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.

Quality of life with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Patient-reported outcomes from phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3

BACKGROUND

EMPOWER-Lung 3, a randomized 2:1 phase 3 trial, showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant overall survival improvement with cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This study evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks) for the first six doses, and then at start of every three cycles, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life-Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Prespecified analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis performed for global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) and all scales from the questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 312 patients were assigned to receive cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy and 154 to receive placebo plus chemotherapy; 391 (83.9%) were male and the median age was 63.0 years (range, 25-84). For pain symptoms (EORTC QLQ-C30), a statistically significant overall improvement from baseline (-4.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.36 to -1.60, p = .004) and a statistically significant delay in TTD (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60, p < .0001) favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy were observed. Statistically significant delays in TTD, all favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, were also observed in functioning and symptom scales. A significant overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared with nonsignificant overall change from baseline for placebo plus chemotherapy (1.69, 95% CI, 0.20-3.19 vs. 1.08, 95% CI, -1.34 to 3.51; between arms, p = .673). No analyses yielded statistically significant PRO results favoring placebo plus chemotherapy for any QLQ-C30 or QLQ-LC13 scale.

CONCLUSION

Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy resulted in significant overall improvement in pain symptoms and delayed TTD in cancer-related and lung cancer-specific symptoms and functions.

Impact of the treatment crossover design on comparative efficacy in EMPOWER-Lung 1: Cemiplimab monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Objectives

In randomized-controlled crossover design trials, overall survival (OS) treatment effect estimates are often confounded by the control group benefiting from treatment received post-progression. We estimated the adjusted OS treatment effect in EMPOWER-Lung 1 (NCT03088540) by accounting for the potential impact of crossover to cemiplimab among controls and continued cemiplimab treatment post-progression.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients with disease progression while on or after chemotherapy could receive cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 weeks. Those who experienced progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab at 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 additional weeks with four chemotherapy cycles added. Three adjustment methods accounted for crossover and/or continued treatment: simplified two-stage correction (with or without recensoring), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFT; with or without recensoring).

Results

In the programmed cell death-ligand 1 ≥50% population (N=563; median 10.8-month follow-up), 38.2% (n=107/280) crossed over from chemotherapy to cemiplimab (71.3%, n=107/150, among those with confirmed progression) and 16.3% (n=46/283) received cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy (38.7%, n=46/119, among those with confirmed progression). The unadjusted OS hazard ratio (HR) with cemiplimab versus chemotherapy was 0.566 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.418, 0.767). Simplified two-stage correction—the most suitable method based on published guidelines and trial characteristics—produced an OS HR of 0.490 (95% CI: 0.365, 0.654) without recensoring and 0.493 (95% CI: 0.361, 0.674) with recensoring. The IPCW and RPSFT methods produced estimates generally consistent with simplified two-stage correction.

Conclusions

After adjusting for treatment crossover and continued cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy observed in EMPOWER-Lung 1, cemiplimab continued to demonstrate a clinically important and statistically significant OS benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with the primary analysis.

Patient-reported outcomes with cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of ≥50%: The EMPOWER-Lung 1 study

BACKGROUND

In the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540), cemiplimab conferred longer survival than platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50%. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated among trial participants.

METHODS

Adults with NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. At baseline and day 1 of each treatment cycle, patients were administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis estimated overall change from baseline for PD-L1 ≥50% and intention-to-treat populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration.

RESULTS

In PD-L1 ≥50% patients (cemiplimab, n = 283; chemotherapy, n = 280), baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 scores showed moderate-to-high functioning and low symptom burden. Change from baseline favored cemiplimab on global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning, and most symptom scales. Risk of definitive deterioration across functioning scales was reduced versus chemotherapy; hazard ratios were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96). Cemiplimab showed lower risk of definitive deterioration for disease-related (dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue) and treatment-related symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea) (nominal p < .05). Results were similar in the intention-to-treat population.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support cemiplimab for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC from the patient's perspective. Improved survival is accompanied by improvements versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in GHS/QOL and functioning and reduction in symptom burden.

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.

