Patterns of major cutaneous surgeries and reconstructions in patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in the USA

Aim: Since use of major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions among patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is not well described, we sought to quantify major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions among patients with CSCC who were newly diagnosed and for those treated with systemic therapy, stratified by immune status. Methods: We used the Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart database (2013-2020) and Kaplan-Meier estimators to assess risk of surgeries/reconstructions. Results: 450,803 patients were identified with an incident CSCC diagnosis, including 4111 patients with CSCC who initiated systemic therapy. The respective 7-year risks of major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions were 10.9% (95% CI: 10.7-11.0) and 21.8% (95% CI: 17.6-25.8). Overall risk of major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions was higher in patients who were immunocompromised than those who were immunocompetent. Conclusion: Approximately one in nine patients with CSCC will undergo ≥1 major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions within 7 years of diagnosis; the risk increases in patients who initiate systemic therapy and among those who are immunocompromised.

Real-world analysis of cost, treatment patterns, and outcomes of patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in the US

OBJECTIVES

To describe real-world characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (mCSCC).

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases (1/1/2013-7/31/2019). Adult patients with mCSCC who initiated non-immunotherapy systemic treatment (i.e. index event) between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 were assessed for treatment patterns, all-cause and CSCC-related healthcare resource utilization, costs, and mortality .

RESULTS

Overall, 207 patients were included in the study(mean age 64.8 years, 76.3% male), 59.4% had prior radiotherapy, and 58.9% had prior CSCC-related surgery. During follow-up, 75.8%, 51.7%, and 35.7% of patients received chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy as first-line treatment, respectively. Cisplatin (32.9%) and carboplatin (22.7%) were the most common chemotherapy agents, and cetuximab (32.4%) was the most common targeted therapy during the first-line.Probability of death (95% CI) at month 6, year 1, and year 2 was 24% (16-32%), 50% (40 - 59%), and 67% (56 - 75%), respectively. Average CSCC-related healthcare costs were $5,354 per person per month (PPPM), with outpatient costs being the major cost driver at 96.4% ($5,160 PPPM).

CONCLUSION

During 2014-2018, patients with mCSCC were commonly treated with cisplatin and cetuximab; prognosis was generally poor. These results indicate opportunity for new treatments to improve survival outcomes.

Qualitative Patient Interviews to Characterize the Human Burden of Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma Following Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitor Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Evidence of patients' experiences of living with advanced basal cell carcinoma (aBCC) are limited, particularly after hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) treatment. We explored the burden of aBCC on symptoms and patients' everyday lives post HHI treatment.

METHODS

In-depth, semi-structured, approximately 1-h qualitative interviews of US patients with aBCC and prior HHI treatment were conducted. Data were assessed using thematic analysis with NVivo 1.0 software. Saturation analysis was performed to ensure all concepts were captured.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (median age, 63 years; locally advanced BCC, n = 9; metastatic BCC, n = 6) were interviewed. A patient-led conceptual model was developed from the responses using 10 symptoms and 15 impact categories (comprising emotional/psychological, physical, and social domains) identified as most commonly discussed and important to patients. Overall, reported impacts were discussed more commonly than reported symptoms. Impacts most commonly discussed were related to emotions (e.g., anxiety, worry, fear [n = 14; 93%]; low mood, depression [n = 12; 80%]) and physical function (e.g., hobbies or leisure activities [n = 13; 87%]). Symptoms most commonly discussed were fatigue and tiredness (n = 14; 93%) and itch (n = 13; 87%). Out of all reported impacts and symptoms, fatigue and tiredness (n = 7, 47%) and anxiety, worry, and fear (n = 6; 40%) were most bothersome to patients. As a descriptive exercise, participant responses were mapped to commonly used patient-reported outcome scales in aBCC clinical trials. Most expressed concepts were captured across two common measures in oncology/skin conditions (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 [EORTC QLQ-C30] and Skindex-16 questionnaires), but sun avoidance and others' perception of skin cancer were not explicitly mentioned by these instruments.

CONCLUSION

Patients with aBCC experienced a significant disease burden post first-line HHI therapy, including major emotional and lifestyle impacts. Accordingly, through this study, patients with aBCC highlighted a significant unmet need for second-line treatment options post HHI therapy.

A phase 1/2 study of REGN7075 (EGFRxCD28 costimulatory bispecific antibody) in combination with cemiplimab (anti–PD-1) in patients with advanced solid tumors: Trial-in-progress update

TPS277

Background: There is a need to develop novel immunotherapeutic approaches to enhance responses to immune checkpoint blockade. REGN7075 is a human costimulatory bispecific antibody designed to bridge epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-expressing tumor cells with CD28-positive T cells to support further T-cell activation by endogenous tumor antigens. Methods: This is an open-label, Phase 1/2, first-in-human study evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary anti-tumor activity of REGN7075 (EGFRxCD28) alone and in combination with cemiplimab (anti-programmed cell death [PD]-1) in patients with advanced solid tumors (NCT04626635). This study includes a dose-escalation (Bayesian optimal interval design; Part 1) and a dose-expansion phase (Part 2). Patients must have a protocol-defined advanced solid tumor, have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and be naive to anti–PD-1/anti–PD-ligand(L)1 therapy in the dose-expansion phase. In Part 1, heavily pre-treated patients with advanced solid tumors receive a lead-in of REGN7075 monotherapy every week for 3 weeks followed by combination therapy with cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks. Planned dose levels (DLs) of REGN7075 are 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, and 900mg. Once the recommended Phase 2 dose is determined in Part 1, five tumor-specific expansion cohorts will be opened in Part 2: colorectal cancer (microsatellite stable [MSS-CRC]), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, PD-L1 ≥50%), triple-negative breast cancer, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (PD-L1 combined positive score ≥1). Patients with MSS-CRC with RAS or BRAF wild type mutations must have received anti-EGFR therapy or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF therapy). Primary endpoints are safety and tolerability of REGN7075 alone or in combination with cemiplimab for Part 1, and objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 for Part 2. For Part 2, a secondary objective is to assess the effect of REGN7075 on patient-reported outcomes as measured by several validated instruments including the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and EORTC QLQ-CR29 (CRC patients only). Approximately 400 patients will be enrolled in this phase 1/2 study, including ~80 patients in Part 1 and ~320 patients in Part 2 (including ~70 in the CRC cohort). As of September 13, 2022, 30 patients were treated in the dose-escalation phase, up to the 300 mg DL for REGN7075 in combination with cemiplimab. This study is ongoing and currently open to enrollment. Clinical trial information: NCT04626635 .

Patient-reported outcomes labeling for oncology drugs: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current status and future directions

Introduction: Regulatory agencies encourage the incorporation of the patient voices throughout clinical drug development. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) offer one way of doing this and their use has markedly increased in many therapeutic areas, particularly oncology, in recent years. However, few oncology drug labels include PRO data and those which do, offer little consistency. Objective: To provide multidisciplinary perspectives (patient, pharmaceutical industry, PRO researcher, regulatory expert) on PRO data in oncology drug labels. Methods: PRO data in the labels of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for oncology indications between 2010 and 2020 were critically reviewed by authors who provided their insights on the advantages and disadvantages/gaps. Results: Forty-six oncology drugs included PRO data in their labels. Differences were observed between FDA and EMA PRO labeling (e.g., PRO concept, use of tables and graphs to display PROs or reference to clinical meaningfulness). In providing their perspectives on the number and nature of PROs in labels, authors noted limitations including: the low proportion of oncology drugs with PRO labeling, limited PRO information in labels, lack of patient-friendly language, and potential bias towards positive outcomes. Lack of consistency within- and between-agencies was noted. Conclusion: Despite regulatory agencies' commitment to incorporate patient voices in regulatory decisions, availability of PRO information is limited in oncology drug labels. While several PRO guidance documents are available from regulatory and Health Technology Assessment agencies, harmonization of PRO guidance for labeling inclusion around the world is needed to better inform prescribers and consequently their patients in the process of shared medical decisions.

A call to action to harmonize patient-reported outcomes evidence requirements across key European HTA bodies in oncology

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are increasingly being included in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) submissions for oncology drugs. This study aims to provide differences in PRO evidence requirements in oncology across key HTA bodies and calls for its harmonization. Method guidance provided by HTA bodies in Germany, France, and the UK, and analysis of HTA reports of 20 oncology case studies were evaluated in this review. Differences exist between HTA bodies regarding guidance on how PRO data should be collected, reported and analyzed as well as how the data are reviewed and considered in oncology HTAs. HTA bodies can play a key role to harmonize PRO method guidance in collaboration with regulators and sponsors.

