Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of HER2 amplification, overexpression, and positivity in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death globally. Recent clinical trials suggest an emerging role for HER2 as a potential clinically relevant biomarker in CRC. Testing for HER2 in CRC is not standard practice; consequently, the prevalence of HER2 positivity (HER2+) in patients with CRC remains uncertain.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted to generate estimates of proportions of patients with CRC with HER2 overexpression or HER2 amplification and HER2+ (either overexpression or amplification), overall and in patients with rat sarcoma virus (RAS) wild-type cancer. HER2+ was defined as 1) immunohistochemistry with a score of 3+, 2) immunohistochemistry with a score of 2+ and in situ hybridization+, or 3) next-generation sequencing positive.

RESULTS

Of 224 studies identified with information on HER2 in CRC, 52 studies used a US Food and Drug Administration-approved assay and were selected for further analysis. Estimated HER2+ rate was 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 5.0%) overall (n = 17 589). HER2+ rates were statistically higher in RAS wild-type (6.1%, 95% CI = 5.4% to 6.9%) vs RAS mutant CRC (1.1%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 4.4%; P < .0001). Despite limited clinical information, we confirmed enrichment of HER2+ CRC in patients with microsatellite stable and left-sided CRC.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides an estimate of HER2+ CRC and confirms enrichment of HER2 in microsatellite stable, left-sided, RAS wild-type CRC tumors. Our work is important given the recently described clinical efficacy of HER2-targeted therapies in HER2+ CRC and informs strategies for incorporation of HER2 testing into standard of care.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with post-stroke spasticity before and after spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxina

BACKGROUND

Real-world data regarding the impact of onabotulinumtoxinA on healthcare resource utilization and costs for post-stroke spasticity are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To compare differences in 12-month healthcare resource utilization and costs before and after post-stroke spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxinA.

METHODS

This retrospective claims analysis of IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases included adults with ≥ 1 onabotulinumtoxinA claim for post-stroke spasticity (1 January 2010 to 30 June 2018) and continuous enrolment for ≥ 12 months pre- and post-index (first onabotulinumtoxinA claim date). All-cause and spasticity-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared 12 months pre- and post-index (McNemar's χ2 test or paired t-test). A subgroup analysis assessed effect of stroke-to-index interval on costs.

RESULTS

Among 735 patients, mean (standard deviation) stroke-date-to-index-date interval was 284.5 (198.8) days. Decreases were observed post-index for mean all-cause outpatient (62.9 vs 60.5; p ≤ 0.05) and emergency department visits (1.1 vs 0.8; p ≤ 0.0001), and hospital admissions (1.5 vs 0.4; p ≤ 0.0001). Increase in prescription fills (43.0 vs 53.7) was seen post-index. Post-index decreases in all-cause (-66%) and spasticity-related (-51%) costs were driven by reduced inpatient care costs. Findings were consistent regardless of stroke-date-to-index-date interval.

CONCLUSION

Significant reductions in healthcare resource utilization and costs were observed after 1 year of post-stroke spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxinA. Long-term studies are needed to establish causality.

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.

Systematic literature review and testing of HER2 status in urothelial carcinoma (UC)

