Search

Introduction: Deciding on the optimal second-line (2L) treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains challenging due to the limited information comparing each of the available options and the influence of the newly expanding first-line (1L) agents., Patients and Methods: We identified phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 2L treatments in metastatic ccRCC. This Network Meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and severe adverse events (SAE). We used normal likelihood model to incorporate log hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (OR), and 95%-confidence-intervals (CI). Treatment p-scores were used for ranking. Data was analyzed in a fixed-effects model using the netmeta package in R v.1.5-0., Results: All therapies demonstrated some benefits over placebo. Lenvatinib + everolimus ranked first for OS (HR = 0.44; 95%CI = 0.24-0.82; p-score = 0.92), PFS (HR = 0.13; 95%CI = 0.07-0.24, p-score = 0.98), and ORR (OR = 35.95; 95%CI = 11.55-111.87; p-score = 0.93) compared to placebo, though with a higher SAE (OR = 5.27; p-score = 0.23). Cabozantinib ranked second for OS (HR = 0.57, p-score = 0.80), PFS (HR = 0.19; p-score = 0.86), and ORR (OR = 27.24, p-score = 0.84). Nivolumab was third for ORR (p-score = 0.79), fourth for OS (p-score = 0.69), fifth for PFS (p-score = 0.61), and last for SAE (p-score = 0.83). Lenvatinib monotherapy ranked worst SAE (OR = 5.89, p-score = 0.17) and third for OS and PFS. The latest drug, tivozanib, was sixth for PFS, OS, and ORR. The NMA matrix revealed no differential OS benefit between cabozantinib, lenvatinib + everolimus, and nivolumab. Other regimens had no significant OS benefit when compared to placebo., Conclusion: Based on OS and PFS, the lenvtatinib + everolimus combination yielded superior, followed by cabozantinib and Lenvatinib monotherapies; all were limited by a worse SAE profile. Nivolumab and pazopanib had the lowest odds of SAEs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This article reviews current evidence for the approved anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, isatuximab and daratumumab, for the treatment of patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and the implications for pharmacists., Data Sources: We conducted a literature search on PubMed/Medline and other sources using the drug names and the terms CD38, multiple myeloma, and pharmacists., Data Summary: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CD38 transmembrane glycoprotein offer a promising treatment approach for patients with RRMM. Isatuximab and daratumumab bind to different epitopes on CD38. In this review, we describe the similarities and differences in their mechanism of action, regulatory labeling, and the current guidelines for isatuximab and daratumumab use in RRMM. We review the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of these agents in combination with pomalidomide or carfilzomib and dexamethasone from the landmark phase 3 clinical trials that led to their approval. We discuss key differences in the eligibility criteria between the clinical trials, and differences in dosing, administration, available formulations, and pre- and post-infusion medications for the two agents. We outline recent data from pharmacoeconomic analyses comparing the cost-effectiveness of isatuximab-based regimens with that of daratumumab-based regimens. A brief overview of other anti-CD38 agents in the pipeline for the treatment of patients with RRMM is presented., Conclusions: Given that pharmacists play an integral role in driving cost-effective use of drugs without compromising efficacy and safety for the end user, educating pharmacists on the key differences between isatuximab and daratumumab can guide the selection of the appropriate anti-CD38 antibody.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, which commonly manifests as neutropenia, anemia, and/or thrombocytopenia, is a frequent and severe complication of standard treatment regimens for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Trilaciclib is a first-in-class myeloprotective therapy indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression when administered prior to a platinum-/etoposide-containing regimen or topotecan-containing regimen for ES-SCLC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy to manage chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in adults with ES-SCLC from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of introducing trilaciclib to a hypothetical 1 million-member health insurance plan. The model compared 2 market scenarios: a current scenario of standard treatments for ES-SCLC without trilaciclib, and an alternative scenario of standard treatment plus trilaciclib. Population, clinical, and cost inputs were derived from published literature and trilaciclib clinical trial data. Model outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs), costs of treatment, costs of AE management, total cost, and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs. The budget impact of trilaciclib was calculated as the difference in cost (2021 US dollars) between the 2 scenarios over a 1- to 5-year time horizon. Scenario and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs. RESULTS: An estimated total of 301 patients were eligible for treatment with trilaciclib over a 5-year period. The use of trilaciclib was estimated