Network meta-analysis of immune-oncology monotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with PD-L1 expression ⩾50

Background:

For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high (⩾50%) programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, effective first-line immune-oncology monotherapies with significant survival benefits are approved, cemiplimab being the most recent. In a phase III trial, cemiplimab demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to identify/compare the efficacy/safety of cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab or other immune-oncology monotherapies from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) published in November 2010–2020.

Methods:

Relevant RCTs were identified by searching databases and conference proceedings as per ISPOR, NICE, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. NMA with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) was performed for OS and PFS. Analyses were conducted for objective response rate (ORR) and safety/tolerability. Fixed-effect models were used due to limited evidence. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to validate the base case analyses.

Results:

The feasibility assessment determined that EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 trials were eligible. IMpower110 was excluded because an incompatible PD-L1 assay (SP142) was used for patient selection. For first-line advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS [HR (95% credible interval [CrI]): 0.65 (0.50–0.86), 1–12 months] and ORR [odds ratio (OR) (95% CrI): 1.64 (1.04–2.62)], and comparable OS [HR (95% CrI): 0.77 (0.54–1.10), 1–12 months] versus pembrolizumab. There was no evidence of differences between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab for Grade 3–5 adverse events (AEs) [OR (95% CrI): 1.47 (0.83–2.60)], immune-mediated AEs [1.75 (0.33–7.49)], and all-cause discontinuation due to AEs [1.21 (0.58–2.61)].

Conclusions:

Considering the limitations of indirect treatment comparisons, in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab monotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and ORR, comparable OS, and no evidence of differences in safety/tolerability versus pembrolizumab.

Hedgehog pathway inhibitor real-world treatment patterns in patients with basal cell carcinoma: a claims-based analysis

Aims: To examine real-world treatment patterns for Hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HHIs) for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: HHI initiators between January 2013 and June 2019 were identified from IBM MarketScan^® claims data. Time to treatment discontinuation and reinitiation were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods using a 60-day grace period. Results: Among 526 patients with basal cell carcinoma who initiated an HHI, median time to first discontinuation was 144 days, and risk of discontinuation by 12 months was 88.0%. Probability of reinitiation within 12 months was 19.7%, and median time to second discontinuation was 118 days. Conclusion: HHI discontinuation was common and reinitiation uncommon in clinical practice. Future research should evaluate persistence with recently approved therapies.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes Among Patients with Basal Cell Carcinoma Following First-Line Hedgehog Inhibitor Discontinuation

INTRODUCTION

Until recently, patients discontinuing first-line (1L) hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) had few subsequent treatment options. The objective of this study was to describe the treatment journey and prognosis of patients discontinuing 1L HHI for BCC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with BCC who discontinued 1L HHI treatment in The US Oncology Network between 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2019 (with follow-up until 1 May 2020). Two cohorts were identified: patients who initiated a second-line (2L) treatment (2L initiators), and patients with 1L progression or toxicity without pathology-confirmed complete response who did not initiate 2L treatment (2L non-initiators). Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and outcomes are reported for each cohort.

RESULTS

Among 115 patients with BCC who received 1L HHI treatment, 63.5% (n = 73/115) discontinued 1L HHIs. Of those, 50.7% (n = 37/73) discontinued because of documented toxicity or progression, without evidence of a complete response. We identified 4 patients who initiated 2L systemic treatment (median age 68.7 years, 100.0% female) and 15 patients who were eligible for the 2L non-initiator cohort (median age 80.2 years, 20.0% female). Median 1L HHI duration was 6.8 months (range 1.9-20.6 months) for the 2L non-initiator cohort and 8.6 months (range 6.8-42.2 months) for 2L initiators. At the end of follow-up, among 2L non-initiators (median follow-up duration 9.7 months), 40.0% were lost to follow-up, 33.3% had died, 20.0% continued observation, and 6.7% transitioned to an academic medical center or hospital; among 2L initiators (median follow-up duration 6.3 months), 50.0% were lost to follow-up, 25.0% had died, and 25.0% continued observation.

CONCLUSIONS

Following 1L HHI discontinuation, lack of standardized care and suboptimal outcomes were observed, including limited receipt of 2L treatment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of newer BCC treatment options.

Survival with Cemiplimab in Recurrent Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with recurrent cervical cancer have a poor prognosis. Cemiplimab, the fully human programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)-blocking antibody approved to treat lung and skin cancers, has been shown to have preliminary clinical activity in this population.

METHODS

In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had disease progression after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy, regardless of their programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cemiplimab (350 mg every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival. Progression-free survival and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 608 women were enrolled (304 in each group). In the overall trial population, median overall survival was longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group (12.0 months vs. 8.5 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.84; two-sided P<0.001). The overall survival benefit was consistent in both histologic subgroups (squamous-cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma [including adenosquamous carcinoma]). Progression-free survival was also longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; two-sided P<0.001). In the overall population, an objective response occurred in 16.4% (95% CI, 12.5 to 21.1) of the patients in the cemiplimab group, as compared with 6.3% (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.6) in the chemotherapy group. An objective response occurred in 18% (95% CI, 11 to 28) of the cemiplimab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% and in 11% (95% CI, 4 to 25) of those with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Overall, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 45.0% of the patients who received cemiplimab and in 53.4% of those who received chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival was significantly longer with cemiplimab than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03257267.).

Cost-Effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression ≥50

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.

METHODS

A 30-year "partitioned survival" model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties.

RESULTS

Cemiplimab was associated with increased time in the "preprogression" (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and "postprogression" (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI -0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.

Integrated analysis of a phase 2 study of cemiplimab in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of outcomes and quality of life analysis

Background

To provide pooled longer term data from three groups of a phase 2 study of cemiplimab in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), and to determine duration of response (DOR) and impact on quality of life (QoL).

Methods

Patients received cemiplimab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (group 1, metastatic CSCC [mCSCC], n=59; group 2, locally advanced CSCC, n=78) or cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (group 3, mCSCC, n=56). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). QoL was repeatedly measured at day 1 of each treatment cycle (groups 1 and 2: 8 weeks; group 3: 9 weeks).

Results

Median duration of follow-up was 15.7 months. Overall, ORR per ICR was 46.1% (95% CI: 38.9% to 53.4%). Complete response (CR) rates were 20.3%, 12.8%, and 16.1% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median time to CR was 11.2 months. Among patients with partial response or CR, the estimated proportion of patients with ongoing response at 12 months from the first objective response was 87.8% (95% CI: 78.5% to 93.3%), with median DOR not reached. Kaplan-Meier estimated probability of overall survival (OS) was 73.3% (95% CI: 66.1% to 79.2%) at 24 months, with median OS not reached. Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL improvements were observed as early as cycle 2 and were significantly improved and durable until last assessment. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to first clinically meaningful improvement for pain was 2.1 (95% CI: 2.0 to 3.7) months and was significantly improved in responders versus non-responders (p<0.0001).

Conclusions

This is the largest (n=193) clinical dataset for a programmed cell death-1 inhibitor against advanced CSCC, confirming the sustained substantial clinical activity of cemiplimab in these patients, including new findings of improved CR rates over time, increasing DOR, and durable pain control and GHS/QoL improvement.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02760498), https://clinicaltrialsgov/ct2/show/NCT02760498.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A "partitioned survival" framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) of immuno-oncology (IO) monotherapy as first-line (1L) treatments (txs) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 expression ≥50%

e21091

Background: For advanced NSCLC patients (pts) with high (≥50%) PD-L1 expression, effective IO mono options with survival benefits are approved (pembrolizumab mono, current standard of care) and emerging (cemiplimab). In a recent Phase 3 trial, cemiplimab, a high-affinity, highly potent human PD-1 inhibitor approved for tx of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs chemotherapy (CT) in advanced NSCLC pts with PD-L1 ≥50%. A systematic literature review and NMA were conducted to identify/compare the efficacy/safety from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab or other IO mono published 2010–19. Methods: Relevant RCTs were identified by searching Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and conference proceedings with predefined search strategies according to ISPOR, NICE, and PRISMA guidelines. An NMA with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) was performed for OS and PFS. Analyses were conducted for objective response rate (ORR), Grade (G) 3–5 all-cause adverse events (AE), G3–5 immune-mediated AE (IMAE) and discontinuation due to AEs (DAE). Fixed-effect models were used due to limited evidence. Results with standard constant HRs and various sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for differences in RCT designs and other txs. Results: The feasibility assessment determined that EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 trials were eligible. IMpower110 was excluded since an incompatible PD-L1 assay (SP142) was used for pt selection. For 1L advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%, cemiplimab was associated with significantly greater PFS and ORR, and comparable OS, G3–5 AEs, IMAEs, and all-cause DAEs vs pembrolizumab (Table). At 2 yrs, numerically more pts receiving cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab were alive (59% vs 49%) and significantly more were alive w/o progression (37% vs 18%). Conclusions: In advanced NSCLC pts with PD-L1 ≥50%, cemiplimab mono demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and ORR, and comparable OS, safety/tolerability vs pembrolizumab.[Table: see text]

