Referral and adjuvant treatment patterns after nephrectomy in high-risk locoregional renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are routinely assessed for recurrence risk post-nephrectomy and whether patients at high recurrence risk are seen by providers who can evaluate candidacy for adjuvant systemic therapy (AST) and clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all patients with locoregional RCC who underwent nephrectomy via an institutional database within Duke University Health System between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2019. Medical records were reviewed to identify patient characteristics, post-nephrectomy referrals, treatment, and follow-up. Patients with tumor stage ≥3 and grade ≥2, regional lymph node metastasis, or both, were classified as high recurrence risk. RESULTS: Of 618 patients with locoregional RCC who underwent nephrectomy, 136 (22%) had high recurrence risk. Of those, 25 patients with high-risk disease (18%) were referred to medical oncology for discussion of AST; 23 (92%) of these referrals took place in 2018-2019. One patient received adjuvant sunitinib and two patients participated in adjuvant immunotherapy trials. The decision not to receive AST was primarily made by the oncologist in 10 (46%), the patient in 8 (36%), and unrecorded in 4 (18%) of 22 cases, for multiple reasons. Individual surgeons referred high-risk patients for discussion of AST with varying frequency, ranging from 0% to 100% in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing number of patients with locoregional RCC at high recurrence risk referred to medical oncologists after nephrectomy, few patients received AST, including participation in clinical trials. With increasing AST options and ongoing clinical trials in this space, these findings highlight the need for continued efforts at identifying effective AST and referring patients most likely to benefit to medical oncologists. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04309617.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients from a US payer perspective.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of letermovir versus no prophylaxis for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) recipients. A decision model for 100 patients was developed to estimate the probabilities of cytomegalovirus infection, cytomegalovirus disease, various other complications, and death in patients receiving letermovir versus no prophylaxis. The probabilities of clinical outcomes were based on the pivotal phase 3 trial of letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis versus placebo in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT. Costs of prophylaxis with letermovir and of each clinical outcome were derived from published sources or the trial clinical study reports. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used in the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainty around the base-case analysis. In this model, the use of letermovir prophylaxis would lead to an increase of QALYs (619) and direct medical cost ($1 733 794) compared with no prophylaxis (578 QALYs; $710 300) in cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT. Letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost-effective option versus no prophylaxis with base-case analysis ICER $25 046/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the most influential parameter was mortality rate. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 92% probability of letermovir producing an ICER below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY gained. Based on this model, letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost-effective option in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT.

Budget impact analysis of darolutamide for treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide, a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), has been shown to increase metastasis-free survival among men with nmCRPC compared with placebo. This treatment has a novel chemical structure that may also have safety, tolerability, and efficacy advantages for men with nmCRPC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the projected budget impact of including darolutamide on a U.S. payer formulary as a treatment option for men with nmCRPC. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to evaluate darolutamide for nmCRPC for a hypothetical 1-million-member plan over a 5-year period. Costs (drug acquisition, drug administration, and treatment-related adverse events [AEs]) were estimated for 2 scenarios: with and without darolutamide treatment for nmCRPC. The budget impact of darolutamide was calculated as the difference in costs for these 2 scenarios. An analysis for high-risk nmCRPC also was conducted. The model included treatments recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (e.g., apalutamide and enzalutamide) and potential comparators that are used but are not specifically indicated for nmCRPC. All treatments were assumed to be administered in combination with a weighted average androgen deprivation therapy comparator (consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonists, LHRH antagonists, and first-generation antiandrogens). Market share estimates were derived from interviews with physicians treating men with nmCRPC. The model includes grade 3-4 AEs, and the rates were obtained from clinical trial data. Costs were taken from publicly available sources and varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: For a plan with 1 million lives, there were approximately 90 incident cases of nmCRPC (46 high risk) each year, with 332 (109 high risk) treatment-eligible cases by year 5. Darolutamide's market share increased from 3.6% in year 1 to 18% in year 5. Given the utilization of other agents, introducing darolutamide along with other targeted therapies was predicted to increase the total budget by $158,640 ($0.0132 per member per month [PMPM]) in year 1, which decreased over time to a cost savings of $149,240 ($0.0124 PMPM) by year 5. The scenario with darolutamide showed reduced AE costs each year. Similar results were observed for the high-risk nmCRPC population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding darolutamide to a U.S. payer formulary for the treatment of nmCRPC can result in a manageable increase in the budget that is partly offset by AE costs in the first 4 years, followed by a cost savings by year 5. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by RTI Health Solutions under the direction of Bayer U.S. and was funded by Bayer U.S., which was involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Miles and Purser (and/or their institutions) are employees of RTI Health Solutions and received research funding from Bayer U.S. to develop the budget impact model. Appukkuttan and Farej are employees of Bayer U.S. Wen was an employee of Bayer U.S. at the time of the study. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Virtual Learning Event, April 20-24, 2020.