to reduce the number of myelosuppressive AEs over a 5-year period (events avoided included 108 for neutropenia, 7 for febrile neutropenia, 23 for anemia, and 46 for thrombocytopenia) compared with the scenario without trilaciclib. The adoption of trilaciclib was associated with a cost saving of $801,254 ($0.013 PMPM) over 5 years. The acquisition cost for trilaciclib ($3,704,199) was offset by the reduction in AE management cost ($4,282,748) and reduction in prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use ($222,704). The cost savings associated with trilaciclib began in year 1 (total $34,388; $0.003 PMPM) and accrued over time. CONCLUSIONS: The acquisition cost of trilaciclib is projected to be offset by a reduction in the costs of managing AEs related to myelosuppression when added to standard chemotherapy regimens for ES-SCLC. The net budget impact of trilaciclib is estimated to be a cost saving. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc., and implemented by ZS Associates, an independent consultancy that collated the model inputs and performed the budget impact analysis. The study sponsor was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. The journal open access fee was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Moran, Chioda, and Huang are employed by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Chioda and Huang report stocks and stock options for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Goyal and Deniz are employed by ZS Associates. Goyal reports consulting fees from G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Abraham reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. MacDonald reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz. Deniz reports no disclosures. A synopsis of the current study was presented in poster format at the Virtual AMCP Annual Meeting, April 12-16, 2021.

Background: Although adherence to imatinib is critical for attaining treatment responses in chronic myeloid leukemia, there is evidence of varying adherence among patients. Our aim was to model and determine the margin of tolerance, if any, required to ensure treatment responses among patients prescribed imatinib before treatment response is at risk., Method: We performed post hoc analyses of the ADAGIO study conducted in Belgium on 169 evaluable patients (Blood 2009). Applying Kaplan-Meier methods using adherence instead of the conventional time variable, we modeled the likelihood of complete cytogenetic (CCyR), complete hematological (CHR), major molecular (MMR) and optimal (OR) response as a function of 90-day pill count adherence., Results: Analyses showed that ∼100 % adherence of prescribed dose is associated with probabilities of 0.84 for CHR, 0.83 for CCyR, 0.82 for OR, and 0.77 for MMR; compared to, 0.37 (CHR and CCyR), 0.35 (OR), and 0.39 (MMR) at 90 % adherence. Increasing intake of imatinib from 90 % to 100 % of the prescribed dose increased the likelihood of the various treatment responses by 1.95-2.35-fold., Conclusion: There is virtually no margin for nonadherence, if the objective is to optimize the likelihood of treatment response, and a minimal margin to avoid impaired treatment response., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Proliferating hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) are susceptible to chemotherapy-induced damage, resulting in myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs) such as neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia that are associated with high health care costs and decreased quality of life (QoL). In this study, a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to help assess the economic impact of administering trilaciclib, a myeloprotective therapy that protects multilineage HSPCs from chemotherapy-induced damage, prior to standard first-line chemotherapy, using data from a pivotal Phase II study of trilaciclib in the setting of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC, NCT03041311)., Method: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone among patients with ES-SCLC from a United States payer perspective. Data on the rate and frequency of myelosuppressive AEs and health utility were derived from the pivotal study of trilaciclib. Costs of managing myelosuppressive AEs and costs of chemotherapy treatment were sourced from published literature. Outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive AEs, costs (in 2021 US dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost, incremental QALY, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio., Results: Administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was associated with a reduction in neutropenia (82%), febrile neutropenia (75%), anemia (43%), and thrombocytopenia (96%) compared with chemotherapy alone. Additionally, trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was cost-saving compared with chemotherapy alone ($99,919 vs $118,759, respectively) and associated with QALY improvement (0.150 vs 0.145, respectively). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed 58% of iterations projecting cost savings and QALY improvement with trilaciclib., Conclusions: The findings suggest that the use of trilaciclib prior to first-line chemotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC can be cost-beneficial owing to fewer myelosuppressive AEs and lower costs, together with a favorable QoL profile.

