Net prices of new antiobesity medications

OBJECTIVE

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1s) are effective antiobesity drugs and the subject of intense debate around insurance coverage due to the large prevalence of obesity and overweight. The estimation of the budget impact associated with GLP1 insurance coverage requires estimates of GLP1 prices that account for manufacturer discounts. The authors applied a peer-reviewed method to estimate the net prices of GLP1s after manufacturer discounts.

METHODS

The authors estimated manufacturer discounts for each product as the difference between the gross sales estimated at list price and manufacturer-reported revenue. From this difference, the authors subtracted discounts to government programs, including 340B, Medicaid, and the Medicare Part D coverage gap, and attributed the remaining amount to manufacturer discounts provided in the commercial market.

RESULTS

Manufacturer discounts for GLP1s approved for obesity were estimated at 41%, which translated into net prices of $717 to $761 per month of supply. Manufacturer discounts for GLP1s approved for type 2 diabetes ranged from 54% to 59%, which translated into net prices of $312 to $469 per month of supply.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of manufacturer discounts underscores the need to consider net price information in studies that inform private and public payers' decision-making around coverage of GLP1s for obesity.

Medicare drug price negotiation: The complexities of selecting therapeutic alternatives for estimating comparative effectiveness

Under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are able to negotiate prices for topselling drugs in the Medicare Part B and D programs. In determining initial price offers, CMS will compare the prices and clinical benefits of the drugs subject to negotiation to the prices and clinical benefits of therapeutic alternatives. Despite the central role that the selection of therapeutic alternatives will play in the price negotiations, the available guidance published by CMS provides few details about how the organization will undertake this process, which will be particularly complex for drugs approved for more than one indication. To better inform the selection process, we identified all US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for the first 10 drugs subject to negotiation. Using 2020-2021 Medicare claims data, we identified Medicare Part D beneficiaries using each of the 10 drugs. We extracted medical claims with diagnosis codes for each of the approved indications to report the relative treated prevalence of use by indication for each drug. We reviewed published clinical guidelines to identify relevant therapeutic alternatives for each of the indications. We integrated the evidence on the relative treated prevalence of indications and clinical guidelines to propose therapeutic alternatives for each of the 10 drugs. We describe challenges that CMS may face in selecting therapeutic alternatives.

Real-world evidence for coverage determination of treatments for rare diseases

Health technology assessment (HTA) decisions for pharmaceuticals are complex and evolving. New rare disease treatments are often approved more quickly through accelerated approval schemes, creating more uncertainties about clinical evidence and budget impact at the time of market entry. The use of real-world evidence (RWE), including early coverage with evidence development, has been suggested as a means to support HTA decisions for rare disease treatments. However, the collection and use of RWE poses substantial challenges. These challenges are compounded when considered in the context of treatments for rare diseases. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges to developing and using prospective and retrospective RWE for HTA decisions, for rare diseases in particular. We focus attention on key elements of study design and analyses, including patient selection and recruitment, appropriate adjustment for confounding and other sources of bias, outcome selection, and data quality monitoring. We conclude by offering suggestions to help address some of the most vexing challenges. The role of RWE in coverage and pricing determination will grow. It is, therefore, necessary for researchers, manufacturers, HTA agencies, and payers to ensure that rigorous and appropriate scientific principles are followed when using RWE as part of decision-making.

A practical approach for adoption of a hub and spoke model for cell and gene therapies in low- and middle-income countries: framework and case studies

In the rapidly evolving landscape of biotechnologies, cell and gene therapies are being developed and adopted at an unprecedented pace. However, their access and adoption remain limited, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aims to address this critical gap by exploring the potential of applying a hub and spoke model for cell and gene therapy delivery in LMICs. We establish the identity and roles of relevant stakeholders, propose a hub and spoke model for cell and gene therapy delivery, and simulate its application in Brazil and the Middle East and North Africa. The development and simulation of this model were informed by a comprehensive review of academic articles, grey literature, relevant websites, and publicly available data sets. The proposed hub and spoke model is expected to expand availability of and access to cell and gene therapy in LMICs and presents a comprehensive framework for the roles of core stakeholders, laying the groundwork for more equitable access to these lifesaving therapies. More research is needed to explore the practical adoption and implications of this model.

Reimbursement to Pharmacies for Generic Drugs by Medicare Part D Sponsors

This study evaluates whether organizations that offer Medicare Part D plans (referred to as Part D sponsors) overpay pharmacies for generic drugs.

Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing

PURPOSE

We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) improves use of primary prophylactic CSF (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Among SOE sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization was done among intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the SOE.

RESULTS

Overall, PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms; however, rates of PP-CSF use varied widely by site, ranging from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms; however, PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites. In the intermediate-risk substudy, PP-CSF was five-fold higher among sites randomized to SOE; however, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE. Despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF prescribing ranged from 0% to 33%.

CONCLUSION

In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. Although the ability to opt out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power.

Budget impact of oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in adults at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 in the United States

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is indicated for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. NMV/r has also been authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in pediatric patients (aged 226512 years and weighing at least 40 kg) who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Understanding the budget impact of introducing NMV/r for the treatment of adults with COVID-19 is of key interest to US payers.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the annual budget impact of introducing NMV/r in a US commercial health plan setting in the current Omicron COVID-19 era.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of NMV/r on health care costs in a hypothetical 1-million-member commercial health insurance plan over a 1-year period in the US population; clinical and cost inputs were derived from published literature with a focus on studies in the recent COVID-19 era that included vaccinated population and predominance of the Omicron variant. In the base-case analysis, it was assumed the only effect of NMV/r was a reduction in incidence (not severity) of hospitalization or death; its potential effect on post-COVID conditions was assessed in a scenario analysis. Outcomes included the number of hospitalizations, total cost, per patient per year (PPPY) costs, and per member per month (PMPM) costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs.

RESULTS

An estimated 29,999 adults were eligible and sought treatment with oral antiviral for COVID-19 over 1 year. The availability of NMV/r was estimated to reduce the number of hospitalizations by 647 with a total budget impact of $2,733,745, $91 PPPY, and $0.23 PMPM. NMV/r was cost saving when including post-COVID conditions with a -$1,510,780 total budget impact, a PPPY cost of -$50, and a PMPM cost of -$0.13. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were most sensitive to the risk of hospitalization under supportive care, risk of hospitalization with NMV/r treatment and cost of NMV/r.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with NMV/r in the current COVID-19 era is estimated to result in substantial cost offsets because of reductions in hospitalization and modest budget impact to potential overall cost savings.

Drug use and spending under a formulary informed by cost-effectiveness

BACKGROUND: The National Academy of Medicine has called for value-based drug formularies to address health plan prescription drug spending while maintaining access to high-value medicines. Thirty employer-sponsored plans implemented a "Value-Based Formulary-essentials" (VBF-e) program that uses cost-effectiveness evidence to inform cost-sharing and coverage exclusion. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the VBF-e was associated with changes in medication use and patient out-of-pocket spending and health plan spending on prescription drugs and other health care. METHODS: This was a cohort study using a difference-in-differences design from 2015 through 2019 with 1 year of follow-up after VBF-e implementation at Premera Blue Cross, the largest nonprofit health plan in the Pacific Northwest. The VBF-e exposure group was composed of all individuals aged younger than 65 years and enrolled at least 12 months prior to their employer group's VBF-e implementation date. The contemporaneous control group was composed of propensity score-matched individuals with the same inclusion criteria but their employer group that did not implement VBF-e. We prespecified the following outcomes: days of medication on hand overall and by VBF-e tier (high-value generic, brand, and specialty drugs were in tiers 1 to 3, respectively, and low-value drugs were in tier 4 or excluded from coverage); prescription drug spending; and other health care use (emergency department visits, hospital days, and outpatient visits). RESULTS: Comparing 12,111 exposed (mean age = 36.0; 49.8% female sex) participants with 24,222 control participants (mean age = 34.7; 49.6% female sex), VBF-e reduced use of low-value drugs by 0.3 days per member per month (PMPM) (95% CI = -0.5 to -0.1; 17% decrease) for tier 4 drugs and 0.4 days PMPM (95% CI = -0.5 to -0.4; 83% decrease) for excluded drugs. High-value specialty drug use increased by 0.1 days PMPM (95% CI = 0.0-0.1; 123% increase). Health plan spending decreased by $14 PMPM (95% CI = -26 to -4) and member out-of-pocket spending increased by $1 PMPM (95% CI = 1-2). Other health care use did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: An exclusion formulary informed by cost-effectiveness evidence reduced low-value drug use, increased high-value specialty drug use, reduced health plan spending, and increased member out-of-pocket spending without increasing acute care use. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by a grant from the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation's Greater Value Portfolio Program. Study Registration Number: NCT04904055.