556

Background: Recent clinical trials suggest an emerging role for HER2-targeted therapy in locally advanced and metastatic UC (LA/mUC). The prevalence of HER2 expression and gene amplification (encoded by ERBB2) in LA/mUC has not been well defined, as testing for HER2 expression in LA/mUC is not part of current routine practice and is not standardized. We report (1) findings of a systematic literature review (SLR) of HER2 status in LA/mUC and (2) preliminary results of an ongoing evaluation of HER2 status in UC assaying HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gene amplification by in situ hybridization (ISH). Methods: (1) The SLR used databases PubMed and EMBASE to identify English-language studies of LA/mUC HER2 status published Jan2000 – Oct2021. We used the following definitions: HER2-positive (HER2+) was defined as IHC 3+, or IHC 2+ with HER2 gene amplification (Amp+). HER2-low was defined as IHC 2+/Amp–, or as IHC 1+. HER2-zero was defined as IHC 0. Weighted averages were calculated to estimate population prevalence. (2) Commercially sourced, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded surgical resections of primary UC were evaluated by trained readers for HER2 protein expression using the VENTANA HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody IHC assay and for HER2 gene amplification using the VENTANA HER2 Dual ISH DNA Probe Cocktail that detects both ERBB2 and its residing chromosome, chromosome 17 (Chr17), using a two-color chromogenic stain. HER2 IHC staining was scored based on an established scoring algorithm for gastric cancer. HER2 gene amplification was defined by a HER2/Chr17 ratio ≥2.0. Results: (1) Of 744 records screened for the SLR, 45 studies reported HER2 status, including 10,602 patients (pts) with LA/mUC. A variety of assays and scoring guidelines were used. In the 4 studies (862 pts) reporting data applicable to our predefined criteria for HER2 status, the percentage of HER2+ ranged from 6.7% to 37.5% (weighted average, 13.1%; 95% CI, 7.3%–18.8%). (2) Of 252 UC samples evaluated, 38 were HER2+ (15.1%; 95% CI, 11.2%–20.0%), 74 were HER2-low (29.4%; 95% CI, 24.1%–35.3%), and 140 were HER2-zero (55.5%; 95% CI: 49.4%–61.6%; Table). The HER2 gene was amplified in 31 (12.3%), among them 24 (77.4%) at stage III or IV muscle-invasive UC (MIUC). Conclusions: The SLR revealed wide variability of HER2 status in LA/mUC, highlighting a lack of standardized methods for assessing and defining HER2 status. In our large study using standardized laboratory methods, 44% of UC samples were HER2+ or HER2-low, and HER2 status distribution was consistent with that reported for pts with LA/mUC. Results suggest a potentially important role for HER2-targeted therapy for UC. [Table: see text]

Total healthcare cost savings through improved bipolar I disorder identification using the Rapid Mood Screener in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder

INTRODUCTION

Misdiagnosis of bipolar I disorder (BP-I) as major depressive disorder (MDD) leads to increased healthcare resource utilization and costs. The cost-effectiveness of the Rapid Mood Screener (RMS), a tool to identify BP-I in patients with depressive symptoms, was assessed in patients diagnosed with MDD presenting with depressive episodes.

METHODS

A decision-tree model of a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients in a US health plan was used to estimate the number of correct diagnoses and overall total, direct healthcare costs over a 3-year timeframe for RMS-screened versus unscreened patients. Model inputs included the prevalence of BP-I in patients diagnosed with MDD, RMS sensitivity/specificity, and the cost of misdiagnosing BP-I as MDD.

RESULTS

Screening with the RMS resulted in 171, 159, and 143 additional correct BP-I or MDD diagnoses at Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Total healthcare plan cost savings were $1279 per patient in Year 1. Cumulative cost savings per patient for RMS screening versus no RMS screening were $2307 over 2 years and $3011 over 3 years. Scenario analyses showed that the RMS would remain cost-saving assuming a lower prevalence of BP-I (20% or 10%) versus the base case (24.3%).

CONCLUSION

The RMS is a cost-effective tool to identify BP-I in patients who would otherwise be misdiagnosed with MDD. Screening with the RMS resulted in cost-savings over 3 years, with model results remaining robust even with lower prevalence of BP-I and reduced RMS sensitivity assumptions.

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.

Oncology Simulation Model: A Comprehensive and Innovative Approach to Estimate and Project Prevalence and Survival in Oncology

OBJECTIVE

We demonstrate a new model framework as an innovative approach to more accurately estimate and project prevalence and survival outcomes in oncology.

METHODS

We developed an oncology simulation model (OSM) framework that offers a customizable, dynamic simulation model to generate population-level, country-specific estimates of prevalence, incidence of patients progressing from earlier stages (progression-based incidence), and survival in oncology. The framework, a continuous dynamic Markov cohort model, was implemented in Microsoft Excel. The simulation runs continuously through a prespecified calendar time range. Time-varying incidence, treatment patterns, treatment rates, and treatment pathways are specified by year to account for guideline-directed changes in standard of care and real-world trends, as well as newly approved clinical treatments. Patient cohorts transition between defined health states, with transitions informed by progression-free survival and overall survival as reported in published literature.