Higher Psoriasis Skin Clearance Is Associated with Lower Annual Indirect Costs in the United States: A Post Hoc Analysis from the CLEAR Study.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is associated with a high economic burden to society. New psoriasis systemic treatments offer the potential for improved skin clearance. Whether a higher degree of clearing translates into economic benefit through decreased work impairment has not been fully determined. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether more complete clearing of psoriasis is associated with a reduction in disease-related indirect costs. METHODS: Pooled data from employed patients included in the CLEAR study, a phase 3b study comparing the efficacy and safety of secukinumab (337 subjects) versus ustekinumab (339 subjects), were classified into 4 levels of skin clearance improvement at weeks 16 and 52: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) improvement from baseline of < 50% (PASI < 50), 50%-74% (PASI 50-74), 75%-89% (PASI 75-89), and ≥ 90% (PASI ≥ 90). Patients completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire for psoriasis (WPAI-PSO), which assessed absenteeism, presenteeism, and a composite overall work impairment over the previous 7 days at weeks 16 and 52. U.S. Department of Labor data were used to calculate annual indirect costs due to work productivity loss. RESULTS: In the CLEAR study, 452 (67%) were employed at baseline and included in this analysis. At week 16, mean overall work impairment significantly decreased with higher PASI improvements: 22.8% for PASI < 50, compared with 13.3% for PASI 50-74 (P = 0.001); 6.4% for PASI 75-89 (P < 0.001); and 4.9% for PASI ≥ 90 (P < 0.001), with the majority of work impairment related to presenteeism. Calculated mean work hours lost by overall work impairment decreased with higher PASI improvements: 8.2 hours lost/week (429 hours/year) for patients with PASI 50; 4.6 hours lost/week (251 hours/year) for PASI 50-74; 2.3 hours lost/week (121 hours/year) for PASI 75-89; and 1.8 hours lost/week (93 hours/year) for PASI ≥ 90. Associated mean annual indirect costs due to work productivity loss per worker decreased with higher PASI improvements: $10,318 for PASI < 50, $6,042 for PASI 50-74, $2,901 for PASI 75-89, and $2,233 for PASI ≥ 90. Similar results were observed at week 52. Mean overall work impairment decreased with higher PASI improvements, ranging from 26.3% for PASI < 50 to 6.9% for PASI ≥ 90. A decrease in overall work hours lost (ranging from 9.5 hours lost/week [495 hours/year] for PASI < 50 to 2.5 hours/week [130 hours/year] for PASI ≥ 90), as well as associated annual indirect costs due to work productivity loss (ranging from $11,906 for PASI < 50 to $3,125 for PASI ≥ 90), were also shown with higher PASI improvements at week 52. CONCLUSIONS: Among working patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, higher PASI improvements were associated with lower work productivity loss and reduced annual indirect costs. By improving and sustaining skin clearance, psoriasis treatments may contribute to increased work productivity and decreased societal economic burden. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Zhao and Herrera are employed by Novartis. Gilloteau is employed by Novartis Pharma AG. McBride, Graham, and Miles are employed by RTI Health Solutions, which provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and received funding from Novartis for manuscript development, analysis development, and general consultation. Feldman reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, and Celgene, along with personal fees from Amgen and Valeant.