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial

PURPOSE

Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy.

METHODS

Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk.

RESULTS

Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement.

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Designing a Value-Based Formulary for a Commercial Health Plan: A Simulated Case Study of Diabetes Medications

OBJECTIVES

The healthcare expenditure for managing diabetes with glucose-lowering medications has been substantial in the United States. We simulated a novel, value-based formulary (VBF) design for a commercial health plan and modeled possible changes in spending and utilization of antidiabetic agents.

METHODS

We designed a 4-tier VBF with exclusions in consultation with health plan stakeholders. The formulary information included covered drugs, tiers, thresholds, and cost sharing amounts. The value of 22 diabetes mellitus drugs was determined primarily in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Using pharmacy claims database (2019-2020), we identified 40 150 beneficiaries who were on the included diabetes mellitus medicines. We simulated future health plan spending and out-of-pocket costs with 3 VBF designs, using published own price elasticity estimates.

RESULTS

The average age of the cohort is 55 years (51% female). Compared with the current formulary, the proposed VBF design with exclusions is estimated to reduce total annual health plan spending by 33.2% (current: $33 956 211; VBF: $22 682 576), saving $281 in annual spending per member (current: $846; VBF: $565) and $100 in annual out-of-pocket spending per member (current: $119; VBF: $19). Implementing the full VBF with new cost shares, along with exclusions, has the potential to achieve the greatest savings, compared with the 2 intermediate VBF designs (ie, VBF with prior cost sharing and VBF without exclusions). Sensitivity analyses using various price elasticity values showed declines in all spending outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Designing a VBF with exclusions in a US employer-based health plan has the potential to reduce health plan and patient spending.

Health care costs and resource use of managing hemophilia A: A targeted literature review

BACKGROUND: Hemophilia A (HA) is a rare, inherited, serious bleeding disorder characterized by a deficiency of blood clotting factor VIII (FVIII). HA is associated with considerable economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To identify, review, and summarize published studies on the health care resource use and costs of managing HA in the United States using a targeted literature review. METHODS: A comprehensive and targeted literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews covering the period 2010 to 2022. We supplemented the search by searching gray literature (relevant abstracts, posters, and presentations of relevant scientific conferences from the past 6 years [2016 to 2022], reference lists, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports, and other sources). Eligibility criteria were developed based on the population, interventions, comparators, and outcomes framework. For comparability, costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: A total of 40 publications, including 17 full-text papers, 21 abstracts, and 2 Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports, met eligibility criteria. Total annual health care costs per patient ranged from $213,874 to $869,940 and are mainly driven by the cost and intensity of prophylaxis with FVIII replacement concentrates, bypassing agents, and, most recently, emicizumab. Generally, we observed substantial heterogeneity in estimated treatment costs for HA, which varied depending on HA severity, treatment type and intensity, age, weight, and inhibitor status. Patients with inhibitors incurred much higher costs, but annual FVIII treatment costs are increasing over time among a subset of adult patients without inhibitors. Only 2 studies reported indirect costs; these were $13,220 and $27,978 annually among patients without and with inhibitors, respectively. Parents of children with HA spent $8,252 on non-mental health services and $258 on mental health services annually. CONCLUSIONS: The annual health care costs of managing HA are substantial and vary widely, depending on the study population definitions and intensity of prophylaxis. Total health care costs are dominated by the cost of prophylaxis. Indirect costs are also important. More robust studies in various settings, subpopulations, and assessing the impact of emerging therapies are required to fully elucidate the changing societal and economic impact, particularly regarding indirect costs and productivity loss for individuals living with HA. DISCLOSURES: Drs Solari and Thornhill are employees of Spark Therapeutics and Roche Group Shareholders. Ms Chen and Drs Cheng and Sullivan are employees of Curta, Inc. Spark Therapeutics paid Curta, Inc., to conduct the literature search. This study was funded by Spark Therapeutics. Spark Therapeutics was involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, article review, and the decision to submit the report for publication. Medical writing support was provided by Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company.

Recommendations for economic evaluations of cell and gene therapies: a systematic literature review with critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE

No consensus exists on the ideal methodology to evaluate the economic impact and value of new, potentially curative gene therapies. We aimed to identify and describe published methodologic recommendations for the economic evaluation of gene therapies and assess whether these recommendations have been applied in published evaluations.

METHODS

This study was conducted in three stages: a systematic literature review of methodologic recommendations for economic evaluation of gene therapies; an assessment of the appropriateness of recommendations; and a review to assess the degree to which the recommendations were applied in published evaluations.

RESULTS

A total of 2,888 references were screened, 83 articles were reviewed to assess eligibility, and 20 papers were included. Fifty recommendations were identified, and 21 reached consensus thresholds. Most evaluations were based on naive treatment comparisons and did not apply consensus recommendations. Innovative payment mechanisms for gene therapies were rarely considered. The only widely applied recommendations related to modeling choices and methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological recommendations for economic evaluations of gene therapies are generally not being followed. Assessing the applicability and impact of the recommendations from this study may facilitate the implementation of consensus recommendations in future evaluations.

Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) of First-Line Therapies (1L) for Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (la/mUC)

To compare efficacy outcomes for all approved and investigational first-line (1L) treatment regimens for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with standard of care (SOC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified phase 2 and 3 randomized trials investigating 1L treatment regimens in la/mUC published January 2001–September 2021. Three networks were formed based on cisplatin (cis) eligibility: cis-eligible/mixed (cis-eligible patients and mixed populations of cis-eligible/ineligible patients), cis-ineligible (strict; exclusively cis-ineligible patients), and cis-ineligible (wide; including studies with investigator’s choice of carbo). Analyses examined comparative efficacy by hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratio (OR) for overall response rate (ORR), with 1L regimens vs. SOC. SOC was gemcitabine + cis (GemCis) or carboplatin (GemCarbo), cis-eligible/mixed network, and GemCarbo cis-ineligible networks. Of 1906 SLR identified citations, 55 trials were selected for data extraction. The NMA comprised 11, 6, and 8 studies in the cis-eligible/mixed, cis-ineligible (strict), cis-ineligible (wide) networks, respectively. In a meta-analysis of SOC control arms, median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) in months varied by network: 13.19 (12.43, 13.95) cis-eligible/mixed, 11.96 (10.43, 13.48) cis-ineligible (wide), and 9.74 (6.71, 12.76) cis-ineligible (strict). Most differences in OS, PFS, and ORR with treatment regimens across treatment networks were not statistically significant compared with SOC. Outcomes with current 1L regimens remain poor, and few significant improvements over SOC have been made, despite inclusion of recent clinical trial data, highlighting an unmet need in the la/mUC patient population.

Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator

BACKGROUND

Adoption of high-throughput, gene panel-based, next-generation sequencing (NGS) into routine cancer care is widely supported, but hampered by concerns about cost. To inform policies regarding genomic testing strategies, we propose a simple metric, cost per correctly identified patient (CCIP), that compares sequential single-gene testing (SGT) vs. multiplex NGS in different tumor types.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A genomic testing cost calculator was developed based on clinically actionable genomic alterations identified in the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets. Using sensitivity/specificity data for SGTs (immunohistochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, and fluorescence in situ hybridization) and NGS and marker prevalence, the number needed to predict metric was monetarized to estimate CCIP.