RESULTS

Model outputs include point prevalence and period prevalence, with options for highly granular prevalence predictions by disease stage, treatment pathway, or time of diagnosis. As a use case, we leveraged the OSM framework to estimate the prevalence of bladder cancer in the United States.

CONCLUSION

The OSM is a robust model that builds upon existing modeling practices to offer an innovative, transparent approach in estimating prevalence, progression-based incidence, and survival for oncologic conditions. The OSM combines and extends the capabilities of other common health-economic modeling approaches to provide a detailed and comprehensive modeling framework to estimate prevalence in oncology using simulation modeling and to assess the impacts of new treatments on prevalence over time.

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]

Trends in treatment patterns and costs of care among patients with advanced stage cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Current treatments for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) do not offer satisfactory clinical benefits, with most patients progressing beyond first-line (1L) treatment. With new treatments under investigation, understanding current treatment patterns, the impact of newly approved therapies, and total costs of care for r/mCC are important.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a US commercial insurance claims database to identify adult patients with r/mCC between 2015 and Q1-2020; defining 1L treatment as the first administration of systemic treatment without concomitant chemoradiation or surgery. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, duration of therapy, and total costs of care were evaluated for each line of therapy.

RESULTS

1323 women initiated 1L treatment for r/mCC (mean age, 56.1 years; mean follow-up, 16.5 months). One-third (n = 438) had evidence of second-line (2L) treatment; of these, 129 (29%) had evidence of third-line (3L) treatment. No regimen represented a majority among 2L+ treatments. The 2018 approval of pembrolizumab led to increased 2L immunotherapy use (0% in 2015, 37% in 2019/Q1-2020). However, only a small proportion of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period. Mean per-patient-per-month total costs of care during treatment were $47,387 (1L), $77,661 (2L), and $53,609 (3L), driven primarily by outpatient costs.

CONCLUSIONS

No clear standard of care was observed in 2L+. Although immunotherapy is increasingly used in 2L+, only a small subset of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period, suggesting a need for more therapeutic options. Better understanding of disease biology and the introduction of new therapies may address these unmet needs.

The effectiveness and value of targeted immune modulators for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Pandey, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER related to this study and reports other support from the CEA Registry Sponsors and consulting and advisory board fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, the Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, unrelated to this work. Bloudek reports grants from ICER related to this work and reports fees from AbbVie, Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, TerSera Therapeutics, and Incyte, unrelated to this work. Carlson reports grants from ICER related to this work.

Realized and Projected Cost-Savings from the Introduction of Generic Imatinib Through Formulary Management in Patients with Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia

BACKGROUND

Imatinib, a first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), and the newer second-generation TKIs have dramatically improved outcomes for patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). A previous model estimated the potential cost-savings over the next 2 years after the loss of patent exclusivity for imatinib in the United States in 2016 and its availability in a generic form. Payers have indeed realized meaningful savings, but it took 2 years for the prices of generic imatinib to decline substantially.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the cost-savings for a US health plan from the passive substitution of generic imatinib and the impact of step-edit therapy with the use of generic imatinib before coverage of a second-generation TKI.

METHODS

We updated the previously published model utilizing hypothetical 1-million-member commercial and Medicare plans to include current TKI use and pricing combined with recent epidemiologic data. Regression models were used to project utilization to 5 years after the loss of imatinib's patent exclusivity. We compared generic imatinib costs with a scenario in which generic imatinib was not available. The impact of a step-edit therapy restriction was explored for patients with incident CML. The analyses were repeated for the entire US population based on national census data.

RESULTS

The 1-million-member commercial plan saved $0.5 million (3%) from pharmacy spending on TKIs in year 1 and $3.9 million (19%) in year 2 after the loss of patent exclusivity. The projected savings significantly increased to $7.8 million (37%), $8.3 million (39%), and $8.6 million (40%) in years 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Step-edits strategies were projected to result in small incremental savings of $0.3 million (1.5%) annually in years 3 to 5. The 1-million-member Medicare plan saved $1.7 million (3%) in year 1 and $14.1 million (19%) in year 2. The projected savings were $27.8 million (37%), $29.5 million (39%), and $30.8 million (40%), with step-edit estimated to add only $0.9 million (1.2%) annually in years 3 to 5. Generic imatinib saved US payers $2.5 billion (13% of the total spending on TKIs) in years 1 and 2. In years 3 to 5, the cumulative projected savings totaled $12.2 billion, and the savings were expected to grow to 39% as a result of passive generic imatinib substitution, with only 1.7% additional savings from step-edit restriction.

