A Cost Impact Analysis of clonoSEQ® as a Valid and CE-Certified Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Diagnostic Compared to No MRD Testing in Multiple Myeloma in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: The measurement of minimal residual disease (MRD) with clonoSEQ® can be used in the assessment of B-cell lymphoid tumor burden throughout treatment with accuracy, sensitivity and standardization when compared to traditional cytomorphology. With the approval of novel treatments, standardized MRD assessment with improved performance is increasingly important. The aim of this analysis is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of MRD testing with clonoSEQ® compared to no MRD testing for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) on maintenance therapy in Germany. METHODS: The cost impact of clonoSEQ® was analyzed from the German statutory insurance perspective. Clinical data were derived from the literature and expert opinions. Cost input was utilized based on publicly available data and literature. Patients in the MRD arm were tested every 6 months. The deterministic Markov model consists of six health states, and every patient begins at the start of maintenance. Included therapies are lenalidomide for maintenance and carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone for relapse. RESULTS: For a time horizon of 10 years, the deterministic cost impact analysis shows total cost of €279,483 for patients using clonoSEQ® in comparison to €356,623 for simulated patients without MRD testing. The main drivers of the cost differences are saved cost of drug holiday. The savings per patient in 1 year are €18,396. Savings after 3 years are €69,991 per patient. Savings after 10 years are €77,140 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the underlying model, clonoSEQ® can support German health insurance funds to use high-cost drugs more efficiently in the treatment of myeloma.

Diagnostic testing managed by hematopathology specialty and other laboratories: costs and patient diagnostic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Successful management of patients with hematologic malignancies depends upon accurate and timely diagnosis, which frequently requires integration and interpretation of multiple tests. Our retrospective analysis compared diagnostic uncertainty, resource utilization, and costs for patients with diagnostic bone marrow (BM) tests managed by commercial laboratories. METHODS: Patients with BM biopsies and suspected hematologic cancer/condition were identified from claims (2005-2011) within a large US health plan (coverage ≥6 pre- and ≥3-months post-biopsy). Cohorts defined by laboratories performing BM morphologic assessment/directing testing sequence: Genoptix (GX, specialty hematology-testing laboratory), large commercial laboratories (LL), other laboratories (OL). One-year post-biopsy changes in diagnosis or treatments, tests performed, and diagnostic/treatment medical costs (measured as per-patient-per-month [PPPM]) were examined. RESULTS: The study population included 1,387 GX, 4,162 LL, and 19,115 OL patients with suspected hematologic malignancy/disease and BM morphology assessment. GX had lower diagnostic uncertainty measured between 2 time periods by diagnostic stability (no conditions the same; 6.16% GX, 8.04% LL, 9.73% OL; p < 0.001) and changes (≥1 condition different; 7.88% GX, 11.19% LL, and 14.08% OL; p < 0.001), fewer repeat BM biopsies, and fewer chemotherapy changes (30-days and 60-days post-initiation). One-year PPPM costs adjusted for patient characteristics differences were $8,202 GX, $7,711 LL, and $10,302 OL (p < 0.05); adjusted PPPM costs (excluding testing period) were $6,019 GX, $6,649 LL, and $7,801 OL (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that a hematopathology specialty laboratory may result in earlier final diagnosis, fewer subsequent diagnosis changes, reduced need for follow-on testing requiring repeat biopsy procedures, and may result in lower downstream healthcare costs. Further evaluations using medical chart abstractions or registries will be valuable.

Fingolimod versus intramuscular interferon in patient subgroups from TRANSFORMS.

In the 12-month phase 3 TRANSFORMS study, fingolimod showed greater efficacy than intramuscular interferon beta (IFNß)-1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). This study analyzed fingolimod efficacy compared with IFNß-1a in patient subgroups from TRANSFORMS. Patients were randomized to receive fingolimod or weekly IM IFNß-1a for 12 months. Analyses of efficacy included annualized relapse rate (ARR), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures [gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions, new/newly enlarged (active) T2 lesions, brain volume change]. Subgroups were defined based on demographics, disease characteristics (baseline EDSS score, relapse rate, and MRI parameters), and response to previous therapy. Fingolimod 0.5 mg reduced ARR over 12 months by 32-59 % relative to IFNß-1a in all subgroups defined by demographic factors or baseline disease characteristics. Fingolimod also reduced the number of new Gd-enhancing lesions, active T2 lesions, and the rate of brain volume loss, versus IFNß-1a in most (95 %) subgroups. In patients with high disease activity despite IFNß treatment in the year before study, fingolimod 0.5 mg reduced ARR by 61 % relative to IFNß-1a. Reductions in lesion counts and brain volume loss also favored fingolimod in these patients. In conclusion, consistently better efficacy was observed for fingolimod compared with IFNß-1a across different subgroups of patients with RRMS.

