Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of amivantamab vs mobocertinib in platinum-pretreated EGFR Exon 20 insertion-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: We assessed relative efficacy and safety of amivantamab versus mobocertinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR exon 20 insertion (exon20ins) mutations who progressed on prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Materials & methods: This matching-adjusted indirect comparison used patient-level data from CHRYSALIS (NCT02609776) and aggregate data from a mobocertinib trial (NCT02716116) to match populations on all clinically relevant confounders. Results: While both agents had similar efficacy for time-to-event outcomes, objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab. 15 of 23 any-grade treatment-related adverse events reported for mobocertinib were significantly less common for amivantamab versus only two for mobocertinib. Conclusion: Results suggest that amivantamab has an improved response rate with similar survival and a more favorable safety profile versus mobocertinib in EGFR exon20ins non-small-cell lung cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib compared with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in subsequent line advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japan.

AIMS: The treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma has changed with the introduction of targeted therapies. While the clinical benefit of cabozantinib is well-established for Japanese patients who have received prior treatment, the economic benefit remains unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have failed at least one prior therapy in Japan. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using a partitioned survival approach and a public healthcare payer's perspective. Over a lifetime horizon, clinical and economic implications were estimated according to a three-health-state structure: progression-free, post-progression, and death. Key clinical inputs and utilities were derived from the METEOR trial, and a de novo network meta-analysis and cost data were obtained from publicly available Japanese data sources. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Costs and health benefits were discounted annually at 2%. RESULTS: Cabozantinib was more costly and effective compared with everolimus and axitinib, with deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ¥5,375,559 and ¥2,223,138, respectively. Compared to nivolumab, cabozantinib was predicted to be less costly and more effective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrated that the key drivers of cost-effectiveness results were the estimation of overall survival and treatment duration, relative efficacy, drug costs, and subsequent treatment costs. LIMITATIONS: METEOR was an international trial but did not enroll any patients from Japan. Efficacy and safety data from METEOR were used as a proxy for the Japanese population following validation by clinical experts, and alternative assumptions specific to clinical practice in Japan were evaluated in scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In Japan, cabozantinib is a cost-effective alternative to everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received at least one prior line of therapy.

Calibration and validation of modeled 5-year survival predictions among people with cystic fibrosis treated with the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulator ivacaftor using United States registry data.

OBJECTIVES: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rare genetic disease characterized by life-shortening lung function decline. Ivacaftor, a CF transmembrane conductance regulator modulator (CFTRm), was approved in 2012 for people with CF with specific gene mutations. We used real-world evidence of 5-year mortality impacts of ivacaftor in a US registry population to validate a CF disease-progression model that estimates the impact of ivacaftor on survival. METHODS: The model projects the impact of ivacaftor vs. standard care in people with CF aged ≥6 years with CFTR gating mutations by combining parametric equations fitted to historical registry survival data, with mortality hazards adjusted for fixed and time-varying person-level characteristics. Disease progression with standard care was derived from published registry studies and the expected impact of ivacaftor on clinical characteristics was derived from clinical trials. Individual-level baseline characteristics of the registry ivacaftor-treated population were entered into the model; 5-year model-projected mortality with credible intervals (CrIs) was compared with registry mortality to evaluate the model's validity. RESULTS: Post-calibration 5-year mortality projections closely approximated registry mortality in populations treated with standard care (6.4% modeled [95% CrI: 5.3% to 7.6%] vs. 6.0% observed) and ivacaftor (3.4% modeled [95% CrI: 2.7% to 4.4%] vs. 3.1% observed). The model accurately predicted 5-year relative risk of mortality (0.53 modeled [0.47 to 0.60] vs. 0.51 observed) in people treated with ivacaftor vs. standard care. CONCLUSIONS: Modeled 5-year survival projections for people with CF initiating ivacaftor vs. standard care align closely with real-world registry data. Findings support the validity of modeling CF to predict long-term survival and estimate clinical and economic outcomes of CFTRm.

Modeling long-term health and economic implications of new treatment strategies for Parkinson's disease: an individual patient simulation study.