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of a lower price for generic imatinib relative to the brand-name version of the drug, substantial cost-savings to US payers over the next 3 years are expected without step-edit formulary management restrictions. Cost-saving strategies, including formulary management restrictions, should adhere to evidence-based guidelines to ensure the appropriate use of generic imatinib and all available TKIs, with the objective to maintain positive outcomes and, in turn, increase the value of patient care.

Cost-effectiveness of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate inhalation powder for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD in the US

Background

Indacaterol 27.5 µg/glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg) inhalation powder, a twice-daily, fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA), is indicated in the US for long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD. The safety and efficacy of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg have been established, but cost-effectiveness is not yet known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg with other long-acting COPD maintenance therapies.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective. Health states were defined as mild (post-bronchodilator FEV₁ ≥80% of predicted), moderate (50% ≤FEV₁ <80% of predicted), severe (30% ≤FEV₁ <50% of predicted), and very severe (FEV₁ <30% of predicted) COPD. Patients entering the model transitioned through health states based on placebo-adjusted change from baseline in trough FEV₁ for each comparator at week 12. Comparators included other US Food and Drug Administration-approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations as well as commonly prescribed LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model assumptions and the overall robustness of the results.

Results

Using the model, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg treatment for 12 weeks resulted in total costs of US $23,375 vs US $9,365 for placebo. Compared with placebo, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 treatment resulted in the highest improvement in FEV₁ across all comparators and the lowest cost per decline in 100 mL FEV₁. IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg was also among the most cost-effective treatment option as measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire response rate, at US $3,518 per additional responder at 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg had the lowest cost per severe exacerbation avoided vs placebo across all comparators (US $87,686).

Conclusion

This model, developed from the US payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon, found IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Costs associated with long-acting insulin analogues in patients with diabetes

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this literature review was to evaluate the costs associated with the use of long-acting insulin analogues (LAIAs) compared with non-LAIA agents, including human insulin, oral antidiabetic drugs, and other injectable therapies, in the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D).

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of the medical literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, EconLit) conducted from 2004 to 2016.

METHODS

The review protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria for studies were: patients with T1D and/or T2D, LAIA intervention, and comparators, including oral antidiabetics (OADs) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH). Outcomes of interest were adherence measures; economic outcomes, including total costs, cost savings, and willingness-to-pay; and cost-effectiveness or incremental cost-effectiveness analyses. Real-world costs of individual LAIAs were also evaluated and are often compared against those of other LAIAs in the economic analyses.

RESULTS

We identified and included 117 relevant studies. Patients using LAIAs had higher drug costs than those using OADs and NPH but had neutral or reduced total and diabetes-related costs compared with patients using non-LAIAs. Use of LAIA pen-delivery systems may lead to improved adherence and reduction in costs. Patients receiving insulin glargine demonstrated higher adherence and persistence than patients on insulin detemir. Economic models suggest that LAIAs are more cost-effective than NPH for T1D; for T2D, insulin glargine is more costly than NPH but less so than insulin detemir.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher drug costs, the real-world overall medical costs of LAIAs are not significantly different from those of NPH in patients with diabetes. The findings may be helpful for formulary decision making for patients with diabetes in a cost-constrained environment.

Estimating the Economic Impact of Adding Panobinostat to a U.S. Formulary for Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Budget Impact and Cost-Benefit Model

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is an incurable B-cell malignancy with a natural history that involves alternating periods of remission and subsequent relapse. For relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), the typical patient currently receives more lines of therapy than has been feasible in the past, translating into longer progression-free survival (PFS). Consequently, cost issues have become more prominent because patients may be offered newer and more expensive therapies during a more prolonged overall treatment course.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the economic impact of adding panobinostat to a U.S. health plan formulary as a treatment option with bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with RRMM previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), using a budget impact and cost-benefit model.