RESULTS

At base case, CCIP was lower with NGS than sequential SGT for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, colorectal, gastric cancers, and cholangiocarcinoma. CCIP with NGS was also favorable for squamous NSCLC, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers, but with overlapping confidence intervals. CCIP favored SGT for prostate cancer. Alternate scenarios using different price estimates for each test showed similar trends, but with incremental changes in the magnitude of difference between NGS and SGT, depending on price estimates for each test.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost to correctly identify clinically actionable genomic alterations was lower for NGS than sequential SGT in most cancer types evaluated. Decreasing price estimates for NGS and the rapid expansion of targeted therapies and accompanying biomarkers are anticipated to further support NGS as a preferred diagnostic standard for precision oncology.

Medicare Drug Price Negotiation in the United States: Implications and Unanswered Questions

The United States is a relatively free-pricing market for pharmaceutical manufacturers to set list prices at the product launch. Few drug price controls exist, and federal price negotiation as a policy has historically been politically untenable. After decades of debate on whether the federal government, specifically the Medicare program, should more actively manage drug prices, the US Congress passed legislation authorizing Medicare to directly negotiate prices with manufacturers. The purpose of this article is to describe elements and implementation of the price negotiation provisions and then comment on the potential impacts on payers, innovations, and the pharmaceutical industry. While impacting only a few drugs each year in the beginning, price negotiation in the Medicare program will have secondary and long-term effects in the US market and beyond. It is clear that in the United States, the Medicare market for drugs will no longer be a free-pricing environment in the industry.

Survival Outcomes of Patients With Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase Fusion-Positive Cancer Receiving Larotrectinib Versus Standard of Care: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Using Real-World Data

PURPOSE

Larotrectinib, a highly specific tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor, previously demonstrated high response rates in single-arm trials of patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer, but there are limited data on comparative effectiveness against standard-of-care (SoC) regimens used in routine health care practice, before widespread adoption of TRK inhibitors as SoC for TRK fusion-positive cancers. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison, a validated methodology that balances population characteristics to facilitate cross-trial comparisons, was used to compare the overall survival (OS) of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individual patient data from three larotrectinib trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431) were compared with published aggregate real-world data from patients with locally advanced/metastatic TRK fusion-positive cancer identified in the Flatiron Health/Foundation Medicine database. OS was defined as the time from advanced/metastatic disease diagnosis to death. After matching population characteristics, the analyses included (1) a log-rank test of equality to test whether the two groups were similar before larotrectinib initiation; and (2) estimation of treatment effect of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC. These analyses are limited to prognostic variables available in real-world data.

RESULTS

Eighty-five larotrectinib patients and 28 non-TRK-inhibitor SoC patients were included in the analyses. After matching, log-rank testing showed no difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P = .31). After matching, larotrectinib was associated with a 78% lower risk of death, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.52]; P = .001); median OS was 39.7 months (95% CI: 16.4, NE [not estimable]) for larotrectinib and 10.2 months (95% CI: 7.2, 14.1) for SoC.

CONCLUSION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses suggest longer OS with larotrectinib, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC, in adult patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer.

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia

PURPOSE

Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens.

METHODS

TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites.

RESULTS

Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%).

CONCLUSION

Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Impact of Ruxolitinib Cream on Work Productivity and Activity Impairment and Associated Indirect Costs in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: Pooled Results From Two Phase III Studies

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that can negatively impact work productivity and daily activities. Ruxolitinib cream, a Janus kinase inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with atopic dermatitis in two phase III studies (TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2).

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis sought to describe the effects of ruxolitinib cream on work productivity and activity impairment from pooled data from the phase III studies, to estimate indirect costs due to atopic dermatitis, and to estimate the incremental cost savings with ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle cream.

METHODS

Patients in both studies were ≥ 12 years old with atopic dermatitis for ≥ 2 years, an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 2 or 3, and a 3-20% affected body surface area at baseline. Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to receive ruxolitinib cream (0.75% or 1.5%) or vehicle cream for 8 weeks. Patient self-reported productivity in the efficacy-evaluable population was assessed at weeks 2, 4, and 8 using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Specific Health Problem version 2.0. Statistical significance for the two doses versus vehicle was calculated using an analysis of covariance. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment overall work impairment scores were converted to a model of costs per employed patient due to lost productivity and incremental cost savings from ruxolitinib cream treatment using a human capital approach.

RESULTS

Of 1249 patients enrolled (median age, 32 years; female sex, 61.7%), 1208 were included in the efficacy-evaluable population. Patients applying 0.75% or 1.5% ruxolitinib cream had significant changes in overall work impairment (- 17.9% [0.75% strength] and - 15.0% [1.5% strength] vs - 5.7% for vehicle; p < 0.0001 for both) and daily activity impairment (- 20.6% [0.75% strength] and - 21.5% [1.5% strength] vs - 10.6% for vehicle; p < 0.0001 for both). These corresponded to estimated lost productivity costs in 2021 US dollars of $1313 (0.75% strength) and $1242 (1.5% strength) versus $2008 (vehicle) over the 8-week trial period. Compared with a patient receiving vehicle, incremental annual indirect cost savings were estimated to be $5302 with 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and $4228 with 1.5% ruxolitinib cream.

CONCLUSIONS

Ruxolitinib cream therapy is associated with improved work productivity and daily activity compared with vehicle and is estimated to reduce the indirect cost burden on the patient.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03745638 (registered 19 November, 2018) and NCT03745651 (registered 19 November, 2018).

Value-Based Pricing of US Prescription Drugs: Estimated Savings Using Reports From the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review

This cross-sectional study estimates how annual US drug spending would change if prices for prescription drugs were set at the value-based price.

An evaluation of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD

Aim: Stakeholder engagement is central to comparative effectiveness research yet there are gaps in definitions of success. We used a framework developed by Lavallee et al. defining effective engagement criteria to evaluate stakeholder engagement during a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were developed from the framework and completed to learn about members' experiences. Interviews were analyzed in a deductive approach for themes related to the effective engagement criteria. Results: Thirteen members participated and described: respect for ideas, time to achieve consensus, access to information and continuous feedback as areas of effective engagement. The primary criticism was lack of diversity. Discussion: Feedback was positive, particularly among themes of respect, trust and competence, and led to development of a list of best practices for engagement. The framework was successful for evaluating engagement. Conclusion: Standardized frameworks allow studies to formally evaluate their stakeholder engagement approach and develop best practices for future research.

Value Insider Season 1 Episode 3: How Does Budget Impact and Affordability in Healthcare Work? (BI and Affordability) [Podcast]

How does budget impact and affordability in healthcare work? In this episode of the Value Insider podcast, host Mike Chambers speaks with Prof. Sean Sullivan about affordability and budget impact for the "payers" of healthcare interventions. Prof. Sullivan is Dean of the University of Washington School of Pharmacy. He is past president of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and served as chair of the health technology assessment (HTA) committee of US Health Insurer Premera Blue Cross, was part of the US Governmental Medicare coverage evidence committee and led the ISPOR Task Force on Methods for Conducting and Reporting Budget Impact Assessments. Prof. Sullivan explains how budget impact and affordability are intertwined and how this plays a role in decisions in the US, but also the rest of the world.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus entrectinib for the treatment of metastatic NTRK gene fusion cancers

Aim: To extrapolate clinical trial results to estimate and compare expected progression-free and overall life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) for larotrectinib and entrectinib in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and brain metastases prior to treatment with larotrectinib or entrectinib. Methods: A naive direct comparison of larotrectinib versus entrectinib was made using partitioned survival modeling methods from clinical trial data. Results: Larotrectinib resulted in an additional 1.58 LYs (1.17 QALYs), 5.81 LYs (2.02 QALYs) and 1.01 LYs in CRC, STS and baseline brain metastases, respectively, compared with entrectinib. Conclusion: Larotrectinib provided life expectancy and QALY gains compared with entrectinib. Additional studies will be beneficial as more patients are treated and survival data develop to better inform comparative effectiveness results.