Outcomes in patients (pts) with advanced basal cell carcinoma (aBCC) who discontinued hedgehog inhibitors (HHI) as first-line (1L) systemic treatment (Tx) in a U.S. community oncology setting: A retrospective observational study

e18742

Background: HHIs are the only approved 1L systemic Tx for aBCC. Many pts develop resistance or are intolerant to HHIs and may require second-line (2L) Tx. Little is known about patient outcomes following HHI discontinuation. In this study, we describe characteristics and outcomes among pts with aBCC who discontinued 1L HHIs due to progression or toxicity. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified adult pts diagnosed with aBCC who discontinued 1L HHI monotherapy between January 2012 and November 2019 in The US Oncology Network (Network), a community-based network of > 450 oncology clinics. Pts with ≥2 Network visits and no Tx for other primary malignancy 3 years prior to index date were included. Structured and unstructured data in the electronic health records were used to extract information on pt characteristics and outcomes. Pts were grouped based on initiation of 2L systemic Tx post-HHI discontinuation into 2L initiators and 2L non-initiators. 2L non-initiators were followed for ≥90 days post-HHIs discontinuation, and those undergoing surgery or radiation during this period (i.e. potential neoadjuvant HHI use) were excluded. Index date was date of 2L Tx initiation for 2L initiators and 90 days post 1L HHI discontinuation for 2L non-initiators. Pts were followed from index date until death, Tx initiation for another primary cancer, loss to follow-up, or end of study (February 1, 2020), whichever occurred first. Pt disposition and outcomes were described separately for each group. Results: We identified 73 aBCC pts who discontinued 1L HHI monotherapy during the specified period. Of those, 19 (26%) pts (4 [21%] 2L initiators and 15 [79%] 2L non-initiators) were included in the study: 12 (63%) were male and 3 (21%) were metastatic at diagnosis, with a mean age of 73 years. Median (range) follow-up time from index date was 10 (3‒42) months for 2L non-initiators and 6 (1‒61) months for 2L initiators. Fourteen (74%) pts discontinued HHI due to toxicity (all 2L non-initiators) and 5 (26%) due to progression (4 2L initiators and 1 2L non-initiator). Median time to discontinuation of 1L HHI was 7 (2‒9) months in 2L non-initiators and 9 (7‒42) months in 2L initiators. 2L initiators received subsequent Tx 2‒130 days following discontinuation of 1L HHI. Time to discontinuation of 2L Tx ranged 4–11 months. Six deaths (32%) were observed during study period (5 2L non-initiators and 1 2L initiator). Conclusions: The short duration of 1L HHI Tx in our small cohort of aBCC pts who did not respond to and/or tolerate HHI is consistent with previous findings. During the study period, limited therapeutic options existed post-HHI, highlighting the unmet need for more effective Tx strategies in a 2L aBCC setting.

Budget impact (BI) analysis of cemiplimab-rwlc for advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC) after hedgehog inhibitor (HHI) therapy in the United States

e18830

Background: A small proportion of patients (pts) with BCC develop advanced disease (locally advanced [la] and metastatic [m] BCC). Until recently, there was no standard treatment regimen for advanced BCC following progression on or intolerance to HHIs. Some pts received systemic therapy (ST), but most received best supportive care (BSC). Cemiplimab-rwlc is the first immunotherapy indicated in the US, fully for pts with laBCC and accelerated for mBCC, post HHIs or for whom HHIs are not appropriate. This study estimated the BI of introducing cemiplimab-rwlc in the US from a healthcare payer’s perspective. Methods: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the BI of introducing cemiplimab-rwlc to a US healthcare system over 3 years for advanced BCC treatment following HHIs. Published data were used to estimate eligible patient population size. Reference case market shares for platinum chemotherapy (CT; 4%), nivolumab (3%), pembrolizumab (2%), vismodegib (1%), sonidegib (1%), and BSC (89%) were based on market research, as were predicted uptake of cemiplimab-rwlc and changes in market distribution of STs and BSC post-cemiplimab-rwlc launch, with most pts moving from BSC. Treatment costs were sourced from the ProspectoRx drug pricing database. Total costs (2020 US dollars [$]) to the healthcare system included costs related to treatment, disease monitoring, and mitigation of Grade 3–4 adverse events. Results: In a hypothetical US healthcare plan of 1,000,000 members, ̃32 pts per year with advanced BCC would be eligible for cemiplimab-rwlc, resulting in an average additional cost of cemiplimab-rwlc introduction of $0.12 per member per month (PMPM) over 3 years. The proportion of pts receiving ST rather than BSC was estimated to increase from 11% in 2020, prior to cemiplimab-rwlc approval, to 50% in 2023. Cemiplimab-rwlc market share is projected to increase by 41% by year 3 taking shares from BSC (–39%), HHIs (–1%), and CT (–1%). Given the large proportion of pts who currently receive BSC, the availability of cemiplimab-rwlc is expected to increase payers’ 3-year budget from $978,955 to $5,487,507 post-launch. A one-way sensitivity analysis showed that BI estimates were most sensitive to estimation of the size of the eligible population (health plan population [±20%], proportion of pts with advanced BCC [±20%], and those eligible for treatment post-HHI [±19%]), cemiplimab-rwlc treatment duration (±17%), and the cost of cemiplimab-rwlc (±17%). Changes to all other inputs had a < 5% impact. Conclusions: The introduction of cemiplimab-rwlc had a minimal BI on the average PMPM cost. Modest incremental BI is directly attributable to the projected uptake of cemiplimab-rwlc in a market where pts previously received no ST. These analyses provide new insights in the management of advanced BCC noting limited available evidence for post-HHI treatment.

Frequency, characteristics, and subsequent treatment (Tx) of real-world patients (pts) who discontinue hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) as first-line (1L) systemic Tx for advanced basal cell carcinoma (aBCC)

e18740

Background: HHIs are the only approved 1L systemic Tx for aBCC and Tx options following HHI Tx failure are limited. The objective of this study was to assess frequency, characteristics, and subsequent Tx patterns of pts with aBCC discontinuing 1L HHIs due to toxicity or disease progression. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records of pts treated in The US Oncology Network (Network), a community-based network of > 450 oncology clinics. We identified adults (18+ years) with aBCC, not treated for another primary malignancy in the past 3 years, with ≥2 Network visits who discontinued 1L HHI monotherapy between January 2012 and November 2019 due to documented toxicity or progression without evidence of complete response (CR) who subsequently initiated second-line (2L) systemic Tx (2L initiators) or not (2L non-initiators). To exclude pts potentially using neoadjuvant HHIs, we required 2L non-initiators to be followed for ≥90 days after HHI discontinuation and excluded pts who underwent surgery or radiation during this period. Index date was Tx initiation for 2L initiators and 90 days after HHI discontinuation for 2L non-initiators. We describe cohort attrition and characteristics of 2L initiators and 2L non-initiators as well as Txs initiated among 2L initiators. Results: We identified 138 aBCC pts treated with HHIs regardless of line of therapy with fully accessible charts: 115/138 (83.3%) received HHIs as 1L systemic therapy for aBCC; 73/115 (63.5%) discontinued 1L HHIs; 37/73 (50.7%) discontinued due to documented toxicity or progression without evidence of CR. 4/37 pts (10.8%) initiated 2L systemic Tx (1 carboplatin & paclitaxel; 1 cemiplimab; 1 nivolumab; 1 pembrolizumab) within a median of 75 days (range: 2‒130) from HHI discontinuation. 2L initiators were 68.7 years of median age (range: 48.4‒71.1); 100% female; 75% White; 75% immunocompetent; 100% treated with 1L vismodegib for a median of 8.6 months (range: 6.8‒42.2); 100% discontinued 1L HHIs due to documented disease progression. We identified 15 2L non-initiators; median age 80.2 years (range: 49.6‒90+); 20% female; 100% White; 86.7% immunocompetent; 100% treated with 1L vismodegib for a median of 6.8 months (range: 1.9‒20.6); 93.3% discontinued 1L HHIs due to documented toxicity and 6.7% due to progression. Conclusions: In this small cohort of aBCC pts discontinuing 1L HHIs, ̃50% discontinued due to toxicity or disease progression. There was no clear standard of care among pts who experienced HHI Tx failure, with only a minority initiating subsequent 2L Tx. Effective Tx strategies for pts who do not respond to or cannot tolerate HHIs are needed.