METHODS

Total costs of commonly used salvage therapy regimens were combined with market share data and population prevalence estimates of RRMM to yield the total cost of treatment, from the perspective of a U.S. third-party payer (commercial or Medicare) with a time horizon of 1 year. Comparator treatment regimens included bortezomib-dexamethasone, lenalidomide-dexamethasone, lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone, carfilzomib monotherapy, carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Costs (2015 U.S. dollars) included drug costs for oral oncology agents, medical and administration costs for injectable oncology agents, costs of adverse event (AE) prophylaxis and monitoring, and costs of grade 3/4 AEs.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, the annual number of RRMM patients with previous PI and IMiD treatments was estimated at 16 and 118 for a commercial and Medicare plan, respectively. Introduction of panobinostat as part of the panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone regimen was not expected to result in a substantial budget impact to either commercial or Medicare plans, with an incremental cost < $0.01 per member per month. Panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had a low cost per treated patient per month without progression, owing to the minimal increase in expenditure over existing bortezomib-based regimens and long median PFS, compared with median duration of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding panobinostat to a plan formulary as a treatment option is expected to be cost neutral (and potentially cost saving in the context of new and more expensive treatment regimens). With a low cost per month without progression, panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone represents good value for the money.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was sponsored by Novartis, East Hanover, New Jersey. Bloudek and Kish are employees of Xcenda, a consulting company contracted by Novartis to conduct this analysis. Roy, Globe, and Kuriakose are employees of Novartis. Siegel is on the advisory boards and speaker's bureau of Celgene, Onyx/Amgen, Millennium/Takeda, and Novartis and is on the advisory boards of Merck. Jagannath is a consultant to Sanofi, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Celgene. Orloski is a contractor to Xcenda and provided medical writing support, which was funded by Novartis. Study design and concept were contributed by Bloudek, Roy, and Kish, assisted by Globe. Bloukek took the lead in data collection, along with Kish, and data interpretation was performed by Siegal, Jagannath, Globe, and Kuriakose. The manuscript was written primarily by Orloski, along with Roy and Kish, and revised by Roy, along with Siegal, Jagannath, Globe, Orloski, and Kuriakose.

Budget impact of treating commercially insured type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in the United States with insulin degludec compared to insulin glargine

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the annual budget impact if all US commercially insured type 1 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T1DM_BBT), type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-oral therapy (T2DM_BOT), and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T2DM_BBT) switched from insulin glargine (IGlar) to insulin degludec (IDeg).

METHODS

A short-term (1 year) budget impact model was developed to evaluate the costs of IDeg vs. IGlar in three treatment groups (T1DM_BBT, insulin-naïve T2DM_BOT, and T2DM_BBT) through a simulation for a potential US health plan population of 35 million. The analysis captured direct medical costs associated with insulin treatment (insulin, needles, and self-monitored glucose testing) and costs related to managing hypoglycemic episodes. There were a total of 59,780 T1DM_BBT patients, 383,145 T2DM_BOT patients, and 171,325 T2DM_BBT patients expected to be using long-acting insulin. A sensitivity analysis on the entire US population was also conducted.

RESULTS

Among T1DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an annual cost savings of -$357.13 per patient per year (PPPY), driven primarily by reduced insulin utilization. IDeg was also found to be cost saving among T2DM_BOT patients (-$1206.61 PPPY), driven primarily by reductions in the cost of treating severe hypoglycemic episodes. Among T2DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an additional cost to the plan of $1420.04 PPPY; however, this result was driven by a higher insulin dose for IDeg compared to IGlar. Overall, IDeg demonstrated cost savings of $240 million per year, which accounted for total cost savings of 3.5% vs. IGlar.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis suggest that the reduced insulin utilization and fewer hypoglycemic episodes associated with IDeg may translate into reduced costs for payers. The model is limited by simplification of a complex disease state and assumptions surrounding disease state, treatment patterns, and costs. Therefore, results may not accurately reflect actual health plans or real-world practice patterns.

