABA is recommended. This study was designed to compare asthma-related outcomes in patients receiving fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) who stepped down to a lower dose of FSC versus those who stepped down to fluticasone propionate (FP) at the same dose of FP. A retrospective observational cohort study was performed using two large health insurance claims databases spanning from January 2000 to June 2007. Subjects were age > or =12 and <65 years, had a diagnosis of asthma (International Classification of Diseases [ICD-493.xx]), and who within 1 year of initiating FSC either stepped down to a lower dose of FSC ("FSC patients") or to FP only at the same dose of FP ("FP patients"). FSC and FP patients were matched based on propensity scores to control for potential differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and preindex asthma-related and costs. Of 4350 subjects identified, 3881 stepped down to a lower dose of FSC and 469 stepped down to FP. After matching, there were 447 pairs of FSC and FP patients. FSC patients had 30% fewer prescriptions for short-acting beta-agonists, a 26% lower risk of receiving systemic corticosteroids, and a 48% lower risk of asthma-related hospitalization or Emergency Department visit during follow-up. Stepping down to FP monotherapy is associated with worsening asthma symptoms and greater risk of severe asthma-related exacerbations compared with staying on FSC at a lower ICS dose.

Adding salmeterol to fluticasone propionate or increasing the dose of fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma.

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines recommend two options for patients uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone: add a long-acting bronchodilator or increase the dose of the ICS. The purpose of this study was to compare asthma-related exacerbations and asthma control in asthma patients receiving fluticasone propionate (FP) monotherapy with an increased dose of FP compared with maintaining the dose and adding salmeterol (SAL) via a single device (FP/SAL combination [FSC]). A retrospective observational study was performed using health insurance claims spanning from January 2001 to August 2006 ("study period"). Subjects were > or =12 years of age, with asthma (International Classification of Diseases [ICD] 493.xx), and were stepped up from FP 44 microg to either FP 110 microg (FP110) or FP 100 microg/SAL 50 microg (FSC), or from FP110 to either FP 220 microg or FP 250 microg/SAL 50 microg (FSC). There were 1744 subjects identified, 557 (32%) increased FP and 1187 (68%) added SAL. The cohorts were relatively similar, and after adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients who added SAL to their same dose of FP had 41% lower odds of an asthma exacerbation (odds ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.76; p < 0.001), 36% fewer prescriptions for a short-acting beta-agonist (rate ratio = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.58-0.70; p < 0.001), and a 32% increase in ICS refill persistence compared with increasing the dose of FP. In asthma patients who are not adequately controlled with ICS (FP), adding SAL as FSC is associated with lower risk of an asthma-related exacerbation and better asthma control compared with increasing the dose of ICS (FP).

Cost-effectiveness of aliskiren in type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria.

The Aliskiren in the Evaluation of Proteinuria in Diabetes (AVOID) trial demonstrated that adding aliskiren, an oral direct renin inhibitor, at a dosage of 300 mg/d to the highest approved dosage of losartan and optimal antihypertensive therapy reduces albuminuria over 6 mo among patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria. The cost-effectiveness of this therapy, however, is unknown. Here, we used a Markov model to project progression to ESRD, life years, quality-adjusted life years, and lifetime costs for aliskiren plus losartan versus losartan. We used data from the AVOID study and the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) to estimate probabilities of progression of renal disease. We estimated probabilities of mortality for ESRD and other comorbidities using data from the US Renal Data System, US Vital Statistics, and published studies. We based pharmacy costs on wholesale acquisition costs and based costs of ESRD and transplantation on data from the US Renal Data System. We found that adding aliskiren to losartan increased time free of ESRD, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.1772, 0.1021, and 0.0967 yr, respectively. Total expected lifetime health care costs increased by $2952, reflecting the higher pharmacy costs of aliskiren and losartan ($7769), which were partially offset by savings in costs of ESRD ($4860). We estimated the cost-effectiveness of aliskiren to be $30,500 per quality-adjusted life year gained. In conclusion, adding aliskiren to losartan and optimal therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria may be cost-effective from a US health care system perspective.

Healthcare utilization and costs among relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients on carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Aim: To compare monthly healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving second or subsequent line of treatment (LOT) with carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone. Methods and materials: Adult MM patients who received carfilzomib or pomalidomide as second/subsequent LOT between 2006 and 2014 were selected from the MarketScan databases. LOT was determined using Medical/pharmacy claims using a published algorithm. For each patient, first LOT with carfilzomib or pomalidomide was defined as index LOT. Patients with first LOT as index LOT, who received other chemotherapy in combination with carfilzomib or pomalidomide, or who underwent stem cell transplant (STC) during index LOT were excluded. Monthly HRU and costs during index LOT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity scores for receipt of carfilzomib estimated by logistic regression with LOT, patient demographics, Charlson index, comorbidities, pre-index healthcare cost, and receipt of prior SCT as covariates. Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced among 114 carfilzomib and 144 pomalidomide patients. Mean (95% CI) numbers of outpatient visits per month were 7.1 (5.2-8.0) with carfilzomib and 4.7 (3.9-6.1) with pomalidomide (p = 0.006). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in mean monthly HRU and costs or median time to therapy discontinuation. Mean (95% CI) monthly total healthcare costs were $19,776 (15,322-27,748) with pomalidomide and $17,321 (12,412-21,874) with carfilzomib (p = 0.522). Limitations: Comparison of carfilzomib vs pomalidomide may be biased if there are unobserved factors not balanced by IPTW. The relatively small sample size limits the power of analyses to detect potential differences between treatment groups. Conclusions: Monthly HRU and costs are similar among patients with relapse or refractory MM patients receiving carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy as frontline treatment of stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

OBJECTIVE: The ECHELON-1 trial demonstrated efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A + AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as frontline therapy for stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of A + AVD from a US healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, was estimated using a non-homogenous semi-Markov cohort model with health states defined on progression following frontline treatment, and for those with progression, receipt of autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT), and progression after ASCT. Patients undergoing ASCT were classified as refractory or relapsed based on timing of progression. Probabilities of progression/death with frontline therapy were based on parametric survival distributions fit to data on modified progression-free survival (mPFS) from ECHELON-1. Duration of frontline treatment and incidence of adverse events were from ECHELON-1. Utility values for patients in the frontline mPFS state were based on EQ-5D data from ECHELON-1. Other inputs were from published sources. A lifetime time horizon was used. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. Analyses were conducted alternately using data on mPFS for the overall and North American populations of ECHELON-1. RESULTS: The ICER for A + AVD vs ABVD was $172,074/QALY gained in the analysis using data on mPFS for the overall population and $69,442/QALY gained in the analysis using data on mPFS for the North American population of ECHELON-1. The ICER is sensitive to estimated costs of ASCT and frontline failure. CONCLUSION: The ICER for A + AVD vs ABVD based on ECHELON-1 is within the range of threshold values for cost-effectiveness in the US. A + AVD is, therefore, likely to be a cost-effective frontline therapy for patients with stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.