Budget impact (BI) analysis of cemiplimab for first-line (1L) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50% in the United States

e18817

Background: Cemiplimab monotherapy (mono) demonstrated significant survival benefit versus chemotherapy (CT) in the first-line (1L) treatment of advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%. This analysis estimated the BI of introducing cemiplimab in the US from the healthcare payer’s perspective, in the context of available treatments. Methods: Cohorts of patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% without EGFR/ ALK mutations were modeled over 3 years (yrs). Treatment duration inputs were based on median progression-free survival (PFS) from EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial for cemiplimab and CT, and published data on median PFS for other immuno-oncology (IO) agents. Market shares were based on market research and assumed the following distribution in the scenario without cemiplimab: 68% pembrolizumab (pembro); 15% pembro + CT; 6% durvalumab (durva); 4% platinum CT; 3% atezolizumab (atezo); 2% nivolumab (nivo); and 2% nivo + ipilimumab (ipi). Cemiplimab market share was assumed to increase from 1% (yr 1), to 6% (yr 2), to 10% (yr 3). The analysis assumed that 50% of the cemiplimab market share will come from displacement of pembro mono, whilst the other 50% will come from displacement of platinum CT, atezo, durva, nivo, and nivo + ipi. The market share for pembro + CT was assumed to remain the same in both scenarios. Monthly list price of cemiplimab was lower than pembro and nivo at the time of this research and were sourced from ProspectoRx drug pricing database. Adverse event costs were estimated using HCUP 2017 data and ICD-10 codes specific to each event and inflated to 2019 costs using medical inflation indices from Bureau of Labour Statistics. Disease management costs were per Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. In univariate sensitivity analyses, inputs were varied by ±20% to model the impact on total incremental costs over 3 yrs. Results: In a hypothetical US healthcare plan of 1,000,000 members, ̃60 were eligible to receive 1L cemiplimab treatment for advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50% in yr 1. The average incremental cost per member per month was $0.0038. The 3-yr incremental cumulative BI of cemiplimab was $138,463, representing a 0.561% increase in the healthcare payer’s 3-yr expenditures on these 60 pts. The incremental cost of adding cemiplimab was $8,744 in yr 1; $50,187 in yr 2; and $79,533 in yr 3. The analysis was most sensitive to changes to the treatment duration for cemiplimab (±172%) and pembro (±93%). Changes to all other inputs had < 20% impact. Conclusions: Cemiplimab is likely to be associated with a minimal increase in the budget for 1L treatment of advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥50%. With a numerically lower list price relative to pembro and nivo, BI of cemiplimab was driven by the treatment duration for cemiplimab, which was higher than comparator treatments due to increased PFS.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients (pts) with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) treated with cemiplimab: Analysis of a phase II, open-label clinical trial

9566

Background: Cemiplimab-rwlc is the first immunotherapy to receive approval in the US, fully for pts with laBCC and accelerated for metastatic BCC, post hedgehog inhibitors or for whom hedgehog inhibitors are not appropriate. Cemiplimab resulted in clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity in pts with laBCC who progressed on or were intolerant to hedgehog inhibitor therapy (NCT03132636). This analysis evaluated HRQoL in these pts. Methods: Adults with laBCC and ECOG performance status ≤1 (n=84) received IV cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for up to 9 treatment cycles. At baseline (BL) and day 1 of each cycle (C), pts completed EORTC QLQ-C30 and SKINDEX-16 questionnaires that assess Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL, functioning, and BCC-related symptoms. Mixed-effects repeated measures (MMRM) models were used to estimate least squares (LS) mean (standard error [SE]) change from BL during treatment (i.e., across C2 to C9); changes ≥|10| points were considered clinically meaningful. Responder analyses were conducted in pts with non-missing data from BL to determine the proportions with clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration, or stability on QLQ-C30 and SKINDEX-16 at C2 and C9; a 10-point threshold was considered meaningful for both instruments. Results: BL scores showed moderate to high levels of functioning and low symptom burden. In MMRM models, overall changes from BL on QLQ-C30 indicated stability for GHS/QoL and all scales except for clinically meaningful worsening of fatigue (LS mean [SE] change 12.5 [3.9]; P<.05). In responder analysis, the majority of pts reported clinically meaningful improvement or stability at C2 and C9 on all QLQ-C30 functioning scales and the key symptom of pain but not fatigue (Table). On SKINDEX-16, MMRM models showed clinically meaningful improvement on the emotional subscale (LS mean [SE] change –13.2 [3.9]; P<.05) and stability on the symptom and functional subscales. Responder analysis showed clinically meaningful improvements or stability across the SKINDEX-16 subscales in approximately 80% of pts at C2, and 70–80% of pts at C9. Conclusions: In laBCC pts treated with cemiplimab, the majority reported clinically meaningful improvement or stability in GHS/QoL and functional status while maintaining a low symptom burden except for fatigue. Clinical trial information: NCT03132636. [Table: see text]

Patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and quality of life (QoL) in patients treated with cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥ 50%: Results from EMPOWER-Lung 1 study

9078

Background: Cemiplimab, a PD-1 inhibitor, improved survival and progression-free survival vs platinum doublet chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC and PD-ligand(L)1 expression ≥50% in the EMPOWER-Lung 1 Phase 3 study (NCT03088540). Since pts with advanced NSCLC have a high symptom burden that adversely impacts QoL and functioning, these outcomes were evaluated as secondary endpoints in the clinical trial. Methods: Pts with advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 expression ≥50% and ECOG performance status ≤1 were randomized to IV cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W (n=356) or platinum doublet chemo (n=354). At baseline (BL) and day 1 of each treatment cycle (C) to C15, pts were administered the EORTC core questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its lung cancer specific module (QLQ-LC13) to assess symptoms, functioning, and Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL. In the intent-to-treat population, mixed-effects repeated measures models were used to estimate least squares (LS) mean change from BL on all scales. Kaplan–Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration, defined as worsening ≥10 points from BL observed at all subsequent time points or patient withdrawal after worsening; hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs estimated the likelihood of definitive deterioration. Results: BL scores showed moderate to high levels of functioning and low symptom burden. Cemiplimab-treated pts had lower likelihood of definitive deterioration vs chemo on key symptoms of dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, and diarrhea vs chemo (all P<.05). Treatment-related symptoms of peripheral neuropathy and alopecia had a lower likelihood of definitive deterioration with cemiplimab vs chemo (both P<.05). Cemiplimab resulted in significantly greater improvements vs chemo on all functioning scales and reduced the likelihood of definitive deterioration as indicated by HR <1 (Table). GHS/QoL improvements with cemiplimab at C2 were maintained to C15; LS mean change (SE) from BL across all timepoints was 7.1 (1.0) for cemiplimab vs 1.7 (1.2) for chemo ( P<.0001). Conclusions: In pts with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 expression ≥50%, cemiplimab significantly improved GHS/QoL, functioning, and most symptoms vs chemo. Over 1 year of treatment, cemiplimab delayed worsening of key lung cancer symptoms and functioning. Clinical trial information: NCT03088540. [Table: see text]

Assessing the Value of Cemiplimab for Adults With Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) from a payer perspective in the United States.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab versus historical standard of care (SOC). All inputs were identified based on a systematic literature review, supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. Clinical inputs for cemiplimab were based on individual patient data from a cemiplimab phase 2 single-arm trial (NCT27060498). For SOC, analysis was based on a pooled analysis of single-arm clinical trials and retrospective studies evaluating chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab, erlotinib, and gefitinib) identified via a systematic literature review (6 of the 27 included studies). Overall survival and progression-free survival were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon. Costs were included for drug acquisition, drug administration, management of adverse events, subsequent therapy, disease management, and terminal care. Unit costs were based on published 2019 US list prices.

RESULTS

In the base case, cemiplimab versus SOC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $99 447 per quality adjusted-life year (QALY), where incremental costs and QALYs were $372 108 and 3.74, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests a 90% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective compared to SOC. Scenario analyses resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $90 590 to $148 738.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with historical SOC, cemiplimab is a cost-effective use of US payer resources for the treatment of advanced CSCC and is expected to provide value for money.

Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We aimed to examine cemiplimab, a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of at least 50%.

METHODS

In EMPOWER-Lung 1, a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3 study, eligible patients recruited in 138 clinics from 24 countries (aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1; never-smokers were ineligible) were randomly assigned (1:1) to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to cemiplimab was allowed following disease progression. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per masked independent review committee. Primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in a prespecified PD-L1 of at least 50% population (per US Food and Drug Administration request to the sponsor), which consisted of patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% per 22C3 assay done according to instructions for use. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540 and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between June 27, 2017 and Feb 27, 2020, 710 patients were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population). In the PD-L1 of at least 50% population, which consisted of 563 patients, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17·9-not evaluable) with cemiplimab (n=283) versus 14·2 months (11·2-17·5) with chemotherapy (n=280; hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·42-0·77]; p=0·0002). Median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (6·1-8·8) with cemiplimab versus 5·7 months (4·5-6·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·54 [0·43-0·68]; p<0·0001). Significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival were also observed with cemiplimab in the intention-to-treat population despite a high crossover rate (74%). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 98 (28%) of 355 patients treated with cemiplimab and 135 (39%) of 342 patients treated with chemotherapy.

INTERPRETATION

Cemiplimab monotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%, providing a potential new treatment option for this patient population.

FUNDING

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Comparative efficacy of cemiplimab versus other systemic treatments for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

Aim: To estimate the comparative efficacy of cemiplimab, a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor, versus EGFR inhibitors, pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. Patients & methods: We performed an indirect treatment comparison of cemiplimab and other available systemic therapies for patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Results: Cemiplimab was associated with benefits in OS (hazard ratios range: 0.07-0.52) and progression-free survival (hazard ratios range: 0.30-0.67) versus EGFR inhibitors and pembrolizumab (data from KEYNOTE-629). Cemiplimab was more efficacious versus platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of OS. Conclusion: Cemiplimab may offer improvements in survival for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients compared with existing systemic therapies.

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) treated with cemiplimab: Post hoc exploratory analyses of a phase II clinical trial

10033

Background: Cemiplimab-rwlc (cemiplimab), a PD-1 Inhibitor, showed a robust clinical response in patients (pts) with metastatic (mCSCC) or locally advanced (laCSCC) CSCC not eligible for curative surgery/radiation. This post hoc exploratory analysis examined data from the EORTC cancer specific 30-item HRQL questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for pts participating in a cemiplimab phase 2 clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02760498). Methods: Adults (N = 193) with invasive CSCC, ≥1 lesion and ECOG performance status ≤1 received IV cemiplimab 3mg/kg q2w (mCSCC n = 59; laCSCC n = 78) or 350mg q3w (mCSCC n = 56). At baseline (BL) and day 1 of each treatment cycle, pts were administered the QLQ-C30. Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) models were used to estimate mean change from BL to cycle 5 (C5) for domains/items of the QLQ-C30. For pts with data from BL to C5, the proportion who reported clinically meaningful improvement or worsening (≥10 points) or maintenance (those who did not have ≥10 point change) on each domain was determined for combined and individual treatment groups. Results: BL scores indicated moderate to high levels of functioning and low symptom burden. From BL to C5, a clinically meaningful improvement in pain score was observed (least squares [LS] mean [standard error] change -12.1 [2.1]; P< .0001); other domains/items remained stable or showed a trend towards improvement (LS mean changes < 10 points). By C5, the majority of pts experienced clinically meaningful improvement or remained stable across key domains (Table). Similar findings were observed on individual symptoms (85%-94% for dyspnea, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, appetite loss) and in each treatment group. Conclusions: Cemiplimab-treated patients achieved a clinically meaningful reduction in pain and most pts either improved or maintained their HRQL, function with low symptom burden. Clinical trial information: NCT02760498. [Table: see text]

Real-world treatment patterns among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T)

e19351

Background: CAR T, approved in the US as of October 2017, impacted the treatment landscape for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) DLBCL after ≥2 lines of therapy, but there is little known about real-world (RW) treatment patterns in patients who fail or do not respond to CAR T. No treatments of proven benefits are available after CAR T treatment failure. The objective of this study was to describe RW treatment patterns after CAR T. Methods: From MarketScan Commercial/Medicare claims databases (2017‒2018) we identified adult DLBCL patients who received approved CD19-directed CAR T (treatment date = index date). Eligible patients had ≥6 months continuous health plan enrollment prior to index date (i.e. baseline period) and were followed until plan disenrollment or December 31, 2018. Patients with a diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia over the baseline period were excluded. We identified the first and second treatments after CAR T with systemic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, hematopoietic stem cell transplant (SCT), radiation therapy (RT), or a second round of CAR T therapy. Kaplan–Meier estimators were used to estimate risk of subsequent treatment and time to next treatment. Results: We identified 56 patients with DLBCL treated with CAR T (mean age [SD]: 57.3 years [9.9]; 23.2% female; 80.4% commercially insured). All patients received CAR T in the inpatient setting, median (Q1‒Q3) length of stay was 15 days (12‒19). Out of 56 patients, 19 initiated a treatment following CAR T; risk of subsequent treatment at 6 months post index was 45.6% (95% CI: 25.4‒60.4%) and median days from CAR T to next treatment was 233 days (95% CI: 139‒NA). Out of 19 patients, 3 initiated a second treatment following CAR T, within 8‒69 days of the first treatment. Over a median (Q1‒Q3) follow-up of 139.5 days (90.5‒194) following CAR T, of the 19 patients treated after CAR T, 57.9% were treated with immunotherapy, 36.8% with RT, 26.3% with targeted therapy, 21.1% with SCT, 15.8% with chemotherapy, and 0% with a second round of CAR T. Conclusions: There are few multicenter studies reporting RW treatment patterns in patients who received CAR T. In this study, risk of subsequent treatment at 6 months following CAR T in a RW setting was almost 50%. Although limited by duration of follow-up, our results suggest that additional, effective salvage treatment strategies are needed for patients who do not respond to CAR T or do not achieve a durable response to CAR T. Updated results using 2019 data will be presented.

Patterns of hedgehog inhibitor (HHI) treatment interruptions and re-initiations among patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in real-world clinical practice

e19349

Background: HHIs are oral targeted therapies approved for the treatment of advanced BCC but treatment-related adverse events may result in treatment interruptions or discontinuation. The objective of this study was to describe HHI treatment patterns among patients with BCC in real-world clinical practice. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study using MarketScan Commercial/Medicare databases (01/01/2013–09/30/2018). We identified new users of HHIs (index date = date of the first dispensation), ≥18 years of age who were continuously enrolled for ≥6 months prior to the index date (i.e. baseline) with ≥1 baseline BCC diagnosis. Treatment interruptions (TI) were defined as a lack of dispensation following the exhaustion of days’ supply and allotted grace period (GP). Re-initiation (RI) was defined as ≥1 HHI dispensation after TI. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate risk and time to TI and, among patients with a TI, incidence of RI. HHIs are generally dispensed in 30-days’ supply and indicated as long as a patient derives a clinical benefit; however, since TIs are commonly employed during HHI therapy, sensitivity analyses were conducted using GPs of 14, 30, 60, 90, and 120 days. Results: We identified 469 patients with a BCC diagnosis initiating HHIs. The mean (SD) age was 67.6 (15.8) years, 64.2% were men, 51.2% were covered by commercial insurance, and 99.2% initiated vismodegib. Using a GP of 14, 30, 60, 90, and 120 days, the risk of TI was 79.2%, 68.8%, 60.0%, 55.4%, and 51.4% at 6 months and 94.8%, 91.3%, 88.2%, 83.2%, and 80.2% at 1 year, respectively. Median HHI treatment duration ranged from 94 days (95% CI: 90–109) using a GP of 14 days to 173 days (95% CI: 156–194) using a GP of 120 days. At 6 months following TI, incidence of RI was 35.8%, 19.8%, 11.3%, 6.9%, and 4.9% using a GP of 14, 30, 60, 90, and 120 days, respectively. The incidence of HHI RI at 1-year following TI ranged from 40.8% using a 14-day GP to 13.4% using a 120-day GP. Conclusions: Median HHI treatment duration was approximately 6 months, even after allowing for a 120-day GP. Median treatment duration was considerably shorter than what has been reported in clinical trials. Our results suggest that long-term HHI therapy may be difficult in a real-world setting.