Aims: In this pharmacoeconomic simulation, we: (1) modeled the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from the US payer perspective, (2) simulated how savings enable, on a budget-neutral basis, expanded access to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and (3) estimated the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv., Methods: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 patients, we modeled cost-savings utilizing: two reference formulations (pre-filled syringe [PFS] and on-body injector [OBI]), three medication cost inputs (average sales price [ASP], wholesale acquisition cost [WAC], and an age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate), administration cost for injection (PFS) and device application (OBI), conversion rates of 10-100%, and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose., Results: Using ASP and 10% conversion from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, savings range from $326,744 (1 cycle) to $2.0M (6 cycles) which could provide 93-556 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv, respectively; the NNC to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranges from 21.6 (1 cycle) down to 3.6 patients (6 cycles). The WAC model saves $41.1M per cycle and $246.7M over 6 cycles at 100% conversion from reference PFS which could provide 9,709-58,253 additional pegfilgrastim-cbqv doses; the NNC ranges from 2.1 (1 cycle) to 0.3 (6 cycles). Using the blended ASP/WAC rate, converting 50% from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv would save $10.2M per cycle and $60.9M over 6 cycles providing 2,638-15,829 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv; NNCs are 3.8 (1 cycle) and 0.6 patients (6 cycles)., Conclusions: Converting 20,000 patients from reference to pegfilgrastim-cbqv over 6 cycles can generate savings up to $246.7M, enough to purchase up to 58,253 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. This simulation provides economic justification for prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

Aims: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The second dimension (δ2) estimates prices on the basis of four willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib., Materials and Methods: Eight WTP scenarios based on four levels of real gross domestic product per capita (<1GDP/capita, 1 × GDP/capita, 3 × GDP/capita, and >3 × GDP/capita) and two market conditions (monopolistic versus competitive) were assumed. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was applied to differently to both markets. In the monopolistic market, assuming no competitors, the cost/QALY ratio for a drug was used; whereas in the competitive market, assuming competitors, the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was applied. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed and predictive equations were specified to estimate the prices of treatment for the resulting eight WTP scenarios; for which subsequently the average and standard deviation were calculated. A gamma distribution was specified and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) was applied to estimate the dimension-specific price based on WTP (DSP WTP ). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $14,616 (30-day prescription) was used to estimate the DSP WTP for each contract., Results: The 1-year estimates averaged $4,654 (SD=$6,462) and the MCS yielded a DSP WTP of $4,547 or -68.89% of the 2018 WAC for a 30-day prescription. The 2-year estimates averaged $4,7667 (SD=$6,480) with the MCS generating a DSP WTP of $4,704 or -67.82% of the WAC., Conclusions: We demonstrated that WTP-based methods that include various WTP thresholds and market conditions generate price estimates across these thresholds and market conditions that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Aims: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The first dimension (δ1) estimates prices on the basis of cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA). We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib., Materials and Methods: CEA and CUA were performed using established methods. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC), specifically the PSA incremental cost-effectiveness (PSA ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio generated CEACs (PSA ICUR). Price of treatment was estimated at three certainty levels (0%, turning point%, 100%). The marketed drug price at turning point was used to estimate prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels, as per PSA ICER and PSA ICUR-generated CEACs. The resulting prices were pooled, inflated, and simulated by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) methods to estimate the dimension-specific price based on CEA and CUA (DSP CEA/CUA ). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-years (2019-2021)., Results: Turning points were estimated at the 50% certainty level in both PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACS. At these points, the wholesale acquisition cost for osimertinib was $14,616 (30-day prescription); inflated by 0.44% for 1-year and by 0.72% for 2-year contracts. Additional prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels were quantified based on the PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACs. The MCS yielded a DSP CEA/CUA of $16,391 for the 1-year contract and a DSP CEA/CUA at $16,677 for the 2-year contract for a 30-day prescription., Conclusions: We demonstrated that conventional CEA and CUA methods generate price estimates at varying levels of certainty that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Aims: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The fifth dimension (δ5) estimates prices on the basis of the risk of efficacy failure of a drug. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib., Materials and Methods: The risk of efficacy failure pricing dimension utilizes a seven-step method: (1) defining risk; (2) extracting data; (3) predicting models; (4) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate risk of efficacy failure; 5) estimating ranges for a payback; (6) adjusting for medical inflation; and (7) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the DSP Risk of efficacy failure . A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). We estimated the risk of efficacy failure for osimertinib in terms of overall and progression-free survival versus standard of care. We used the estimated risk to estimate the price reduction on the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for the two hypothetical contracts: a 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year contract (2019-2021). From this we estimated the DSP Risk of efficacy failure ., Results: Based on the risk of OS and PFS efficacy failure for osimertinib in OS and PFS, in the 1-year contract, the DSP Risk of efficacy failure was estimated at $12,652 (or -13.44% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. For the 2-year contract (2019-2021), the DSP Risk of efficacy failure was estimated at $13,019 (or -10.93% the 2018 WAC)., Conclusions: We demonstrated that pricing methods based on risk of efficacy failure methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Aims: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The six dimensions have been described separately: (δ1) cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis-based pricing; (δ2) willingness-to-pay-based pricing; (δ3) reference-based pricing; (δ4) safety-based pricing; (δ5) risk of efficacy failure-based pricing; and (δ6) adherence-based pricing. The final step is to integrate the various dimension-specific pricing estimates into a composite estimate termed the All-Dimensional Price (ADP). We describe the methodology for this integration and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib., Materials and Methods: For better accuracy in estimating the ADP, we used the prices generated from the six dimensions at scenario levels, not at the dimension-specific price (DSP) level. We pooled the price estimates and performed Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS) for the price scenarios generated by the six dimensions. We used the results of the proof-of-concept exercise involving osimertinib in NSCLC with EGFR mutation to estimate the ADP in two hypothetical contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year contract (2019-2021)., Results: The average of the 30-day prescription estimates from the six dimensions averaged $10,819 (SD=$8,486) for the 1-year contract and $10,730 (SD=$8,500) for the 2-year contract. MCS yielded for the 1-year contract an ADP of $10,959 (or -25.02% the 2018 WAC price) and an ADP for the 2-year contract was $10,788 (or -26.19% the 2018 WAC price)., Conclusions: We demonstrated that the integration of the prices from the six dimensions of the Six Delta platform and market conditions is feasible and yields multidimensional prices estimates to support outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Aims: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The fourth dimension (δ4) estimates prices on the basis of assessments of the safety of the drug using an ex ante analysis based on clinical trial data. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib., Materials and Methods: The safety-based pricing dimension utilizes a four-step method: 1) pooling adverse events (AE), standardizing, estimating 95%Cis, and adjusting for time; 2) estimating correction factors and corrected probabilities of AEs; 3) estimating the probability of at least one adverse event (AE) occurring and leading to treatment discontinuation; and 4) estimating ranges for payback percentages and performing Monte Carlo Simulation to estimate a DSP Safety . A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). We estimated the DSP Safety based on the grade 3/4 AEs observed for osimertinib and standard of care. The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of osimertinib at $14,616 for a 30-day prescription was used., Results: AEs3/4 were retrieved from the FLAURA trial. In the 1-year contract, the DSP Safety of osimertinib was estimated at $14,627 (or +0.08% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. In the 2-year contract, the DSP Safety of osimertinib was estimated at $14,516 (or -0.68% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription., Conclusions: We demonstrated that ex ante pricing methods-based paybacks for safety issues leading to treatment discontinuation can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Aims: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The third dimension (δ3) estimates prices on the basis of international drug price referencing methods. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib., Materials and Methods: The reference-based pricing dimension utilizes a six-step method: (1) selecting foreign countries based on a set of four criteria (drug is available in the foreign country, price information is available in the foreign country, foreign countries are members within the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, pricing methods in the foreign countries involve value assessment); (2) adjusting for exchange rates; (3) generating reference price (RP) scenarios; (4) adjusting with the medical inflation rate; (5) pooling all generated RP scenarios and calculating average and standard deviation (SD); (6) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the dimension-specific DSP Reference . A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021)., Results: The United Kingdom and Canada met the four criteria. For the osimertinib 1-year contract price, the average of eight RP scenarios, adjusted for inflation by 0.44%, was $8,892 (SD = $2,606) for a 30-day prescription. MCS yielded a DSP Reference estimate of $9,395 or -35.72% of the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $14,616. For the 2-year contract, the average, adjusted for inflation by 0.72%, was $8,928 (SD = $2,610). MCS yielded a DSP Reference estimate of $9,442 or -35.40% of the WAC of $14,616., Conclusions: We demonstrated that international price referencing methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Aims: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The sixth dimension (δ6) estimates prices on the basis of adherence to the prescribed regimen, whereby manufacturers provide payers with adherence-enhancing programs and whereby payers implement these programs and provide adherence data to the manufacturer. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib., Materials and Methods: We propose two paybacks based on adherence: in-advance (based on clinical trial data) and in-arrear (based on real-world data). The risk of efficacy failure pricing dimension utilizes a 7-step method: 1) defining efficacy endpoints; 2) extracting data; 3) predicting models; 4) estimating in-advance and in-arrear paybacks; 5) suggesting ranges for in-advance and in-arrear paybacks; 6) adjusting for medical inflation; and 7) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the DSP Adherence . A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for a 30-day prescription was used and inflated as needed. Herein, the DSP Adherence is estimated exclusively in terms of in-advance payback because real-world data about osimertinib are not yet available and thus the in-arrear payback cannot yet be estimated., Results: For the 1-year contract, the average price for osimertinib was $13,798 (SD=$1,265) and the DSP Adherence was $13,785 (or -5.69% of the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. For the 2-year contract, the average price was $12,555 (SD=$2,847) and the DSP Adherence was $12,582 (or -13.92% of the 2018 WAC)., Conclusions: We demonstrated that adherence-based pricing methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The proof-of-concept exercise needs to be expanded with the in-arrear pricing method based on real world data to be secured.

Objectives: This systematic review of longitudinal studies, assessing subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) reported by adult cancer patients, aimed to summarize evidence on the impact of chemotherapy on SCI, identify moderators of SCI, and evaluate methodological issues., Methods: Data accrued from Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane library. Inclusion criteria were original studies, an exclusively adult sample, valid and reliable subjective cognitive measures, and at least one baseline data point prior to and another after the initiation of chemotherapy. Data were collected on the sample composition, data-collection time points, outcome measures, statistical analysis, and major findings (ie, longitudinal changes in prevalence, severity, and associated factors)., Results: Forty articles published between 2004 and 2019 were retained: 21 examined chemotherapy-treated patients only, and 19 employed control groups. Findings were mixed, with slightly more studies supporting the impact of chemotherapy on SCI. SCI tended to be more prevalent and severe after initiating chemotherapy, compared with patients' own baseline and controls not treated with chemotherapy. Impact appeared to be acute and more likely limited to subsamples. Most studies examining non-breast-cancer samples reported the lack or limited impact of chemotherapy on SCI. The most consistent moderators were depression and fatigue. Methodological issues regarding sampling design, measurement, and statistical analysis were discussed., Conclusion: More rigorously designed longitudinal studies would clarify direct and indirect effects of chemotherapy on SCI., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Aims: Among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 10-20% will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 5 years; for 70%, CRPC will metastasize, mostly to the lungs and/or liver. We performed a cost-effectiveness model comparing abiraterone plus prednisone (ABI + PRD), cabazitaxel plus prednisone (CAB + PRD) and enzalutamide (ENZ) for visceral metastatic CRPC post-docetaxel therapy resistance. Methods: A three-state (Progression-Free, Progression, Death) lifetime Markov model was constructed to compare ABI + PRD, CAB + PRD, and ENZ from a United States healthcare payer perspective (2019 US$; discount rate 3%/yr.). Effectiveness was measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Inputs included treatment costs, grade III/IV adverse events with incidence ≥5%, physician follow-up, lab and imaging tests. Phase III trial Kaplan-Meier curves were extrapolated to estimate overall survival and Progression-Free transition probabilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and utility ratios (ICURs), probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated. Results: Models estimated 3-year overall survival rates of 1.3% for patients treated with ABI + PRD, 16.2% for CAB + PRD, and 13.2% for ENZ. Estimated Progression-Free rates at 1.5 years were 0.51% for ABI + PRD, 0.27% for CAB + PRD, and 14.47% for ENZ. LYs and QALYs were 1.20 and 0.58 respectively for ABI + PRD, 1.48 and 0.56 for CAB + PRD, and 1.58 and 0.79 for ENZ. Total treatment costs were: $115,433 for ABI + PRD, $85,337 for CAB + PRD and $109,213 for ENZ. CAB + PRD and ENZ dominated ABI + PRD due to higher LYs gained. Incremental QALYs for ENZ vs. CAB + PRD were larger than incremental LYs. The ICUR for ENZ was $103,674/QALY compared to CAB + PRD. Conclusions: This analysis found ENZ provided greater LYs and QALYs than both ABI + PRD and CAB + PRD, at a lower cost than ABI + PRD, but at a higher cost compared to CAB + PRD. For patients with visceral mCRPC after docetaxel therapy resistance, ENZ was cost-effective 92% of the time with a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY.