Can order entry systems improve oncology practice? The TrACER Experience

339

Background: Primary prophylactic colony stimulating factors (PP-CSF) are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Prior research suggested poor adherence to PP-CSF prescribing relative to national guidelines. Accordingly, the objective of the TrACER study was to examine whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) system for PP-CSF improves use and reduces FN. TrACER also included a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy, where evidence of benefit is weaker. Methods: We conducted a patient-informed, cluster randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Patients age ≥18 with breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy were enrolled. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to the implementation of a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Automated orders for PP-CSF were added for high-risk regimens and an alert not to use PP-CSF was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. A secondary 1:1 randomization for intermediate risk-regimens assigned 16 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF. Results: 2,946 patients were enrolled (2287 intervention, 659 usual care). PP-CSF use among high-risk patients was high and not significantly different between arms (89.2% SOE; 95.8% usual care). FN rates for the SOE and usual care arms were 6.1% and 4.2% and not significantly different. The FN rate among high-risk patients not receiving PP-CSF was 14.9%. Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms (6.3% SOE, 5.5% usual care). FN rates did not differ between the SOE system (1.5%) and usual care (0.8%). In contrast, for the intermediate risk substudy, rates of PP-CSF use were substantially higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% vs 9.9%, OR = 5.91(95% CI 1.77-19.70; p = 0.0038), and rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% vs 3.7%). Similarly, FN rates did not differ between intermediate-risk patients that did or did not receive PP-CSF, irrespective of assignment. Conclusions: Implementation of a guideline-informed SOE system did not impact PP-CSF use or FN rates in high- and low-risk patients, where evidence supporting PP-CSF is stronger, and had a significant impact on PP-CSF use but not FN rates among intermediate risk patients, where evidence of benefit is weak. Overall, adherence to PP-CSF for low- and high-risk chemotherapy was much better than predicted based on evidence available at trial design. SOE interventions may be more useful in situations where more uncertainty of benefit exists. The pragmatic trial design provides high-quality evidence that had previously been lacking on the use and performance of PP-CSF in real world settings across the spectrum of FN risk. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

Intervention non-adherence in a pragmatic randomized trial of a standardized order entry for colony stimulating factor prescribing

374

Background: Pragmatic trials evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in routine practice conditions. Pragmatic trials have high generalizability, but the treatment effect can be influenced by nonadherence to the intervention of interest. We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) system improves use of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinics were assigned to the SOE or usual care. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention. Methods: TrACER was a patient-informed, cluster randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care (primary study). Among SOE intervention sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned the 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate FN risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the standing orders for individual patients. Results: Overall, 8 sites (659 patients) were randomized to usual care and 24 sites (2287 patients) to the intervention; 12 (1296 patients) were randomized to the intermediated risk SOE intervention and 12 (991 patients) to the alert not to prescribe PP-CSF. PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms (89.2% SOE; 95.8% usual care), however rates of PP-CSF use by site ranged from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms (6.3% SOE, 5.5% usual care), however PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites randomized to the alert to not prescribe. In the intermediate risk sub-study, PP-CSF was higher among sites randomized to SOE vs. the alert not to prescribe PP-CSF (37.1% vs 9.9%, OR = 5.91, 95% CI 1.77-19.70; p = 0.0038). However, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE, and despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF rates ranged among sites from 0% to 33%. FN rates were low and similar in both arms. Conclusions: In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. While the ability to opt-out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, careful pre-study planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power to detect an effect. Understanding reasons for intervention opt-outs will is also inform future pragmatic studies aimed at improving adherence to practice guidelines. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

Validation of the FINE-CKD model for future health technology assessments for finerenone in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The FINE-CKD model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of finerenone in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

OBJECTIVE

To perform internal and external validation by comparing the model estimates with trial results and outcomes from other models.

METHODS

Incidence rates from trials were compared with the model predictions. Statistical tests were then performed to assess whether modeled event rates aligned with trial observations. A cross-validation was also performed using the online version of the SHARP CKD-Cardiovascular Disease (SHARP CKD-CVD) model, with population characteristics from the finerenone trials analyzed. Where no finerenone data were available, the default SHARP CKD-CVD values were used. Comparison of the results considered the ranges from both models.

RESULTS

The outcomes of the FINE-CKD model reflect the event rates observed in the trials. Based on the results of the statistical tests, the hypothesis of no difference between observed and modeled events cannot be rejected for any of the outcomes. The results of the FINE-CKD model are within the ranges from the SHARP CKD-CVD model. Disease progressions align across the models; however, incident kidney failure events in the SHARP CKD-CVD model were higher. This can be explained by simulation of more severely affected patients in the SHARP CKD-CVD model.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the FINE-CKD model adequately reflects the clinical data and provides reliable extrapolation relative to the existing predictive tools while also being conservative in its approach.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of semaglutide 2.4 mg for the treatment of adult patients with overweight and obesity in the United States

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence and associated public health burden of obesity has led to advancements in pharmaceuticals for weight management. Semaglutide 2.4 mg, an anti-obesity medication (AOM) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has demonstrated clinically relevant weight loss in its phase 3 clinical trials. Economic evaluation comparing semaglutide 2.4 mg with other available weight management therapies is essential to inform payers for decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 2.4 mg in the treatment of adult patients with obesity (ie, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30) and adult patients who are overweight (ie, BMI 27-29.9) with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort Markov model was constructed to compare semaglutide 2.4 mg with the following comparators: no treatment, diet and exercise (D&E), and 3 branded AOMs (liraglutide 3 mg, phentermine-topiramate, and naltrexone-bupropion). All AOMs, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, were assumed to be taken in conjunction with D&E. Changes in BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol level, experience of acute and chronic obesity-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were simulated over 30 years based on pivotal trials of the AOMs and other relevant literature. Drug and health care prices reflect 2021 standardized values. Cost-effectiveness was examined with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to plausible variation in model inputs. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to improve QALYs by 0.138 to 0.925 and incur higher costs by $3,254 to $25,086 over the 30-year time horizon vs comparators. Semaglutide 2.4 mg is cost-effective against all comparators at the prespecified WTP threshold, with the incremental cost per QALY gained ranging from $23,556 to $144,296 per QALY gained. In the sensitivity analysis, extended maximum treatment duration, types of subsequent treatment following therapy discontinuation, and weight-rebound rates were identified as key drivers for model results. The estimated probability of semaglutide 2.4 mg being cost-effective compared with comparators ranged from 67% to 100% when varying model parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: As a long-term weight management therapy, semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to be cost-effective compared with no treatment, D&E alone, and all other branded AOM comparators under a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained over a 30-year time horizon. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this research was provided by Novo Nordisk Inc. The study sponsor was involved in several aspects of the research, including the study design, the interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Kim and Ms Ramasamy are employees of Novo Nordisk Inc. Ms Kumar and Dr Burudpakdee were employees of Novo Nordisk Inc at the time this study was conducted. Dr Sullivan received research support from Novo Nordisk Inc for this study. Drs Wang, Song, Wu, Ms Xie, and Ms Sun are employees of Analysis Group, Inc, who received consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk Inc in connection with this study.

Overall survival (OS) of patients with TRK fusion–positive cancer receiving larotrectinib versus standard of care (SoC): A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) using real-world data (RWD)

6579

Background: Larotrectinib trials in Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase (TRK) fusion cancer population were single arm trials and therefore limited comparative effectiveness data with larotrectinib are available.MAIC is typically used to balance population characteristics to facilitate cross-study comparisons. The objective of this study was to use MAIC to compare efficacy of the highly specific TRK inhibitor larotrectinib vs. SoC. Methods: Individual patient data from larotrectinib trials (NCT02122913, NCT02637687, NCT02576431) were compared with published aggregate SoC data from patients with locally advanced/metastatic TRK fusion cancer identified in the Flatiron Health/Foundation Medicine clinico-genomic database (Demetri et al. Ann Oncol. 2021). Prior to matching, eligible patients were ≥18 years and had to have received ≤4 lines of prior therapy (LoPT). Patients were matched on available common baseline characteristics (Table). Overall survival was the only endpoint assessed and was defined as time from locally advanced/metastatic disease diagnosis to death. The analyses included: 1) a log-rank test of equality to test whether the two groups were similar before larotrectinib initiation; and 2) estimation of treatment effect of larotrectinib vs. SoC. Hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare the 2 groups. MAIC assumes that all observed and unobserved prognostic factors are adjusted for in the analysis. Results: 85 larotrectinib patients and 28 SoC patients were included. After matching, log-rank testing suggested no difference between the 2 groups (P=0.26), and larotrectinib was associated with a 78% lower risk of death (adjusted HR: 0.22 [95% confidence interval: 0.09, 0.54]; P=0.001), compared to SoC. Conclusions: This analysis suggests longer overall survival with larotrectinib, compared to SoC, in adult patients with TRK fusion cancer. The current analysis was limited to the prognostic variables available in the RWD. Further data are warranted to confirm those results. [Table: see text]

Comparison of Alternative Methods to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Triangulation Approach Using Larotrectinib as a Case Study

OBJECTIVES

The study objective was to investigate the economic value of tumor-agnostic therapies when only single-arm effectiveness data are available at launch by applying multiple methodologies to establish comparative effectiveness.