Assessing the value of cemiplimab for adults with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC): A cost-effectiveness analysis

e19397

Background: Cemiplimab is a high-affinity, human, hinge-stabilized, monoclonal antibody that potently blocks the interactions of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) with programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and PD-L2. In September 2018, cemiplimab-rwlc became the first systemic therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with advanced CSCC ineligible for curative surgery or radiotherapy. In a single-arm Phase II study (NCT02760498), cemiplimab demonstrated substantial antitumor activity, durable responses, and acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced CSCC. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab in patients with advanced CSCC from a US payer perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab versus historical standard of care (SOC). All inputs were identified based on a systematic literature review (SLR), which was supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. The clinical inputs for cemiplimab were based on the individual patient data from the cemiplimab Phase II trial, whereas for SOC, the analysis was based on a pooled analysis of single-arm clinical trials and retrospective studies evaluating chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab, erlotinib, and gefitinib) identified via the SLR (6 of the 27 included studies). Overall survival and progression-free survival were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon using parametric functions consistent with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit. Costs were included for drug acquisition, drug administration, management of adverse events, subsequent therapy, disease management, and terminal care. Unit costs were based on published 2019 US list prices. Results: In the base case, cemiplimab versus SOC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $99,024 per quality adjusted-life year (QALY), where incremental costs and QALYs were $372,425 and 3.76, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD $150,000 per QALY, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests a 91% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared to SOC. Scenario analyses resulted in ICERs ranging from $90,326 to $147,944. Conclusions: Compared with historical SOC, cemiplimab is a cost-effective use of US payer resources for the treatment of advanced CSCC and is expected to provide value for money.

CASE (CemiplimAb-rwlc Survivorship and Epidemiology) study in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

In 2018, cemiplimab-rwlc became the first systemic treatment approved by the US FDA for patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In 2019, conditional approvals were granted by Health Canada and the European Commission for the same indications. Limited data exist pertaining to the clinical characteristics, disease progression and survivorship of patients with advanced CSCC in real-world clinical practice. CemiplimAb-rwlc Survivorship and Epidemiology (CASE) is a prospective Phase IV, noninterventional, survivorship and epidemiology study that will enroll patients with advanced CSCC who have recently initiated or who plan to receive cemiplimab in a real-world setting. Trial registration number: NCT03836105.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sarilumab Added to Methotrexate in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations.

RESULTS

Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

The prevalence and types of discordance between physician perception and objective data from standardized measures of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity in real-world clinical practice in the US

Background

Heterogeneity in assessments of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease remission, based on physician judgment and patient self-reports versus standardized measures, have previously been reported. This study explored the prevalence and types of discordance between physician perception versus objective data of RA disease activity in real-world clinical practice in the US.

Methods

Data were from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme (DSP; January to March 2014), a cross-sectional survey of US rheumatologists and their patients. RA remission based on physician judgment versus Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (3)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28(3)-ESR) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores were compared using descriptive analyses; patient and physician factors associated with discordance were identified using bivariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Of 101 rheumatologists participating (completing patient-record forms for 843 patients), 56.4% based assessment of remission on clinical judgment alone. Of 531 patients eligible for the discordance analysis, 49.7% were in remission based on rheumatologists' evaluation, and 30.7% were eligible based on DAS28(3)-ESR. Compared with DAS28(3)-ESR criteria, 25.8% of patients' disease remission was negatively discordant (overestimated remission) based on clinical perception. These patients were mostly administered biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and were without a treat-to-target strategy followed by their rheumatologist (P < 0.05). These patients were also more likely to have experienced a higher level of pain as well as increased joint inflammation and damage (e.g. destruction of cartilage, thinning of bone, and/or synovium inflammation) compared with concordant patients (P < 0.005). Conversely, 6.8% of rheumatologists were positively discordant (under estimated remission) versus the DAS28(3)-ESR. Sensitivity analysis indicated different levels of discordance using CDAI, with 35.6% negative discordance and 1.3% positive discordance of rheumatologist-assessed disease remission compared with objective data.

Conclusion

There is discordance between RA remission as assessed by rheumatologist perception versus standardized measures among those in the US DSP sample. Our study identified the factors associated with the discordance which may inform strategies to enhance assessments of RA disease remission.

Patterns of major surgeries among patients diagnosed with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC)

e21034

Background: CSCC is the second most common skin cancer. Most CSCC cases can be cured with surgical excision alone (5-year cure rate > 95%). We sought to evaluate patterns of major surgeries among patients with CSCC, overall and among those requiring systemic therapy. Methods: From Truven MarketScan claims data, we identified patient’s first CSCC diagnosis between 2013 and 2018 and required that they be continuously enrolled in their healthcare plan and have no CSCC diagnosis in the previous 12 months. Major surgeries included facial excisions over 3.1 cm, parotidectomy, removal of ear/eye/nose, amputations, craniectomy, excision of extracranial nerves, sentinel lymph node biopsy, lymphadenectomy, complex repairs of over 7.5 cm, integra, free flaps, and large grafts over 20 sq cm. Risk of a major surgery was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimators for patients with CSCC overall and for those who received prior or concurrent systemic therapy, stratified by immune status. Results: A total of 240,122 patients with CSCC (mean age [SD]: 67.7 [12.9] years; male: 56.5%; immunocompromised: 12.4%) were identified with a mean (SD) follow-up of 1.34 (1.15) years. Risk of major surgery (95% confidence interval [CI]) at 1 and 2 years was 15.1% (14.9–15.2) and 18.6% (18.4–18.8), respectively. 782 patients received prior or concurrent systemic therapy, of which 22.4% (n = 175) were immunocompromised. Among those who received systemic therapy, 1- and 2-year risks (95% CI) were 8.4% (5.8–11.0) and 14.2% (10.0–18.2) for immunocompetent and 14.1% (7.7–20.0) and 19.3% (10.7–27.0) for immunocompromised patients, respectively. Conclusions: Over 2 years, approximately one in five patients with CSCC will undergo at least one major surgery. Prior or concurrent treatment with systemic therapy did not appreciably diminish the risk of requiring major surgery. For patients who received systemic therapy, the 1-year and 2-year risk of major surgery was higher for immunocompromised patients compared to immunocompetent patients.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab Monotherapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

Introduction

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy administered every 2 weeks (q2w) versus other monotherapies of biologic, targeted and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs, tsDMARDs, csDMARDs) at recommended doses for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients who are intolerant of or inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR).

Methods

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted on 24-week efficacy outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria, and European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28) < 2.6. In addition, serious infections and serious adverse events (SI/SAE) were examined at 24 weeks.

Results

Nine trials were selected for the NMA. Sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority versus adalimumab monotherapy on all efficacy outcomes and versus tofacitinib monotherapy on ACR20. Compared with csDMARDs, sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority on ACR 20/50/70 criteria and DAS28 < 2.6 but had similar efficacy on HAQ-DI. Efficacy of sarilumab 200 mg was similar versus certolizumab, etanercept, tofacitinib and tocilizumab 8 mg/kg monotherapy across all efficacy outcomes. SI/SAE appeared similar for sarilumab 200 mg versus all comparators.

Conclusion

In csDMARD-IR patients, sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy has superior efficacy and similar safety versus csDMARDs, superior efficacy and similar safety versus adalimumab, and similar efficacy and safety versus bDMARDs and tsDMARDs.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-00912-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects of Sarilumab on Rheumatoid Arthritis as Reported by Patients Using the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease Scale

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effect of sarilumab on patient-perceived impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the 7-domain RA Impact of Disease (RAID) scale.

METHODS

Two phase III, randomized, controlled trials of sarilumab in patients with active, longstanding RA were analyzed: (1) sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARD) versus placebo + csDMARD [TARGET (NCT01709578)]; and (2) sarilumab 200 mg versus adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg monotherapy [MONARCH (NCT02332590)]. Least-squares mean (LSM) differences in RAID total score (range 0-10) and 7 key RA symptoms, including pain and fatigue (baseline to Weeks 12 and 24), were compared. "Responders" by RAID total score were defined by improvements from baseline ≥ minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and ≥ patient-acceptable symptom-state (PASS) at endpoint.

RESULTS

Sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg + csDMARD were nominally superior (p < 0.05) versus placebo + csDMARD and 200 mg sarilumab versus ADA 40 mg in LSM differences for RAID total score at weeks 12 (-0.93 and -1.13; -0.49, respectively) and 24 (-0.75 and -1.01; -0.78), and all effects of RA (except functional impairment in MONARCH Week 12). Effects were greater in physical domains (e.g., pain) than mental domains (e.g., emotional well-being). More patients receiving sarilumab versus placebo or ADA reported improvements ≥ MCID and PASS in total RAID scores at both assessments.