Aim: This study aimed to report patterns of biosimilar filgrastim prophylaxis and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN)/febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with hematological malignancies or solid tumors., Patients & Methods: MONITOR-GCSF is a real-world study of 1447 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (solid tumors: 77.2%; hematological malignancies: 22.8%)., Results: Differences in prophylaxis intensity and day of initiation relative to guideline recommendations were observed. In hematology patients, higher rates of CIN and FN occurred at cycle level, and rate of FN was higher at patient level (9.1 vs 5.0% in solid tumor patients)., Conclusion: Adequate GCSF support in hematology and solid tumor patients is important to prevent CIN/FN and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances.

Background: Myelotoxic chemotherapy is associated with chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). The MONITOR-GCSF study evaluated biosimilar filgrastim (Zarzio®) prophylaxis patterns, associated outcomes, and determinants. We performed stratified analyses comparing elderly and non-elderly patients., Methods: Comparative (elderly/non-elderly) analysis of demographics and clinical status, prophylaxis, associated CIN/FN outcomes (CIN grade 4 [CIN4], FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalizations and chemodisturbances, composite), and, per hierarchical modeling, determinants thereof evaluated at the patient- and cycle-level., Results: There were no significant differences between both cohorts in prophylaxis initiation/duration and associated outcomes, but proportionately more elderly patients were correctly-prophylacted and fewer over-prophylacted. Common determinants of poor CIN/FN outcomes included concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis, impaired performance status, and any grade CIN in a previous cycle, whereas common determinants of good outcomes included over-prophylaxis and prophylaxis initiation within 24-72h. In the elderly, female gender, liver/renal/cardiovascular disease, secondary prophylaxis, and under-prophylaxis were associated with poorer outcomes. In the non-elderly, CIN4 at baseline or in a prior cycle was associated with poorer CIN/FN outcomes, and higher biosimilar filgrastim dose and, perhaps counter-intuitively, under-prophylaxis with better outcomes., Conclusion: Adequate GCSF support is essential for all patients, but especially for elderly patients with serious chronic disease, certainly, if concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated and if a CIN4 episode occurred in a prior cycle. The potential impact of impaired performance status, especially ECOG≥2 at chemotherapy start or a worsening to such during chemotherapy; under-prophylaxis, including inadequate secondary prophylaxis, should be considered in elderly patients. Timely GCSF initiation and over-prophylaxis is associated with lower rates of adverse CIN/FN events in elderly and non-elderly patients, and should be further evaluated in prospective randomized trials., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Effect sizes of efficacy of first-line treatments for (metastatic) pancreas cancer are constrained, underscoring the need for evaluations of the efficacy-to-cost relationship. We critically review economic evaluations of first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer since the 1997 introduction of gemcitabine. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE (1997-2015), and the websites of health technology assessment agencies. Two authors independently reviewed economic studies for eligibility in this review; evaluated peer-reviewed, journal-published studies in terms of the Drummond Checklist; and critiqued the technical and scientific merit of all studies. Sixteen pharmacoeconomic evaluations were included: ten published in nine peer-reviewed journals and six on three websites. Six were on single-agent therapies and ten on combination therapies. Analyses conducted included cost-effectiveness (three studies), cost-utility (one study), or combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (12 studies). Studies diverged in results, mainly because of different assumptions, methods, inputs, and country-specific guidelines. The two most recent regimens, nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P + GEM) and the combination of fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX), were evaluated in an indirect comparison, yielding a statistically similar benefit in overall survival but superior progression-free survival for FOLFIRINOX. NAB-P + GEM showed greater economic benefit over FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, the divergence in results observed across studies is attributable to economic drivers that are specific to countries and their healthcare (financing) systems. No recommendations regarding the relative economic benefit of treatment regimens, general or country-specific, are made as the purpose of pharmacoeconomic analysis is to inform policy decision-making and clinical practice, not set policy or define clinical practice.

Anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been shown to significantly improve survival in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. However, there was some heterogeneity as well as some variation in the degree of benefit across studies. We reviewed randomized trials and performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in comparison with conventional regimens. Eligible studies were limited to randomized controlled trials comparing anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 inhibitors to chemotherapy or vaccination treatment in adult patients with unresectable cutaneous metastatic melanoma. Progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months was 28.5% versus 17.7% (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.76-0.93), overall survival (OS) rate at 1 year was 51.2% versus 38.8% (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59-0.88), and overall response rate (ORR) at 6 months was 29.6% versus 17.7% (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95) favoring immune check point inhibitors over chemotherapies or vaccination. Immune check point inhibitors were associated with more frequent immune-related adverse events at 13.7% versus 2.4% of treated patients (RR: 6.74, 95% CI: 4.65-9.75). Subgroup analyses demonstrated significant PFS (RR: 0.92 vs. 0.74, P < 0.00001) and ORR (RR: 0.95 vs. 0.76, P = 0.0004) improvement with anti-PD-1 treatment compared to anti-CTLA-4 when each of them was compared to control treatments. Collectively, these results demonstrate that immune checkpoint inhibitors have superior outcomes compared to conventional chemotherapies or vaccination, and support the results of recent randomized trials that showed superior outcomes with anti-PD-1 agents over ipilimumab in unresectable metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients., (© 2016 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have significantly improved the survival outcomes for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). In addition to imatinib, 3 newer generation TKIs (NG-TKIs) have been approved as first-line treatment of chronic phase (CP)-CML. These have been preferably used in patients with CP-CML with a high Sokal or Hasford risk score. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes with NG-TKIs as a category versus imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed CP-CML and to indirectly compare the efficacy of NG-TKIs among each other. Furthermore, we assessed the effect of the risk scores on the complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR)., Materials and Methods: The eligible studies were limited to randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of first-line treatment using NG-TKIs versus imatinib in adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with CP-CML., Results: The differences in the CCyR, progression-free survival, and overall survival between the NG-TKIs and imatinib were not statistically significant. NG-TKI-treated patients showed a significantly greater likelihood of MMR (relative risk [RR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.91; P = .003) and lower likelihood of progression to an accelerated phase/blast crisis (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.67; P = .001) than did imatinib-treated patients. Nilotinib, dasatinib, and radotinib showed significantly greater CCyR rates compared with bosutinib and ponatinib. All risk groups showed statistically equivalent benefits from NG-TKIs for the CCyR and MMR., Conclusion: In first-line treatment, the NG-TKIs as a category showed greater effectiveness in MMR and prevention of accelerated phase/blast crisis progression. Risk stratification was not found to affect the RR of CCyR and MMR., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: We simulated the budget impact of biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) in EU G5 countries., Materials & Methods: Three models were built to estimate the number of patients who could be provided with antineoplastic therapy with rituximab, bevacizumab or trastuzumab from cost savings of biosimilar erythropoietin use in a hypothetical panel of 100,000 patients. The associated number of patients needed to convert to biosimilar ESA to provide such treatments was also calculated., Results: Under fixed dosing, the savings from 100% conversion were €110,592,159, translating into an additional 9770 rituximab, 3912 bevacizumab, or 3713 trastuzumab treatments. Under weight-based dosing, the savings from 100% conversion were €146,170,333, corresponding to an additional 12,913 rituximab, 5171 bevacizumab or 4908 trastuzumab treatments. The number of patients needed to convert ranged from four to 51., Conclusion: Using biosimilar ESA for supportive cancer care yields significant savings and increases accessibility to primary antineoplastic therapy in a budget neutral way.