METHODS

In the absence of direct comparative data, 3 methods were used to estimate the counterfactual: (1) a historical control based on a systematic literature review for each tumor site from the larotrectinib trials, (2) an intracohort comparison using the previous line of therapy time to progression from larotrectinib trials, and (3) a nonresponder control that applied outcomes for larotrectinib nonresponders. Cost-effectiveness was modeled using the partitioned survival approach. Stochastic parameter uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). A triangulated estimate of the mean cost-effectiveness result was generated combining all 3 counterfactual estimates.

RESULTS

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were similar across the 3 methodologies in the deterministic analysis ranging from £83 868 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] £65 698-£107 668) to £104 922 per quality-adjusted life-year (95% UI £80 132-£139 658). PSA results for each method substantially overlapped when plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane. Weighting PSA results for each method equally in the triangulation method produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £95 587 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% UI £70 449-£137 431).

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of direct comparative data, different methods of estimating a counterfactual are possible, each with strengths and limitations. Triangulating results across the methods provides a composite view of the total uncertainty and a more consistent estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the tumor-agnostic intervention compared with choosing a single method.

The potential long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs standard of care for treatment of metastatic TRK fusion thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is approved for patients with metastatic TRK fusion cancers, including differentiated thyroid (DTC), colorectal cancer (CRC), and soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Given the basket clinical trial design of larotrectinib, direct comparisons against standard of care in each of the mentioned cancers have not been assessed. Also, owing to the limited duration of follow-up in clinical trials, long-term outcomes for treatments are generally not known or estimated. OBJECTIVE: To compare expected life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients with metastatic DTC, CRC, and STS who are eligible to receive larotrectinib against patients with unknown NTRK gene fusion status receiving standard-of-care therapy. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to estimate the long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and standard of care for 3 tumor types. Larotrectinib survival data, assessed by independent review committee, were derived from an updated July 2020 analysis of 19, 8, and 23 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with metastatic TRK fusion DTC, CRC, and STS, respectively. The DTC survival data also included 2 patients aged less than 18 years for a total of 21 patients. Survival estimates for standard of care were derived from published clinical trials. Progressionfree and overall survival for all treatments were estimated using survival distributions (Exponential, Weibull, Log-logistic, and Lognormal) fit to the available data. The final exponential form was selected based on goodness-of-fit and clinical plausibility. QALYs were estimated by adjusting the time spent in the preprogression and postprogression health states by utility weights derived from publicly available literature. RESULTS: Patients receiving larotrectinib experienced more LYs and QALYs compared with those receiving standard-of-care treatments across all 3 assessed cancer types. In DTC, patients receiving larotrectinib had 7.15-8.26 additional LYs (5.87-6.12 QALYs); in CRC, patients receiving larotrectinib had 1.26-1.27 additional LYs (1.00 QALYs); and in STS, patients receiving larotrectinib had 5.56 additional LYs (1.99 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard of care in metastatic TRK wild-type cancers, larotrectinib is estimated to result in improved LY and QALY outcomes based on parametric extrapolations of intrial survival data. Because patient-level data were unavailable for adjusted analyses, a cross-trial comparison was performed. Given the limitations of this analytic approach and the small sample size for larotrectinib in trials, future studies should reassess the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs standard of care as treated patients accrue and long-term survival data mature. DISCLOSURES: K. Suh, J. Carlson, and S. Sullivan report consulting fees from Bayer US LLC. F. Xia and T. Williamson are employees of Bayer US LLC. This study was funded by Bayer US LLC. The sponsor had no role in the design of the study and did not have any role in the execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results.

A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial of a standing physician order entry intervention for colony stimulating factor use among patients at intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia (SWOG S1415CD)

1518

Background: Primary prophylactic colony stimulating factors (PP-CSF) are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for regimens with intermediate FN risk is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) intervention for prescribing PP-CSF, we designed a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of PP-CSF for patients receiving therapy with intermediate FN risk. Methods: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where NCI community Oncology Research Program practices were randomized to usual care (UC) or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to a SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for NCCN-designated high FN risk chemotherapy regimens and alerts against PP-CSF orders for low FN risk regimens (intervention) versus usual care. A secondary randomization assigned intervention sites to a SOE intervention either to prescribe or not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate FN risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to override the SOE. Patients age ≥18 with either breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled and followed for 12 mo. PP-CSF was defined as initiation within 24-72 hours after systemic chemotherapy. Sample size calculations were based on an FN risk reduction from 15% to 7.5%, and provided 80% power at a planned enrollment of 90 patients per site. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between sites randomized to prescribe or not prescribe PP-CSF. Results: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 24 sites (2,287 patients) were randomized to the intervention. Among intervention sites, 12 were randomized to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for the 542 patients receiving intermediate FN risk regimens. Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to prescribe PP-CSF (37.1% vs 9.9%, OR = 5.90 (95% CI 1.72-20.20; p = 0.0048)). Overall, the rates of FN were low and identical between PP-CSF and no PP-CSF arms (3.7% vs 3.7%). Among patients who did not receive PP-CSF, rates of FN were also low and similar between arms (3.8% vs 4.1%). Conclusions: While implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving intermediate risk regimens, FN rates did not differ between arms. Despite SOE, 63% of patients assigned to receive PP-CSF did not receive it. FN rates overall were lower than expected and did not differ between patients that did or did not receive PP-CSF. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither the SOE nor PP-CSF itself provide sufficient benefit to justify their use for persons receiving intermediate FN risk regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial of a computerized clinical decision support system to improve colony stimulating factor prescribing for patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy (SWOG S1415CD)

1525

Background: Primary prophylactic colony stimulating factors (PP-CSF) are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Prior studies have shown that 55-95% of CSF prescribing is inconsistent with practice guidelines. We conducted a cluster randomized trial to determine if guideline-informed standing orders for PP-CSF improved prescribing and reduced the incidence of FN. Methods: Patients age ≥18 with breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer initiating first cancer-directed therapy with NCCN-recommended regimens were eligible. The intervention consisted of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk chemotherapy regimens and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk regimens. Regimen FN risk was based on NCCN guidelines. Clinicians could override the orders. Primary and secondary outcomes were PP-CSF use among patients receiving high and low risk regimens FN incidence within 6 months of initial therapy. Sample size estimates assumed an FN risk of 25% for high-risk chemotherapy. 32 NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices randomized 3:1 to the order entry system (intervention) versus usual care (UC) provided 90% power to detect a 50% reduction in FN at a planned enrollment of 90 patients per site. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used to test differences among randomized sites. 13 practices with pre-existing PP-CSF order sets enrolled in a parallel cohort study. Patients and other stakeholder groups informed study design, conduct and reporting. Results: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 2,946 patients were randomized (2287 intervention, 659 UC); 718 were enrolled in the cohort. Mean age across arms was 58.1. 77% of patients were female; 61% diagnosed with breast cancer. Among patients receiving high-risk regimens, PP-CSF use did not differ between arms (89.2% intervention; 95.8% UC, adjusted p = 0.21) and was similar to the cohort patients (93.0%). The FN rate for high-risk patients was 5.7% in intervention clinics and 4.2% in UC clinics (adjusted p = 0.26); FN was 14.9% among high-risk patients who did not receive PP-CSF. Among patients receiving low-risk regimens, PP-CSF use did not differ between arms (intervention 6.3%, UC 5.5%, adjusted p = 0.74) and was slightly lower than the cohort (8.3%). FN rates did not differ between low risk groups (intervention 1.5%, UC 0.8%, adjusted p = 0.51). Conclusions: Guideline-informed standing orders did not increase PP-CSF use in high-risk patients, nor did it decrease use in low-risk patients. Adherence to guidelines in both risk groups exceeded historical reports. FN rates among patients not receiving PP-CSF were substantially below those reported in CSF guidelines. Automated standing orders for PP-CSF do not appear to be helpful or necessary. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

