Search

Aims: To estimate the extent to which the approvals of new pharmacological therapies were associated with cancer mortality in the USA between 2000 and 2016., Materials and Methods: The analysis quantified cancer drug approvals across the 15 tumor types with the highest incidence. Number of approvals in a given time period for each tumor was translated into a treatment stock measure, defined as a weighted sum of new indication approvals since 1976. The primary outcome was the annual tumor-specific cancer mortality, defined as the number of deaths per 100,000 U.S. population. The analysis used a multivariable ordinary least squares and a fixed effects model, controlling for incidence (new cases per 100,000 U.S. population) and the primary exposure, the treatment stock measure by year., Results: Between 2000 and 2016, deaths per 100,000 population across the 15 most common tumor types declined by 24%. Additionally, 10.2 new indications were approved per year across the 15 most common tumor types. Cancer drug approvals were associated with statistically significant deaths averted in 2016 for colorectal cancer (4,991, p  = 0.004), lung cancer (33,825, p  < 0.001), breast cancer (11,502, p  < 0.001), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (6,636, p  < 0.001), leukemia (4,011, p  < 0.001), melanoma (1,714, p  < 0.001), gastric cancer (758, p  = 0.019), and renal cancer (739, p  < 0.001). Between 2000 and 2016, new cancer treatments were correlated with 1,291,769 ( p  < 0.001) total deaths prevented across the 15 most common tumor types., Limitations and Conclusions: Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the USA. Mortality changes were largest in prevalent tumor types with relatively more approvals, i.e. lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma and leukemia. Future research evaluating the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality post 2016 is needed.

This study characterized the costs of multiple myeloma (MM) during first-line (1L), second-line (2L) and third-line (3L) treatment from the US payer perspective. Patients with ≥2 outpatient or ≥1 inpatient claims with a primary MM diagnosis and 12 months continuous enrollment post index were identified in a retrospective claims database between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2013. A cost per-patient per-month (PPPM) metric was used to calculate total all-cause and anti-MM pharmacy costs in 1L, 2L, and 3L treatment. Of 5704 patients included, 3626 initiated 1L treatment, 1797 initiated 2L and 817 initiated 3L. Average total all-cause PPPM costs were $22,527 in 1L, $35,266 in 2L and $47,417 in 3L. Anti-MM pharmacy costs represented 22%, 29% and 29% of total all-cause costs PPPM in 1L, 2L and 3L, respectively. Study results suggest that delaying 2L and/or 3L treatment initiation may result in lower treatment costs for patients with MM.

Aims: To determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or Janus kinase/STAT pathway inhibitors (collectively referred to as bDMARDs) vs conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) from the US societal perspective for treatment of patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses to cDMARDs., Materials and Methods: An individual patient simulation model was developed that assesses the impact of treatments on disease based on clinical trial data and real-world evidence. Treatment strategies included sequences starting with etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, or abatacept. Each of these treatment strategies was compared with cDMARDs. Incremental cost, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment sequence relative to cDMARDs. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was determined using a US willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY., Results: For the base-case scenario, bDMARD treatment sequences were associated with greater treatment benefit (i.e. more QALYs), lower lost productivity costs, and greater treatment-related costs than cDMARDs. The expected ICERs for bDMARD sequences ranged from ∼$126,000 to $140,000 per QALY gained, which is below the US-specific WTP. Alternative scenarios examining the effects of homogeneous patients, dose increases, increased costs of hospitalization for severely physically impaired patients, and a lower baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index score resulted in similar ICERs., Conclusions: bDMARD treatment sequences are cost-effective from a US societal perspective.