Estimating time to disease progression comparing transition models and survival methods--an analysis of multiple sclerosis data.

This article reports an analysis that aims to quantify the effect of fingolimod, an oral treatment for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), on disability progression. The standard approach utilizes survival analysis methods, which may be problematic for MS studies that assess disability at only a few time points and include as a cardinal feature both relapses and remissions. Instead, a Markov transition model, originally developed in the framework of longitudinal data, is fit, and its special probabilistic properties are used to estimate survival curves for time to disability progression. The transition approach models the whole disability process and uses all available transition data for inference, while survival methods concentrate on a single event of interest and use only time to event data. This article compares the transition model approach to survival analysis methods, and discusses the differences in the interpretations of the estimated parameters. It applies both models to data obtained from two phase 3 clinical trials and finds that both yield positive effects for the new treatment compared to placebo, and provide similar estimates for the probability of disability progression over time. The transition model enables calculation of covariate-specific transition matrices that describe the short-term effect of treatment and other covariates on the disability process.

Treatment experience, burden and unmet needs (TRIBUNE) in MS study: results from five European countries.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a common cause of neurological disability in young adults. The TRIBUNE study provides a detailed exploration of costs in relation to relapses and disease severity, and assesses the quality of life impact on MS patients in terms of utilities, fatigue and activities of daily living (ADL). METHODS: Patients in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom) completed a self-administered web-based questionnaire capturing information on demographics, disease characteristics and severity (EDSS), co-morbidities, relapses, resource consumption, utilities, fatigue, and activities of daily living. RESULTS: In total, 1261 MS patients completed the questionnaire. More than half of the patients (68%) had the relapsing-remitting form of the disease; 87% of the sample reported receiving MS treatments. Costs were higher with advancing disease severity; for mild patients (EDSS score ≤ 3) the costs ranged between €13,534 and €22,461 across countries; for moderate (EDSS score 4 - 6.5) between €28,524 and €43,948; for severe (EDSS ≥ 7) between €39,592 and €65,395. Relapses were also associated with increasing costs; the difference in the cost per patient per year for relapsing-remitting patients with EDSS score ≤ 5 that did experience at least one relapse during the past 12 months and those who did not ranged between €3321 and €9430. The quality of life of patients decreased with disease progression and existence of relapses. CONCLUSION: The TRIBUNE study provides an important update on the economic burden of MS in an era of more widespread use of disease-modifying therapies. It explores the cost of MS linked to relapses and disease severity, and examines the impact of MS on additional health outcomes beyond utilities such as ADL and fatigue.

Interpreting scores on multiple sclerosis-specific patient reported outcome measures (the PRIMUS and U-FIS).

BACKGROUND: The PRIMUS is a Multiple Sclerosis (MS)-specific suite of outcome measures including assessments of QoL (PRIMUS QoL, scored 0-22) and activity limitations (PRIMUS Activities, scored 0-30). The U-FIS is a measure of fatigue impact (scored 0-66). These measures have been fully validated previously using an MS sample with mixed diagnoses. The aim of the present study was to validate the measures further in a specifically Relapse Remitting MS (RRMS) sample and to provide preliminary evidence of the responder definitions (RD; also known as minimal important difference) for these instruments. METHODS: Data were derived from a multi-country efficacy trial of MS patients with assessments at baseline and 12 months. Baseline data were used to assess the internal reliability and validity of the measures. Both anchor-based and distribution-based approaches were employed for estimating RD. Anchor-based estimates were based on published RD values for the EQ-5D and were assessed for those improving and deteriorating separately. Distribution-based estimates were based on standard error of measurement (SEM), change score equivalent to 0.30, and change score equivalent to 0.50, effect sizes (ES). RESULTS: The sample included 911 RRMS patients (67.3% female, age mean (SD) 36.2 (8.4) years, duration of MS mean (SD) 4.8 (5.2) years). Results showed that the PRIMUS and U-FIS had good internal consistency. Appropriate correlations were observed with comparator instruments and both measures were able to distinguish between participants based on Expanded Disability Status Scale scores and time since diagnosis. The anchor-based and distribution-based RD estimates were: PRIMUS Activities range = 1.2-2.3, PRIMUS QoL range = 1.0-2.2, and U-FIS range = 2.4-7.0. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the PRIMUS and U-FIS are valid instruments for use with RRMS patients. The analyses provide preliminary information on how to interpret scores on the scales. These data will be useful for assessing treatment efficacy and for powering clinical studies. TRIAL REFERENCE NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00340834.