Cost Effectiveness of Secukinumab for the Treatment of Active Ankylosing Spondylitis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human interleukin-17A inhibitor, for adults in the UK with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have not responded adequately to previous treatment with conventional care (CC; biologic-naïve population) or previous biologic therapy (biologic-experienced population). PERSPECTIVE AND SETTING: UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: The model was structured as a 3-month decision tree leading into a Markov model. Comparators were licensed tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (including available biosimilars) and CC in the biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced populations, respectively. Clinical parameters captured treatment response, short-term disease activity and patient functioning, as well as long-term structural disease progression. Utilities were derived from secukinumab trial data. List prices were used for all drugs. The cost year was 2017 and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: In the biologic-naïve population, secukinumab dominated adalimumab and certolizumab pegol. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) versus other comparators were either below £10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained or south-west ICERs that implied cost effectiveness of secukinumab. In biologic-experienced patients, the ICER for secukinumab versus CC was £4927 per QALY gained. Treatment response rates, short-term treatment effects, long-term radiographic progression and biologic acquisition costs were key model drivers. Scenario analysis found results to be robust to changes in model structural assumptions. Probabilistic analysis identified greater uncertainty in results in the biologic-naïve population. CONCLUSIONS: Even at list price, secukinumab appears to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources for biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients with active AS. Further research on long-term radiographic progression outcomes would be valuable for future cost-effectiveness analyses in AS.

Cost Effectiveness of Secukinumab for the Treatment of Active Psoriatic Arthritis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine the cost effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human interleukin-17A inhibitor, for adults in the UK with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) naïve and without concomitant moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and who have responded inadequately to conventional systemic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). PERSPECTIVE AND SETTING: The study took the perspective and setting of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: The model structure was a 3-month decision tree leading into a Markov model. Separate analyses based on the number of prior csDMARDs (one and two or more) were conducted, with secukinumab 150 mg compared to standard of care (SoC) and TNFis, respectively, for each subpopulation. Clinical parameters, including response at 3 months, were from the FUTURE 2 trial and a network meta-analysis. Outcomes included total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over the 40-year time horizon (3.5% annual discount for both outcomes; cost year 2017), and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The ICER for secukinumab 150 mg versus SoC was £28,748 per QALY gained (one prior csDMARD). Secukinumab 150 mg dominated golimumab, certolizumab pegol and etanercept, and had an ICER of £5680 per QALY gained versus adalimumab and > £1 million saved per QALY foregone versus infliximab (two or more prior csDMARDs). Valuing one QALY at between £20,000 and £30,000, the probability of secukinumab having the highest net monetary benefit was 48.9% (one prior csDMARD) and 88.9% (two or more prior csDMARDs). Parameters related to Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were most influential. CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab 150 mg at list price appears to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources for adults with PsA who have responded inadequately to one or two or more prior csDMARDs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of secukinumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: a Canadian perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin (IL)-17A, vs currently licensed biologic treatments in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A decision analytic semi-Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg compared to subcutaneous biologics adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and ustekinumab, and intravenous biologics infliximab and infliximab biosimilar in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients over a lifetime horizon. The response to treatments was evaluated after 12 weeks by PsA Response Criteria (PsARC) response rates. Non-responders or patients discontinuing initial-line of biologic treatment were allowed to switch to subsequent-line biologics. Model input parameters (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI], Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ], withdrawal rates, costs, and resource use) were collected from clinical trials, published literature, and other Canadian sources. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). An annual discount rate of 5% was applied to costs and benefits. The robustness of the study findings were evaluated via sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Biologic-naive patients treated with secukinumab achieved the highest number of QALYs (8.54) at the lowest cost (CAD 925,387) over a lifetime horizon vs all comparators. Secukinumab dominated all treatments, except for infliximab and its biosimilar, which achieved minimally more QALYs (8.58). However, infliximab and its biosimilar incurred more costs than secukinumab (infliximab: CAD 1,015,437; infliximab biosimilar: CAD 941,004), resulting in higher cost-effectiveness estimates relative to secukinumab. In the biologic-experienced population, secukinumab dominated all treatments as it generated more QALYs (8.89) at lower costs (CAD 954,692). Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated the results were most sensitive to variation in PsARC response rates, change in HAQ, and utility values in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab is either dominant or cost-effective vs all licensed biologics for the treatment of active PsA in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced populations in Canada.