International reference pricing of pharmaceuticals in the United States: Implications for potentially curative treatments

Recent federal drug price control proposals have included mechanisms to benchmark US prices to international prices. These international price referencing (IRP) proposals recommend that the US government develop an index based on prices paid by a group of higher-income countries and restrict US prices to a narrow range of the index. IRP is a policy tool used across the globe to control drug costs, particularly in markets in which health care resources are limited. If IRP is implemented in the United States, where the drug industry derives roughly 50% of global pharmaceutical sales, what impact might it have on innovation and access? In this brief commentary, we explore this question in the context of cell and gene therapies (CGTs) (evolving therapeutics that have high clinical potential as well as uncertainty and risk). Many CGTs are in development, and the world faces a challenge in providing access. Pressure to provide access to patients who would benefit may create greater global concerns about health equity and access. We conclude that an IRP policy in the United States might exacerbate access problems to promising CGTs and impact innovation and population health. Disclosures: Funding for this project was provided by Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc. Sean D Sullivan has received research support from and served as a consultant to Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc. Omar Dabbous is an employee of Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., and owns stock and other equities. Louis P Garrison has received consulting fees from BioMarin, Inc., and Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc. Kiera D Sullivan has no conflicts to report. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors and not necessarily their institutions.

Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD

Background

Cancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions.

Methods

The order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems.

Results

The average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site.

Conclusions

In this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings.

Trial Registration

NCT02728596, registered April 5, 2016.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07835-4.

Systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) of first-line therapies (1L) for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC)

570

Background: Standard of care (SOC) for 1L la/mUC is gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) or carboplatin (GCa), but the landscape is evolving with new therapies emerging. To compare outcomes of other approved/investigational 1L regimens with SOC in the context of recently published data on newer therapies, we updated a previously reported SLR/NMA of phase 2/3 randomized control trials. Methods: The SLR was conducted in line with PRISMA and NICE guidelines (01/2000-05/2020; updated 06/2020-06/2021). Three networks were formed: cisplatin (cis)-eligible/mixed eligibility; cis-ineligible (strict; studies including cis-ineligible patients only); and cis-ineligible (wide; expanded to also include study arms with an investigator’s choice of carboplatin in KEYNOTE-361, IMvigor130, and DANUBE). Comparative efficacy and safety were assessed under a Bayesian framework. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with 1L la/mUC regimens vs SOC (GC/GCa) are reported. Results: Among 2,312 citations identified, 55 unique trials were selected for data extraction. Of these, the NMA included 11 studies in the cis-eligible/mixed, 6 in the cis-ineligible (strict), and 8 in the cis-ineligible (wide) network. The NMA excluded therapies that were not effective or adopted in clinical practice; 6 maintenance trials were excluded due to differences in design precluding comparisons. Median OS in the SOC arms was 13.2 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.4-14.0) for cis-eligible/mixed, 9.7 mo (95% CI 6.7-12.8) for cis-ineligible (strict), and 12.0 mo (95% CI 10.4-13.5) for cis-ineligible (wide); median PFS was 6.6 mo (95% CI 6.3-6.9) for cis-eligible/mixed and 5.6 mo (95% CI 5.0-6.3) for both cis-ineligible strict and wide. OS and PFS were similar to SOC across therapies in each network: hazard ratios (HR) ranged 0.7-1.4 for OS for cis-eligible/mixed, 0.9-1.4 for cis-ineligible (strict), and 0.8-1.4 for cis-ineligible (wide) (Table); HR for PFS ranged 0.5-1.6 for cis-eligible/mixed and 0.8-1.1 for both cis-ineligible strict and wide networks; all credible intervals (CrI) crossed or were close to 1. Conclusions: In this updated SLR/NMA, survival outcomes were similar and remained poor among established and emerging 1L la/mUC therapies, despite inclusion of recent trial data. This further highlights the unmet need in this population.[Table: see text]

Cost-Effectiveness of the COVID-19 Test, Trace and Isolate Program in Colombia

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Test-Trace-Isolate (TTI) programs have been recommended as a risk mitigation strategy. However, many governments have hesitated to implement them due to their costs. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of implementing a national TTI program to reduce the number of severe and fatal cases of COVID-19 in Colombia.

METHODS

We developed a Markov simulation model of COVID-19 infection combined with a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered structure. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive TTI strategy compared to no intervention over a one-year horizon, from both the health system and the societal perspective. Hospitalization and mortality rates were retrieved from Colombian surveillance data. We included program costs of TTI intervention, health services utilization, PCR diagnosis test, productivity loss, and government social program costs. We used the number of deaths and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as health outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

FINDINGS

Compared with no intervention, the TTI strategy reduces COVID-19 mortality by 67%. In addition, the program saves an average of $1,045 and $850 per case when observed from the social and the health system perspective, respectively. These savings are equivalent to two times the current health expenditures in Colombia per year.

INTERPRETATION

The TTI program is a highly cost-effective public health intervention to reduce the burden of COVID-19 in Colombia. TTI programs depend on their successful and speedy implementation.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Colombian Ministry of Health through award number PUJ-04519-20 received by EPQ AVO and SDS declined to receive any funding support for this study. The contents are the responsibility of all the individual authors.

The potential long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil for treatment of metastatic TRK fusion colorectal cancer

41

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the US, driven primarily by those with metastatic disease. For patients with metastatic disease who have progressed through available first- and second-line options, the standard of care systemic therapies are regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil. Larotrectinib is approved for patients with TRK fusion advanced solid tumors including metastatic CRC. Our objective was to compare expected life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for metastatic CRC patients eligible to receive larotrectinib, regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil. Methods: We developed a partitioned survival model to project long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs. regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil. Larotrectinib survival data, assessed by independent review committee, were derived from a July 2020 analysis of 8 adult (≥18 years of age) metastatic TRK fusion CRC patients from the larotrectinib clinical trials program (NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431). Survival inputs for regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil were derived from the CORRECT trial (NCT01103323) and the RECOURSE trial (NCT01607957), respectively. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for larotrectinib, regorafenib, and trifluridine/tipiracil were estimated using survival distributions (Exponential, Weibull, Log-logistic, and Log-normal) fit to the available data. Exponential fits were used based on goodness-of-fit and clinical plausibility. QALYs were estimated by adjusting the time spent in the pre-progression and post-progression health states by health state utilities derived from publicly available literature. In accordance with standard practice in health economics and outcomes research on future health benefits, a constant discount rate of 3% was applied to the LYs and QALYs. Model uncertainty was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 simulations. Results: Larotrectinib resulted in 2.11 LYs and 1.60 QALYs compared to 0.83 LYs and 0.59 QALYs for regorafenib and 0.85 LYs and 0.60 QALYs for trifluridine/tipiracil. These estimates yielded additional gains for larotrectinib of 1.28 LYs (1.01 QALYs) and 1.26 LYs (0.99 QALYs) against regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil, respectively. Conclusions: In metastatic CRC, larotrectinib may produce substantial life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-year gains compared to regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil. Additional data with longer follow-up times will further inform this comparison.