International development of the patient-reported outcome indices for multiple sclerosis (PRIMUS).

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Indices for Multiple Sclerosis (PRIMUS) comprises a suite of three scales for assessing symptoms, activity limitations, and quality of life in multiple sclerosis (MS). It was developed in the UK and has been shown to have excellent psychometric properties. This study describes the adaptation of eight language versions for Canadian English, Canadian French, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, and US English. METHODS: The PRIMUS was translated using the dual-panel process. Cognitive debriefing interviews conducted with MS patients assessed face and content validity. Psychometric and scaling properties were assessed via a two-administration postal survey conducted in each country involving the PRIMUS, the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), the Unidimensional Fatigue Impact Scale (U-FIS), and demographic questions. RESULTS: Cognitive debriefing interviews demonstrated the acceptability of the new language versions. Analysis of survey data showed that the new language versions of the three PRIMUS scales were unidimensional (as indicated by fit to the Rasch model) and that they had good internal consistency and reproducibility. PRIMUS scale scores correlated as expected with those on the NHP and the U-FIS. The scales in all countries were able to discriminate between groups of patients on the basis of their self-reported MS severity, general health, and employment status. CONCLUSIONS: The PRIMUS was successfully adapted into eight new languages. Most of the tests showed the PRIMUS to have good unidimensionality and to have good internal consistency, reproducibility, and construct validity. The measure is now available for use in clinical studies and trials involving these countries and the UK. Further work is required to assess the measure's responsiveness.

International development of the Unidimensional Fatigue Impact Scale (U-FIS).

OBJECTIVE: The 22-item Unidimensional Fatigue Impact Scale (U-FIS) provides an index of the impact of fatigue on patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The objective is to produce eight new language versions of the U-FIS: Canadian-English, Canadian-French, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, and US-English. METHODS: The U-FIS was translated via two translation panels. Cognitive debriefing interviews conducted with patients in each country assessed face and content validity. Scaling and psychometric properties were assessed via survey data with patients in each country completing the U-FIS, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), and demographic questions. RESULTS: Cognitive debriefing interviews demonstrated U-FIS acceptability. Analysis of postal survey data showed all new language versions to be unidimensional. Reliability was high, with test-retest correlations and internal-consistency coefficients exceeding 0.85. Initial evidence of validity was provided by moderate to high correlations with NHP scales. The U-FIS was able to discriminate between groups based on employment status, perceived MS severity, and general health. CONCLUSION: The U-FIS is a practical new measure of the impact of fatigue. It was successfully adapted into eight new languages to broaden availability for researchers. Psychometric analyses indicated that the new language versions were unidimensional and reproducible with promising construct validity.

Assessing Medicare Health Plan Performance in Serving Beneficiary Subpopulations.

In this analysis, the authors examined differences in managed care health plan performance ratings between selected subgroups of the Medicare population who may have exceptional health care needs (EHCNs) or may require special plan efforts to facilitate effective service use compared with the residual enrolled population. Findings indicated that disabled enrollees have lower plan ratings across all dimensions of performance than do other enrollees. Aged enrollees in self-reported fair/poor health and those with limited independence have lower ratings for most dimensions of performance. Finally, although Hispanic persons and persons other than white were more satisfied with their health plans, overall, they had lower ratings for dimensions of the process of care and access to services.