Insights into the advanced non-small cell lung cancer patient journey: Treatment decision-making, preferences, and quality of life considerations

e21129

Background: Individuals with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) who have undergone multiple lines of prior therapy face a poor prognosis and limited treatment options, significantly impacting quality of life (QoL). This exercise explored European, North, and South American patient advocate perspectives on QoL and its relation to treatment decision-making and preferences in aNSCLC. Methods: A global aNSCLC patient advocacy advisory board was convened with organizations from Europe, US, Canada, and Brazil, asking participants about QoL and treatment side effects, and how these relate to subsequent care and treatment decision-making. The discussion was moderated by an oncologist, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Preserving one’s independence was highlighted as a key component of QoL, with advocates noting that tumor-related symptoms and treatment toxicities have a substantial negative impact on an individual’s ability to engage in daily activities. Fatigue – both physical and psychological – is especially burdensome, particularly for those who have undergone multiple lines of therapy. Participants also noted the need for more accessible care (e.g., telehealth appointments, oral therapies) that fits into the routines of individuals and caregivers. The importance of palliative care and its ability to improve QoL was noted, showing the need for health systems to better integrate palliative care into treatment regimens. Finally, participants noted that treatment priorities change as individuals undergo subsequent lines of therapy, with participants noting the importance of independence and QoL in later stages of therapy, and thus must be assessed regularly by the care team. Conclusions: Individuals with aNSCLC place importance on consideration of QoL when making treatment decisions, particularly those related to maintaining independence. While there remains a need for additional and more effective therapies, an integrated and accessible care approach, with patient-provider communication focusing on maintaining QoL and independence, should be a priority.

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%.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

A Retrospective Observational Study to Determine Baseline Characteristics and Early Prescribing Patterns for Patients Receiving Alirocumab in UK Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Alirocumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and has been previously shown, in the phase III ODYSSEY clinical trial program, to provide significant lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. However, real-world evidence to date is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to describe baseline characteristics, clinical history, and prior lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) use of patients initiated on alirocumab in UK clinical practice following publication of health technology appraisal (HTA) body recommendations. Secondary objectives included description of alirocumab use and lipid parameter outcomes over a 4-month follow-up period.

METHODS

In this retrospective, single-arm, observational, multicenter study, data were collected for 150 patients initiated on alirocumab.

RESULTS

Mean (standard deviation; SD) age of patients was 61.4 (10.5) years and baseline median (interquartile range; IQR) LDL-C level was 4.8 (4.2-5.8) mmol/l. Alirocumab use occurred predominantly in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) (n = 100/150, 66%) and those with statin intolerance (n = 123/150, 82%). Most patients started on alirocumab 75 mg (n = 108/150 [72%]) and 35 (23.3%) were up-titrated to 150 mg. Clinically significant reductions in atherogenic lipid parameters were observed with alirocumab, including LDL-C (median [IQR] change from baseline, - 53.6% [- 62.9 to - 34.9], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the unmet need for additional LLT in patients with uncontrolled hyperlipidemia and demonstrates the clinical utility of alirocumab in early real-world practice, where dosing flexibility is an important attribute of this therapeutic option.

Cost Effectiveness of IDegLira vs. Alternative Basal Insulin Intensification Therapies in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled on Basal Insulin in a UK Setting

OBJECTIVES

Once-daily insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) is the first basal insulin and glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist combined in one delivery device. Our aim was to investigate the cost effectiveness of IDegLira vs. basal insulin intensification therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on basal insulin (glycosylated haemoglobin; HbA1c >7.5 %; 58 mmol/mol) in a UK setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Baseline cohort and clinical parameters were sourced from a pooled analysis comparing IDegLira with basal insulin plus liraglutide and basal-bolus therapy, and from the DUAL™ V trial comparing IDegLira with up-titrated insulin glargine (IGlar; Lantus(®)). The CORE Diabetes Model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes with IDegLira vs. these comparators from a UK healthcare payers' perspective. All costs were expressed in 2015 GBP. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of key parameters in the model.

RESULTS

Treatment with IDegLira resulted in mean increases in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.12, 0.41 and 0.24 vs. basal insulin plus liraglutide, basal-bolus therapy and up-titrated IGlar, respectively. IDegLira was associated with lower costs of £971 and £1698 vs. basal insulin plus liraglutide and basal-bolus therapy, respectively, and increased costs of £1441 vs. up-titrated IGlar. IDegLira was dominant, i.e., both more effective and less costly vs. basal insulin plus liraglutide and basal-bolus therapy, and highly cost effective vs. up-titrated IGlar with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £6090/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily IDegLira may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for prescribers, to improve glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes patients uncontrolled on basal insulin without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain, and without adding to their injection burden.