CONCLUSION

Based on the RAID, sarilumab + csDMARD or as monotherapy reduced the effect of RA on patients' lives to a greater extent than placebo + csDMARD or ADA monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01709578 and NCT02332590).

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of sarilumab combination therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors: systematic literature review and network meta-analyses

Objective

To compare efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg and 150 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARDs) versus other targeted DMARDs+csDMARDs and placebo+csDMARDs, in inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR) or tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Methods

Systematic literature review and network meta-analyses (NMA) conducted on 24 week efficacy and safety outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, modified total sharp score (mTSS, including 52 weeks), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70, European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28)<2.6; serious infections/serious adverse events (including 52 weeks).

Results

53 trials were selected for NMA. csDMARD-IR: Sarilumab 200 mg+csDMARDs and 150 mg+csDMARDs were superior versus placebo+csDMARDs on all outcomes. Against most targeted DMARDs, sarilumab 200 mg showed no statistically significant differences, except superiority to baricitinib 2 mg, tofacitinib and certolizumab on 24 week mTSS. Sarilumab 150 mg was similar to all targeted DMARDs. TNFi-IR: Sarilumab 200 mg was similar to abatacept, golimumab, tocilizumab 4 mg and 8 mg/kg intravenously and rituximab on ACR20/50/70, superior to baricitinib 2 mg on ACR50 and DAS28<2.6 and to abatacept, golimumab, tocilizumab 4 mg/kg intravenously and rituximab on DAS28<2.6. Sarilumab 150 mg was similar to targeted DMARDs but superior to baricitinib 2 mg and rituximab on DAS28<2.6 and inferior to tocilizumab 8 mg on ACR20 and DAS28<2.6. Serious adverse events, including serious infections, appeared similar for sarilumab versus comparators.

Conclusions

Results suggest that in csDMARD-IR and TNFi-IR (a smaller network), sarilumab+csDMARD had superior efficacy and similar safety versus placebo+csDMARDs and at least similar efficacy and safety versus other targeted DMARDs+csDMARDs.

Sarilumab monotherapy compared with adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of incremental cost per effectively treated patient

Purpose

Treatment outcomes and direct medical costs were examined, from a US health payer perspective, of monotherapy with sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 2 weeks (Q2W) vs adalimumab 40 mg SC Q2W/QW in adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who are intolerant of, inadequate responders to, or considered inappropriate candidates for continued methotrexate treatment.

Patients and methods

Short-term analysis was based on 24-week wholesale acquisition costs of drugs and treatment response observed in the MONARCH Phase III trial (NCT02332590) per American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50 criteria and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Moderate/Good Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Long-term analysis, which also considered drug administration and routine care costs, was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and a 1- to 10-year Markov model with microsimulation of patient profiles from the MOBILITY Phase III trial (NCT01061736). Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by mapping 6-month ACR levels to a relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index score and via published algorithms.

Results

For sarilumab and adalimumab, respectively, 24-week drug costs were $18,954 and $29,232, and costs per responder were $26,435 vs $50,055 on ACR20; $41,475 vs $98,425 on ACR50; and $22,511 vs $41,230 on EULAR Moderate/Good. Base case results at 10 years for total costs and QALYs were $176,977 and 2.75 for sarilumab and $212,136 and 2.61 for adalimumab, respectively. Sarilumab was consistently the more effective and cost-saving treatment across all short-term and long-term incremental analyses.

Conclusion

Sarilumab monotherapy was the economically dominant treatment on incremental cost per responder and incremental cost per QALY compared with adalimumab monotherapy. These results were maintained within the sensitivity analyses.

A Smartphone-Based Rapid Telemonitoring System for Ebola and Marburg Disease Surveillance

We have developed a digital and multiplexed platform for the rapid detection and telemonitoring of infections caused by Ebola and Marburg filoviruses. The system includes a flow cell assay cartridge that captures specific antibodies with microarrayed recombinant antigens from all six species of filovirus, and a smartphone fluorescent reader for high-performance interpretation of test results. Multiplexed viral proteins, which are expandable to include greater numbers of probes, were incorporated to obtain highest confidence results by cross-correlation, and a custom smartphone application was developed for data analysis, interpretation, and communication. The smartphone reader utilizes an opto-electro-mechanical hardware attachment that snaps at the back of a Motorola smartphone and provides a user interface to manage the operation, acquire test results, and communicate with cloud service. The application controls the hardware attachment to turn on LEDs and digitally record the optically enhanced images. Assay processing time is approximately 20 min for microliter amounts of blood, and test results are digitally processed and displayed within 15 s. Furthermore, a secure cloud service was developed for the telemonitoring of test results generated by the smartphone readers in the field. Assay system results were tested with sera from nonhuman primates that received a live attenuated EBOV vaccine. This integrated system will provide a rapid, reliable, and digital solution to prevent the rapid overwhelming of medical systems and resources during EVD or MVD outbreaks. Further, this disease-monitoring system will be useful in resource-limited countries where there is a need for dispersed laboratory analysis of recent or active infections.

Budget impact analysis of sarilumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARD or TNF inhibitor therapies

Objective

To estimate the 5-year budget impact (BI) on a US health plan of introducing sarilumab – a human immunoglobulin G1 anti-IL-6 receptor α monoclonal antibody – as combination treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

BI analysis was conducted from a commercial payer perspective. Treatment-eligible populations included adult patients with moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors-IR. All licensed biologic treatments recommended by the American College of Rheumatology guidelines were included.

Results

For a hypothetical plan of one million members, 409 csDMARD-IR and 345 TNF-IR patients were annually eligible for combination therapy and 226 csDMARD and TNF-IR patients for monotherapy with sarilumab. Based on 2018 US direct treatment costs, the introduction of sarilumab was estimated to save $526,424, $322,637 and $264,306 over 5 years for csDMARD-IR combination therapy patients, TNF-IR combination therapy patients, and csDMARD-IR/TNF-IR monotherapy patients, respectively. As sarilumab absorbed a greater market share over the horizon, annual savings increased from years 1 to 5, $28,610 (−0.14%) to $194,646 (−0.83%) in csDMARD-IR, $16,986 (−0.11%) to $120,893 (−0.67%) in TNF-IR, and $14,256 (−0.13%) to $98,040 (−0.79%) in monotherapy. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to variations in sarilumab adherence.

Conclusion

Total cost savings of introducing sarilumab to a health-care plan accrued from years 1 to 5, attributable to the lower treatment cost, stable dosing paradigm, and price parity for the two available doses (150 and 200 mg every 2 weeks) compared with alternative biologic DMARDs that have substantial variability in dose titration/schedules.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized phase III trial of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background

The phase III MONARCH randomized controlled trial (NCT02332590) demonstrated that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), sarilumab (anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody) monotherapy is superior to adalimumab monotherapy in reducing disease activity and signs and symptoms of RA, as well as in improving physical function, with similar rates of adverse and serious adverse events. We report the effects of sarilumab versus adalimumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Methods

Patients with active RA intolerant of, or inadequate responders to, methotrexate were randomized to sarilumab 200 mg plus placebo every 2 weeks (q2w; n = 184) or adalimumab 40 mg plus placebo q2w (n = 185). Dose escalation to weekly administration of adalimumab or matching placebo was permitted at week 16. PROs assessed at baseline and weeks 12 and 24 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales (VASs), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F), Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID), and rheumatoid arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS-RA). Between-group differences in least-squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline were analyzed. p < 0.05 was considered significant for PROs in a predefined hierarchy. For PROs not in the hierarchy, nominal p values are provided. Proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and achieving normative values were assessed.

Results

At week 24, sarilumab treatment resulted in significantly greater LSM changes from baseline than adalimumab monotherapy in HAQ-DI (p < 0.005), PtGA (p < 0.001), pain VAS (p < 0.001), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (p < 0.001). Greater LSM changes were reported for sarilumab than for adalimumab in RAID (nominal p < 0.001), morning stiffness VAS (nominal p < 0.05), and WPS-RA (nominal p < 0.005). Between-group differences in FACIT-F and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) were not significant. More patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the MCID in HAQ-DI (nominal p < 0.01), RAID (nominal p < 0.01), SF-36 PCS (nominal p < 0.005), and morning stiffness (nominal p < 0.05), as well as greater than or equal to the normative values in HAQ-DI (p < 0.05), with sarilumab versus adalimumab.