The potential long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus entrectinib for treatment of metastatic TRK fusion colorectal cancer

40

Background: Commonly used systemic therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) for patients who have progressed through available first- and second-line regimens are regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil. For the subset of metastatic CRC patients with neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase ( NTRK) gene fusions, there are two additional approved options, larotrectinib or entrectinib. Our objective was to estimate and compare expected life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for metastatic TRK fusion CRC patients receiving larotrectinib versus entrectinib. Methods: We developed a partitioned survival model to project long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs. entrectinib. Extrapolation was necessary as follow-up for both drugs was less than three years at the time of data reporting. Survival data for larotrectininb, assessed by independent review committee, were derived from a July 2020 analysis of 8 adult (≥18 years of age) TRK fusion CRC patients from the larotrectinib clinical trials program (NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431). Survival inputs for entrectinib were derived from 7 TRK fusion CRC patients from an October 2018 integrated analysis of three single arm trials (EudraCT 2012-000148-88, NCT02097810, and NCT02568267). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for both treatments were estimated using parametric survival distributions (Exponential, Weibull, Log-logistic, and Log-normal) fit to the available data. Exponential curves were used based on goodness-of-fit and clinical plausibility. QALYs were estimated by adjusting the time spent in the pre-progression and post-progression health states by health state utilities derived from publicly available literature. A constant discount rate of 3% was applied to LYs and QALYs. Model uncertainty was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 simulations. Results: Larotrectinib resulted in 2.11 LYs and 1.60 QALYs compared to 0.53 LYs and 0.41 QALYs for entrectinib. These estimates yielded additional gains for larotrectinib of 1.58 LYs and 1.19 QALYs against entrectinib. Conclusions: In metastatic TRK fusion CRC, larotrectinib may produce substantial life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-year gains compared to entrectinib. Additional data with longer follow-up times will further inform this comparison.

Clinical outcomes in high‐hypoglycaemia‐risk patients with type 2 diabetes switching to insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus a first‐generation basal insulin analogue in the United States : Results from the DELIVER High Risk real‐world study

Aims

To compare 12‐month clinical effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla‐300) versus first‐generation basal insulin analogues (BIAs) (insulin glargine 100 units/mL [Gla‐100] or insulin detemir [IDet]) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who were at high risk of hypoglycaemia and switched from one BIA to a different one (Gla‐300 or Gla‐100/IDet) in a real‐world setting.

Methods

DELIVER High Risk was a retrospective observational cohort study of 2550 patients with T2D who switched BIA to Gla‐300 (Gla‐300 switchers) and were propensity score‐matched (1:1) to patients who switched to Gla‐100 or IDet (Gla‐100/IDet switchers). Outcomes were change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), attainment of HbA1c goals (<7% and <8%), and incidence and event rates of hypoglycaemia (all‐hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia associated with an inpatient/emergency department [ED] contact).

Results

HbA1c reductions were similar following switching to Gla‐300 or Gla‐100/IDet (−0.51% vs. −0.53%; p = .67), and patients showed similar attainment of HbA1c goals. Patients in both cohorts had comparable all‐hypoglycaemia incidence and event rates. However, the Gla‐300 switcher cohort had a significantly lower risk of inpatient/ED‐associated hypoglycaemia (adjusted odds ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.60–0.89; p = .002) and experienced significantly fewer inpatient/ED‐associated hypoglycaemic events (0.21 vs. 0.33 events per patient per year; p < .001).

Conclusion

In patients with T2D at high risk of hypoglycaemia, switching to Gla‐300 or Gla‐100/IDet achieved similar HbA1c reductions and glycaemic goal attainment, but Gla‐300 switchers had a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia associated with an inpatient/ED contact during 12 months after switching.

Comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and entrectinib for TRK fusion cancer

Larotrectinib and entrectinib are tumor-agnostic tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors that are indicated for the treatment of advanced or metastatic solid tumor cancers with neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions. Regulatory approval of both agents was based on data from single-arm phase 1/2 studies, including tumor-agnostic basket trials. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, there remains a paucity of data to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and entrectinib vs established standard-of-care treatments in cancers with NTRK gene fusions. Furthermore, no studies have directly compared the 2 agents. This article reviews what is known about the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and entrectinib vs standard therapies in TRK fusion cancer and examines the comparative effectiveness of the 2 TRK inhibitors. Historical and intrapatient comparisons suggest that TRK inhibitors improve disease response compared with preexisting treatments across most tumor histologies; indirect and limited comparisons of phase 1/2 data and preliminary simulation modeling suggest a potential advantage for larotrectinib over entrectinib in terms of clinical response and survival. Although limited, these data provide some insight into the position of these treatments in established treatment paradigms for TRK fusion cancer, a setting where real-world evidence will be slow to accrue due to the rare nature of these tumors but may be the only way in the future to answer the outstanding questions regarding these 2 agents. Meanwhile, we need to try to obtain the maximum benefit that can be achieved for our patients using the currently available knowledge.

Diagnosis and management of TRK fusion cancer

The tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) family of proteins is encoded by neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) genes and has a role in the development and normal functioning of the nervous system. NTRK gene fusions have been identified as oncogenic drivers in a wide range of tumors in both adult and pediatric patients. There has recently been a paradigm shift in cancer treatment toward biomarker-based targeted therapies, as an increasing number of actionable targets are being identified across different tumors and/or tumor histologies. These targeted agents offer greater comparative effectiveness and safety vs historical nontargeted standard therapies. The development of drugs that specifically target oncogenic drivers of cancer has led to the emergence of screening technologies to identify the patients most likely to benefit from targeted therapy. This review describes the role of NTRK gene fusions in cancer and outlines the epidemiology of NTRK gene fusions, the therapeutic benefits of targeting TRK fusions with small molecule inhibitors, and recommendations for NTRK gene fusion testing in adult and pediatric patients with cancer, in order to guide treatment decisions.

FINE-CKD model to evaluate economic value of finerenone in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a progressive and irreversible disease often associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D). CKD is associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, increased mortality, and diminished quality of life. Finerenone is a new treatment for patients with CKD and T2D that delays CKD progression and reduces CV complications.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the approach and structure of a costeffectiveness model for finerenone for patients with CKD and T2D and compare it with existing economic models in CKD.

METHODS

A de novo cost-effectiveness model (FINE-CKD model), reflective of FIDELIO-DKD results, was developed for finerenone. The FINE-CKD model was designed and implemented in accordance with published guidance on modeling and was developed with input from economic and clinical experts. The final model approach was evaluated against existing modeling structures in CKD identified through a systematic literature review.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The FINE-CKD model structure follows recommended modeling guidelines and has been designed in accordance with the best practices of modeling in CKD, while also incorporating important features of the FIDELIO-DKD design and results. The approach is consistent with the published literature, ensuring transparency and minimizing uncertainty that can arise from unnecessary complexity. The FINE-CKD model allows for reliable assessment of benefits and costs related to the use of finerenone in patients with CKD and T2D, and it is a reliable assessment of cost-effectiveness.

Estimating Long-Term Survival Outcomes for Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: Larotrectinib Case Study

BACKGROUND

Larotrectinib is a precision oncology treatment for solid tumors with neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions. Larotrectinib efficacy has been evaluated in single-arm basket trials with limited follow-up and sample sizes at the initial regulatory approval due to the rarity of solid tumors with NTRK gene fusion.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to demonstrate that trends in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in survival data with longer follow-up may be predicted from long-term survival estimates from survival data with shorter follow-up, including predictions for median survival when it is not observed in the trial.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from 3 clinical trials (NCT02122913, NCT02576431, and NCT02637687) using the 2018 and 2020 data cuts for the same subset of pediatric and adult patients. The Weibull distribution was selected for survival models. Survival predictions using 2018 data were compared to 2020 Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients representing 15 tumor types were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 37 years. When comparing PFS from the 2018 survival prediction to observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month PFS rate was identical (66.6%). The 36-month PFS rate was lower for the 2018 prediction (35.3%) compared to 2020 KM data (44.4%). The median OS had not yet been reached in either data cut but was predicted to be 90 months using the 2018 data. When comparing OS from the 2018 survival prediction to the observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month OS rate was 89.0% and 86.6% and the 48-month OS rate was 67.2% and 63.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Long-term PFS predictions deviated from observed PFS rates due to response differences across tumor types and heavy censoring towards the end of the survival curve. However, for OS, the 48-month survival prediction was consistent with the observed 2020 KM estimate.