Background: Simulation modeling facilitates the estimation of long-term health and economic outcomes to inform healthcare decision-making. Objective: To develop a framework to simulate progression of Parkinson's disease (PD), capturing motor and non-motor symptoms, clinical outcomes, and associated costs over a lifetime. Methods: A patient-level simulation was implemented accounting for individual variability and interrelated changes in common disease progression scales. Predictive equations were developed to model progression for newly diagnosed patients and were combined with additional sources to inform long-term progression. Analyses compared a hypothetical disease-modifying therapy (DMT) with a standard of care to explore the drivers of cost-effectiveness. Results: The equations captured the dependence between the various measures, leveraging prior values and rates of change to obtain realistic predictions. The simulation was built upon several interrelated equations, validated by comparison with observed values for the Movement Disorder Society Unified PD Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) and UPDRS subscales over time. In a case study, disease progression rates, patient utilities, and direct non-medical costs were drivers of cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: The developed equations supported the simulation of early PD. This model can support conducting simulations to inform internal decision-making, trial design, and strategic planning early in the development of new DMTs entering clinical trials.

Modeling long-term health outcomes of patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for F508del-CFTR treated with lumacaftor/ivacaftor.

BACKGROUND: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy is efficacious and generally safe for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) homozygous for the F508del-CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) mutation. However, long-term survival benefits of lumacaftor/ivacaftor (LUM/IVA) cannot yet be quantified. Simulation models can provide predictions about long-term health outcomes. In this study, we aimed to project long-term health outcomes of LUM/IVA plus standard care (SC) in patients with CF homozygous for F508del-CFTR. METHODS: This modeling study was an individual patient simulation in US patients aged ⩾6 years with CF, homozygous for F508del-CFTR. The primary outcome was projected survival among (a) a cohort of patients who ever initiated LUM/IVA, accounting for treatment discontinuations, and (b) a cohort of patients who remain on continuous LUM/IVA. Patient characteristics and model parameters were derived from clinical trials: VX14-809-109, VX13-809-011B, TRAFFIC/TRANSPORT, and PROGRESS; published literature; and the US CF Foundation Patient Registry. RESULTS: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor + SC is expected to increase median survival by 6.1 years versus SC alone, accounting for treatment discontinuations. The incremental median predicted survival versus SC assuming initiation of LUM/IVA at ages 6, 12, 18, and 25 years was 17.7, 12.6, 8.0, and 3.8 years, respectively. Assuming lifetime treatment with LUM/IVA, incremental median survival was predicted to be 7.8 years longer in the LUM/IVA + SC cohort. Initiating LUM/IVA at ages 6, 12, 18, and 25 years and assuming lifetime treatment resulted in incremental median predicted survival of 23.4, 18.2, 11.0, and 4.8 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor is projected to increase survival for patients with CF. Initiation at an early age and treatment persistence result in further increments in projected survival.

Cost-effectiveness of Pomalidomide, Carfilzomib, and Daratumumab for the Treatment of Patients with Heavily Pretreated Relapsed-refractory Multiple Myeloma in the United States.

PURPOSE: Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM-d), daratumumab monotherapy (DARA), and carfilzomib monotherapy (CAR) have been approved for use in the treatment of patients with heavily pretreated relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the US, based on findings from the MM-002, SIRIUS, and PX-171-003-A1 studies, respectively. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of POM-d, DARA, and CAR in this patient population from a US payer's perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate the cost and health outcomes over a 3-year time horizon in 3 health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. The main efficacy data source was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison using data from the aforementioned studies. Direct medical costs were considered, including: treatment acquisition and administration (initial line and subsequent line), pre- and post-medication, prophylaxis treatment, adverse event management, and health care resource utilization. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. A scenario analysis that assumed equal efficacy across all 3 treatments was conducted. Costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated and discounted at 3% per annum. FINDINGS: Over 3 years, the use of POM-d was associated with similar life-years and quality-adjusted life-years gained compared with DARA and CAR (incremental: life-years, +0.02 and +0.07, respectively; quality-adjusted life-years, +0.01 and +0.05), and with a cost less than that of DARA (-$8,919) and similar to that of CAR (-$195). Sensitivity analyses illustrated that the results were sensitive to progression-free survival, treatment duration, and drug costs. An equal efficacy scenario resulted in cost-savings relative to those of both DARA and CAR (-$11,779 and -$12,595). IMPLICATIONS: POM-d may be a cost-effective treatment option relative to DARA or CAR in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM in the US.