Conclusions

In parallel with the clinical efficacy profile previously reported, sarilumab monotherapy resulted in greater improvements across multiple PROs than adalimumab monotherapy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02332590. Registered on 5 January 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1614-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After a Change in Targeted Therapy

BACKGROUND

Targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or alternative mechanisms of action (MOAs), such as a T-cell co-stimulation modulator (abatacept), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), or interleukin-6 inhibitor (tocilizumab).

OBJECTIVE

To examine treatment persistence and healthcare costs in patients with RA who changed therapy by cycling therapy (ie, switching within the same drug class), or switching between, the TNF inhibitors and alternative MOA medication classes.

METHODS

We analyzed medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients who cycled or switched between targeted DMARD agents between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2014 (ie, the index date), to determine treatment patterns (ie, treatment switching, discontinuation, restarting after a gap ≥60 days, or persistence) and costs (plan- and patient-paid) for 1 year postindex. The cost per persistent patient was the total healthcare cost divided by the number of treatment-persistent patients.

RESULTS

The analysis included 6203 patients who cycled between TNF inhibitors, 2640 patients who switched from TNF inhibitors to alternative MOA agents, 699 patients who cycled between alternative MOA agents, and 687 patients who switched from alternative MOA agents to TNF inhibitors. The 1-year treatment persistence rates (with P values vs TNF inhibitor cyclers) were 45.2% for TNF inhibitor cyclers, 50.3% for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (P <.001), 51.4% for alternative MOA agent cyclers (P = .002), and 46.1% for alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor switchers (P = .63). Compared with TNF inhibitor cyclers, the cost per persistent patient was lower for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (-$16,853 RA-related; -$19,280 targeted DMARDs), alternative MOA agent cyclers (-$21,662 RA-related; -$25,153 targeted DMARDs), and alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor cyclers (-$7206 RA-related; -$7919 targeted DMARDs).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with RA, patients who switched from a TNF inhibitor to an alternative MOA agent and those who cycled between alternative MOA agents had significantly higher treatment persistence rates and a substantially lower cost per persistent patient than those who cycled between TNF inhibitors. These findings support the evaluation of switching medication classes for patients with RA when a targeted therapy fails.

Burden of rheumatoid arthritis among US Medicare population: co-morbidities, health-care resource utilization and costs

Objectives

The study aimed to assess the burden of RA among the US Medicare population (aged ≥65 years) by comparing co-morbidities, health-care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs against matched non-RA Medicare patients.

Methods

Data were obtained from the Medicare fee-for-service claims database from 2010 to 2013. RA Medicare patients were identically matched with Medicare patients without RA (controls) based on demographics. Bivariate analyses were conducted to examine differences between cohorts for co-morbidities, HCRU and costs. A generalized linear model was used to test relationships between patient-level characteristics, HCRU and costs.

Results

The study population included 115 867 RA patients and 115 867 age-, sex-, race- and region-matched non-RA controls. Mean age was 75.2 years; 79.4% were female. Co-morbidities were greater in RA vs non-RA patients [Charlson Co-morbidity Index (excluding RA): 1.86 vs 1.00; P < 0.0001]. All-cause annual HCRU was greater in RA vs non-RA patients. Total annual health-care costs were ∼3-fold higher in RA vs non-RA patients ($20 919 vs $7197, respectively; P < 0.0001) with the major driver of costs in the RA cohort being outpatient costs. Approximately half of the overall costs in the RA cohort were RA related ($11 587). After controlling for differences in patient characteristics and co-morbidities between cohorts, the adjusted total mean annual costs for RA patients were still more than twice those of non-RA patients ($16 374 vs $6712; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Among US Medicare patients, those with an RA diagnosis had a significantly greater burden of co-morbidities, HCRU and costs compared with a matched cohort without RA.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Changing Biologics in the USA

Introduction

After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers.

Methods

This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies.

Results

There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs.

Conclusion

MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Oxasmaragdyrins as New and Efficient Hole-Transporting Materials for High-Performance Perovskite Solar Cells

The high performance of the perovskite solar cells (PSCs) cannot be achieved without a layer of efficient hole-transporting materials (HTMs) to retard the charge recombination and transport the photogenerated hole to the counterelectrode. Herein, we report the use of boryl oxasmaragdyrins (SM01, SM09, and SM13), a family of aromatic core-modified expanded porphyrins, as efficient hole-transporting materials (HTMs) for perovskite solar cells (PSCs). These oxasmaragdyrins demonstrated complementary absorption spectra in the low-energy region, good redox reversibility, good thermal stability, suitable energy levels with CH₃NH₃PbI₃ perovskite, and high hole mobility. A remarkable power conversion efficiency of 16.5% (V_oc = 1.09 V, J_sc = 20.9 mA cm^-2, fill factor (FF) = 72%) is achieved using SM09 on the optimized PSCs device employing a planar structure, which is close to that of the state-of-the-art hole-transporting materials (HTMs), spiro-OMeTAD of 18.2% (V_oc = 1.07 V, J_sc = 22.9 mA cm^-2, FF = 74%). In contrast, a poor photovoltaic performance of PSCs using SM01 is observed due to the interactions of terminal carboxylic acid functional group with CH₃NH₃PbI₃.

Treatment Persistence and Clinical Outcomes of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Cycling or Switching to a New Mechanism of Action Therapy: Real-world Observational Study of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in the United States with Prior Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy

Introduction

To examine treatment persistence and clinical outcomes associated with switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to a medication with a new mechanism of action (MOA) (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) versus cycling to another TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

This retrospective, longitudinal study included patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the JointMan^® US clinical database who received a TNFi in April 2010 or later and either cycled to a TNFi or switched to a new MOA therapy by March 2015. Cox proportional hazards models were used for time to non-persistence (switching or discontinuing). An ordinary least squares regression model compared 1-year reduction from baseline for the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI).

Results

There were 332 (54.2%) TNFi cyclers and 281 (45.8%) new MOA switchers. During a median follow-up of 29.9 months, treatment persistence was 36.7% overall. Compared with new MOA switchers, TNFi cyclers were 51% more likely to be non-persistent (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.511; 95% CI 1.196, 1.908), driven by a higher likelihood of switching again (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.016; 95% CI 1.428, 2.847). Clinical outcomes were evaluable for 239 (53.3%) TNFi cyclers and 209 (46.7%) new MOA switchers. One-year mean reduction in CDAI from baseline to end of follow-up was significantly higher for new MOA switchers than TNFi cyclers (−7.54 vs. −4.81; P = 0.037), but the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline CDAI (−6.39 vs. −5.83; P = 0.607).

Conclusion

In this study, TNFi cycling was common in clinical practice, but switching to a new MOA DMARD was associated with significantly better treatment persistence and a trend toward greater CDAI reduction that was not significant after adjustment for baseline disease activity.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Outcomes of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor cycling versus switching to a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug with a new mechanism of action among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To examine treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and treatment costs for 1 year after patients with rheumatoid arthritis switched from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab), either cycling to another TNFi ("TNFi cyclers") or switching to a new mechanism of action (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) ("new MOA switchers").

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data for a national insurer. Treatment persistence (without switching again, restarting, or discontinuing), treatment effectiveness (defined below), and costs were assessed for the 12-month post-switch period. Patients were "effectively treated" if they satisfied all six criteria for a treatment effectiveness algorithm (high adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no subsequent switch in therapy, no new/increased oral glucocorticoids, and <2 glucocorticoid injections). Multivariable logistic models were used to adjust for baseline factors.

RESULTS

The database included 581 new MOA switchers and 935 TNFi cyclers. New MOA switchers were 39% more likely than TNFi cyclers to persist after the switch (odds ratio [OR] = 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12-1.74; p = .003) and 36% less likely to switch therapy again (OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.51-0.81; p < .001). New MOA switchers were 43% more likely than TNFi cyclers to be effectively treated (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.11-1.85; p = .006). New MOA switchers had 16% lower drug costs than TNFi cyclers (cost ratio = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.79-0.88; p < .001) and 11% lower total costs of rheumatoid arthritis-related medical care (cost ratio = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.84-0.94; p < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Claims payments may not reflect rebates or other cost offsets. Medical and pharmacy claims do not include clinical end-points or reasons that lead to new MOA switching vs TNFi cycling.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support switching to a new MOA after a patient fails treatment with a TNFi, which is consistent with recent guidelines for the pharmacologic management of established rheumatoid arthritis.