Variation in market access decisions for cell and gene therapies across the United States, Canada, and Europe

Transformative cell and gene therapies have now launched worldwide, and many potentially curative cell and gene therapies are in development, offering the prospect of significant health gains for patients. Access to these therapies depend on decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) and payer organizations. We sought to describe the emerging cell and gene therapies market access landscape by analyzing 17 US commercial payer medical policies, and HTA reports from five European countries and Canada. We found that some US health plans applied coverage restrictions more often than others (four plans applied restrictions in all decisions, while four plans applied restrictions in <30% of decisions). The European and Canadian HTA bodies recommend access to fewer therapies than US health plans, reflecting a more stringent approach in the context of limited evidence and high scientific uncertainty that is commonly associated with these treatments. Our findings suggest that patient access to approved cell and gene therapies is restricted in all regions studied, though the nature of these restrictions differs between US health plans and the European/Canada HTA recommendations. Payers, HTA groups, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders should collaborate to more clearly define the "uncertainties" and develop market access policies that balance benefits of early access with ongoing data collection to close evidence gaps over time.

Insulin glargine 300 units/mL for the treatment of individuals with type 2 diabetes in the real world: A review of the DELIVER programme

Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has shown that second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues, insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec (IDeg), provide similar glycaemic control, with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared with the first-generation BI analogue insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the highly selected participants and frequent follow-up of RCTs may not be truly representative of real-life clinical practice. It is important to assess the safety and effectiveness of these second-generation BI analogues in real-life clinical practice settings. The DELIVER programme utilized electronic healthcare records from the United States to compare clinical outcomes in people with T2D who received either Gla-300 or other BI analogues in real-world clinical practice. This review provides a concise overview of the results of the DELIVER studies. Overall, Gla-300 provided similar antihyperglycaemic effectiveness and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia versus the first-generation BI analogues Gla-100 and insulin detemir in people with T2D who had switched BIs. In those who were insulin-naïve, initiation with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 was associated with significantly better antihyperglycaemic effectiveness and similar or lower hypoglycaemic risk. Both glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk were also shown to be similar with Gla-300 and IDeg, in people who had switched BIs and in those who were insulin-naïve. In addition, the DELIVER 2 study reported that people with T2D who switched to Gla-300 had reduced healthcare resource utilization, with an overall saving of US$1439 per person per year compared with those who switched to another BI analogue. Overall, the real-world DELIVER programme showed that the glycaemic control with a low risk of hypoglycaemia observed with Gla-300 in RCTs was also seen in standard clinical practice.

Are Drugs Priced in Accordance With Value? A Comparison of Value-Based and Net Prices Using Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Reports

OBJECTIVES

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent organization that reviews drugs and devices with a focus on emerging agents. As part of their evaluation, ICER estimates value-based prices (VBP) at $50 000 to $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained thresholds. We compared actual estimated net prices to ICER-estimated VBPs.

METHODS

We reviewed ICER final evidence reports from November 2007 to October 2020. List prices were combined with average discounts obtained from SSR Health to estimate net prices. If a drug had been evaluated more than once for the same indication, only the more recent VBP was included.

RESULTS

A total of 34 ICER reports provided unique VBPs for 102 drugs. The net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100 000 per QALY VBP and 71% exceeded the $150 000 per QALY VBP. The median change in net price needed to reach the $150 000 per QALY VBP was a 36% reduction. The median decrease in net price needed was highest for drugs targeting rare inherited disorders (n = 15; 62%) and lowest for cardiometabolic disorders (n = 6; 162% price increase). The reduction in net prices needed to reach ICER-estimated VBPs was higher for drugs evaluated for the first approved indication, rare diseases, less competitive markets, and if the drug approval occurred before the ICER report became available.

CONCLUSION

Net prices are often above VBPs estimated by ICER. Although gaining awareness among decision makers, the long-term impact of ICER evaluations on pricing and access to new drugs continues to evolve.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants in major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants in major depressive disorder (MDD) are common and associated with poor clinical and functional outcomes and increased health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. However, contemporary real-world evidence on the economic effect of antidepressant nonadherence and nonpersistence is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants on HCRU and costs in adult patients with MDD enrolled in U.S. commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance plans. METHODS: This was a retrospective new-user cohort study using administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. We identified adult patients with MDD aged ≥ 18 years who initiated antidepressant therapy for a new MDD episode between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Twelve-month total all-cause HCRU and costs (2019 U.S. dollars) were characterized for patients who were adherent/nonadherent and persistent/nonpersistent to antidepressants at 6 months. Adherence was defined as having proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 80%, and persistence was defined as having continuous antidepressant therapy without a ≥ 30-day gap. Multivariable negative binomial regression and 2-part models adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for HCRU and incremental costs of nonadherence and nonpersistence, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 224,645 patients with MDD (commercial: n = 209,422; Medicare supplemental: n = 15,223) met all study inclusion criteria. Approximately half of patients were nonadherent (commercial: 48%; Medicare supplemental: 50%) or nonpersistent (commercial: 49%; Medicare supplemental: 52%) to antidepressants at 6 months. After controlling for baseline characteristics, nonadherent patients experienced significantly more inpatient hospitalizations (commercial, adjusted IRR [95% CI]: 1.34 [1.29 to 1.39]; Medicare supplemental: 1.19 [1.12 to 1.28]) and emergency room (ER) visits (commercial, adjusted IRR [95% CI]: 1.43 [1.40 to 1.45]; Medicare supplemental: 1.28 [1.21 to 1.36]) compared with adherent patients. Similar results were observed in nonpersistent patients. Adjusted mean differences revealed that nonadherent and nonpersistent patients accumulated significantly higher medical costs (commercial: $568 [95% CI: $354 to $764] and $491 [$284 to $703]; Medicare supplemental: $1,621 [$314 to $2,774] and $1,764 [$451 to $2,925]), inpatient costs (commercial: $650 [$490 to $801] and $564 [$417 to $716]; Medicare supplemental: $1,546 [$705 to $2,308] and $1,567 [$778 to $2,331]), and ER costs (commercial: $130 [$115 to $143] and $129 [$115 to $142]; Medicare supplemental: $82 [$23 to $150] and $80 [$18 to $150]), and incurred significantly lower pharmacy costs (commercial: -$561 [-$601 to -$521] and -$576 [-$616 to -$540]; Medicare supplemental: -$510 [-$747 to -$227] and -$596 [-$830 to -$325]) compared with adherent and persistent patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found more hospitalizations and ER use and higher total medical costs among patients who were nonadherent and nonpersistent to antidepressants at 6 months. Strategies that promote better adherence and persistence may lower HCRU and medical costs in patients with MDD. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan, which was involved in the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; and decision to present these results. Ta was supported by a training grant provided to the University of Washington by Allergan at the time this study was conducted. Tung and Gillard are employees of Allergan. Oliveri is an employee of Genesis Research. Sullivan and Devine have no financial disclosures. This study was presented as a poster at AMCP 2020 (Virtual Meeting), April 21-24, 2020.

Cost-effectiveness of opicapone and entacapone in reducing OFF-time in Parkinson's disease patients treated with levodopa/carbidopa

AIMS

To assess from a US payer perspective the relative cost-effectiveness of the catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors opicapone and entacapone when used adjunctively to levodopa/carbidopa (LD/CD) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), based on the drugs' effects to reduce absolute OFF-time hours in PD patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was created to estimate cost-effectiveness of adjunctive opicapone treatment compared with adjunctive entacapone treatment in a synthetic cohort of 1,000 patients with PD taking LD/CD. Clinical inputs were derived from clinical trials, published literature, and expert opinion. Cost data (in 2018 US dollars) were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Analy$ource. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included incremental cost per OFF-time hours avoided, cost per life year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Outcomes were projected over a 25-year lifetime horizon and discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

Opicapone treatment was associated with an average of 1,187 fewer OFF-time hours per patient and an increase of 0.07 QALYs compared with entacapone. Total lifetime costs for opicapone were $3,100 higher than entacapone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,900 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed the model was most sensitive to mean OFF-time hours associated with opicapone and entacapone. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 60-65% probability that opicapone was cost-effective relative to entacapone at any willingness-to-pay threshold ≥$5,000.

LIMITATIONS

There exists a single head-to-head clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of opicapone with entacapone, thus the clinical inputs regarding relative treatment effect of the drugs to reduce OFF-time hours in PD patients receiving LD/CD were derived from that single non-inferiority trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Add-on treatment with opicapone in PD patients receiving LD/CD appeared to be cost-effective compared with entacapone.