Estimating the Costs of Therapy in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Model Framework

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is a progressive cancer for which there is no cure. Despite treatment, almost all patients eventually experience periods of disease relapse and remission. With the increasing use of novel therapies, including bortezomib, lenalidomide, carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and panobinostat, benchmarks for assessing the value of these therapies in treating patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) are needed for physicians and payers alike.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a model framework and to calculate an annual estimate of the total costs per patient for the treatment of patients with RRMM using 7 common treatment regimens, including bortezomib plus dexamethasone; panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone; lenalidomide plus dexamethasone; lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone; carfilzomib; carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone; and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone.

METHODS

The expenditures for drugs and their administration, for prophylaxis and adverse event monitoring, and for the treatment of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were included in the calculations of the total pharmacy and medical costs. The drug costs were based on published pricing and labeled dosing schedules; the adverse event prophylaxis and monitoring costs were obtained from peer-reviewed publications; and the adverse event incidence rates were obtained from each regimen's prescribing information and from clinical trials. All the costs were summed over the duration of therapy for which the drugs were administered and were calculated separately for commercial and Medicare plans. The duration of therapy for each regimen was the time for which a patient had to be receiving the regimen to obtain 12 months of progression-free survival based on the duration-of-therapy to progression-free survival ratio observed from published clinical trials and/or the drug's labeling.

RESULTS

The pharmacy costs were highest for pomalidomide plus dexamethasone, whereas the medical costs were highest for the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. The total cost associated with available treatments for RRMM was highest for regimens that included lenalidomide (approximate range, $126,000-$256,000). Only bortezomib plus dexamethasone and the combination of panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone had total costs that were lower than $125,000 per patient.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first model developed to comprehensively estimate the costs of managing RRMM with all currently approved and guideline-recommended regimens in the United States. As such, it provides the framework and basis for further budget impact analyses and for cost-effectiveness comparisons with these regimens.

Health care resource utilization following initiation of a triptan: a retrospective claims analysis

BACKGROUND

23 million Americans suffer from migraine headaches, incurring more than $1 billion in direct medical costs each year (with another $13 billion in indirect productivity losses). Triptans are the most common treatment of choice for these patients; however, adherence and persistence to triptans are poor. Partly due to poor adherence to therapy, the ability of triptans to reduce the utilization of other medical services and prescription drugs remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) assess changes in the utilization of medical services and relevant prescription drugs after patients suffering from episodic migraines begin triptan therapy and (b) further investigate the relationship between concomitant opioid use among triptan-treated migraine patients and further utilization of medical services and prescription drugs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of pharmacy and medical insurance claims was carried out using a large and nationally representative database. The utilization patterns of episodic migraine patients were observed for 12 to 24 months prior to their first triptan prescription and 12 to 24 months following that prescription. Resource utilization included physician office visits, diagnostic imaging, emergency room use, inpatient hospitalization, opioid prescriptions, migraine prophylaxis prescriptions, and acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory prescriptions. Results were stratified according to triptan-switching behavior.

RESULTS

The analytic sample included 9,521 migraine patients who were followed for a median of 550 days before and after their first triptan fill. 40.9% of these patients filled their triptan prescriptions only once (index fill). Another 40.3% filled a triptan prescription at least twice and never switched their triptan brand. 15.6% of patients switched their triptan prescriptions once, and 3.2% of patients switched their triptan prescriptions twice or more. The only group to display significant reductions in resource utilization following the prescription of a triptan was the cohort that never refilled the medication, potentially suggestive of misdiagnosis. Either no significant change or a significant increase in resource utilization was seen in all other cases. The ability of triptans to reduce resource utilization seemed to be lower among patients who switched triptans more often. Patients that concomitantly used opioid medications in addition to triptans also used significantly more resources than migraine patients who were not treated with opioids.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to the findings of some previous research, the initiation of triptan therapy did not significantly reduce the utilization of migraine-related medical services or other relevant prescription drugs in this retrospective claims analysis. This may have been due to higher and more realistic rates of triptan switching and discontinuation. Consistent with previous findings, patients using concomitant opioids used more migraine-related health care resources.