Economic Evaluation of Dupilumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Dupilumab significantly improves signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), including pruritus, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and health-related quality of life versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Since the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab has not been evaluated, the objective of this analysis was to estimate a value-based price range in which dupilumab would be considered cost-effective compared with supportive care (SC) for treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in an adult population. METHODS: A health economic model was developed to evaluate from the US payer perspective the long-term costs and benefits of dupilumab treatment administered every other week (q2w). Dupilumab q2w was compared with SC; robustness of assumptions and results were tested using sensitivity and scenario analyses. Clinical data were derived from the dupilumab LIBERTY AD SOLO trials; healthcare use and cost data were from health insurance claims histories of adult patients with AD. The annual price of maintenance therapy with dupilumab to be considered cost-effective was estimated for decision thresholds of US$100,000 and $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In the base case, the annual maintenance price for dupilumab therapy to be considered cost-effective would be $28,770 at a $100,000 per QALY gained threshold, and $39,940 at a $150,000 threshold. Results were generally robust to parameter variations in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab q2w compared with SC is cost-effective for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in US adults at an annual price of maintenance therapy in the range of $29,000-$40,000 at the $100,000-$150,000 per QALY thresholds. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Cost-effectiveness of Low-dose Submicron Diclofenac Compared With Generic Diclofenac.

PURPOSE: NSAIDs are commonly prescribed for the treatment of pain and inflammation. Despite the effectiveness of NSAIDs, concerns exist regarding their tolerability. Worldwide health authorities, including the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the US Food and Drug Administration, have advised that NSAIDs be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage and for the shortest duration. Effective lowering of NSAID dosage without compromising pain relief has been demonstrated in randomized, controlled trials of the recently approved NSAID lower-dose submicron diclofenac. Building on previously published work from an independently published systematic review and meta-analysis, a linear dose-toxicity relationship between diclofenac dose and serious gastrointestinal (GI) events was recently demonstrated, indicating that reductions in adverse events (AEs) may be seen even with modest dose reductions in many patients. The objective of the present study was to estimate the potential reduction in risk for NSAID dose-related AEs, corresponding savings in health care costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness of submicron diclofenac compared with generic diclofenac in the United States. METHODS: Our decision-analytic cost-effectiveness model considered a subset of potential AEs that may be avoided by lowering NSAID dosage. To estimate the expected reductions in upper GI bleeding/perforation and major cardiovascular events with submicron diclofenac, our model used prediction equations estimated by meta-regressions using data from systematic literature reviews. Utilities, lifetime costs, and health outcomes associated with AEs were estimated using data from the literature. The face validity of the model structure and inputs was confirmed by clinical experts in the United States. Results were evaluated in 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. FINDINGS: The model predicted that submicron diclofenac versus generic diclofenac could reduce the occurrence of modeled GI events (by 18.0%), cardiovascular events (by 6.9%), and acute renal failure (by 18.8%), leading to a 9.8% reduction in costs of treating AEs. Submicron diclofenac was predicted to be cost-saving, with results relatively insensitive to parameter uncertainty. IMPLICATIONS: Submicron diclofenac has the potential to provide clinical and economic value to patients using NSAIDs in the United States. Further investigation regarding the potential effects of submicron diclofenac on the risks for additional NSAID dose-related toxicities should be explored.

Relationship between diclofenac dose and risk of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events: meta-regression based on two systematic literature reviews.

BACKGROUND: NSAIDs are associated with risks of gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) toxicities. It has been reported that the risks of GI and CV events are dose related, resulting in guidance explicitly emphasizing the use of NSAIDs at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration. To understand the potential benefits of using lower doses of diclofenac, a more detailed understanding of the relationship of diclofenac dose and the risks of GI and CV events is required. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to extend previous research quantifying the NSAID dose-toxicity relationship by modeling dose as a continuous measure, allowing for an assessment of the risks of major GI and CV events for patients taking specific diclofenac doses compared with NSAID nonusers. METHODS: We used studies identified in 2 recently published systematic reviews of observational studies that examined the risks of major GI and CV events associated with the use of oral NSAIDs. We developed meta-regression models, considering dose as a continuous measure, to estimate the risks of major GI and CV events for different daily doses of conventional oral diclofenac relative to nonuse of NSAIDs. RESULTS: Seven of the 59 GI publications, contributing 11 dose-specific risk ratio observations, and 12 of the 51 CV studies, contributing 21 dose-specific risk ratio observations, were eligible for inclusion in the meta-regression. The models indicated positive linear relationships between diclofenac dose and the relative risks of major GI and CV events for the range of doses examined. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify and aggregate the continuous relationship between the risk of GI or CV events and the dosage of an NSAID. With the recent availability of new low doses of diclofenac, the models may be used to estimate the potential reduction in risk of adverse events at these doses.