Goal: The benefit of supportive care with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) for patients with cancer-related anaemia is well known. However, the European Cancer Anaemia Survey (ECAS, data from 2001) showed that about 60% of cancer patients with anaemia do not receive any treatment. Since ECAS, evidence-based guidelines have provided recommendations for ESA use, but it is not known to what extent current treatment patterns follow these guidelines. To address this issue, the Anaemia Cancer Treatment (A.C.T.) study was initiated. The background to the development of the A.C.T. study and study methodology are described., Materials and Methods: The A.C.T. study is a global, retrospective, pharmacoepidemiologic study of at least 2,560 medical records of anaemic patients with cancer who were previously treated with an ESA from a minimum of 186 centres. Records from patients aged greater than or equal to 18 years with a diagnosis of solid tumour or myeloma or lymphoma and who were started on ESAs 3-12 months before inclusion and followed for 8-10 weeks will be eligible. Factors associated with ESA non-responsiveness will also be evaluated., Main Results: Completion of the European phase of the study is anticipated in late 2007 with the rest of the world closing in late 2007 or early 2008. Publication of findings is anticipated in 2008., Conclusions: By examining the extent to which anaemia management in clinical practice is congruent with best practice guidelines, the A.C.T. study will provide a further foundation for the development of evidence-based supportive cancer care.

Aim: To determine the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and related outcomes after same-day pegfilgrastim in lung cancer. Materials & methods: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated electronic health records of patients with lung cancer treated between 2013-2018. The main end points were incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia after the first and across all chemotherapy cycles. Results: A total of 114 patients received same-day pegfilgrastim in 384 cycles. The incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia was 2.3 and 25% after the first chemotherapy cycle and 1.6 and 10.4% across all cycles, respectively. Conclusion: Same-day prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer may be a suitable option, owing to its low incidence of FN and related outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses a study by M. F. Qian and colleagues, published in the issue on a claims database analysis of treatment related and total healthcare costs in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with either nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab-plus-nivolumab, or BRAF/MEK inhibitor regimens. Topics include proportion of patients treated with molecularly targeted BRAF/MEK inhibitors and market share correction in pembrolizumab's rise and nivolumab's decline in market share.

Background: Olanzapine, neurokinin-1-receptor-antagonists (NK-1-RA), and thalidomide added to palonosetron + dexamethasone (PALO-DEX) have been evaluated in separate studies as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the prophylactic efficacy of these agents in combination with PALO-DEX.Methods: PubMed, Medline/Ovid, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception through 22 Mar 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane methodology. A Bayesian network meta-analysis using random-effects models was used to asses complete response (CR) and rate of no nausea (RNN) in acute, delayed, and overall phases and were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI). Ranking probabilities of treatments were calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to identify the probability of a given treatment as the best option against the worst option.Results: Nine RCTs involving two thousand nine hundred fifty-nine patients were included. The olanzapine-based regimen showed greater CR in the acute, delayed, and overall-phases versus the PALO-DEX regimen (OR = 3.97, 95% CrI = 1.02-19.13; OR = 5.62, 95% CrI = 1.66-28.58; OR = 4.79, 95% CrI = 1.40-24.02, respectively). Additionally, it showed greater RNN than the NK-1-RA-based and the PALO-DEX regimens in the delayed phase only (OR = 2.90, 95% CrI = 1.34-5.15; OR = 4.53, 95% CrI = 1.89-10.55, respectively). Olanzapine-, NK-1-RA-, and thalidomide-based regimens did not differ in CR in the three phases. SUCRA probabilities ranked the olanzapine-based regimen as the best option in terms of CR and RNN, while ranking the NK-1-RA-based regimens as the second best option in terms of CR throughout the three phases.Conclusion: Based on the data included in the analyses, there is insufficient evidence to support adding thalidomide or NK-1-RA to PALO-DEX in preventing CINV induced by HEC. However, adding olanzapine to PALO-DEX achieves better CR and RNN. Olanzapine side-effects and the absence of direct comparisons explain why some guidelines are cautious in suggesting the use of olanzapine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Practice patterns of same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim vary in numerous practice settings across the country. Current utilization with same-day pegfilgrastim reduced overall visits and reduced treatment time for chemotherapy administration.Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim in patients with colorectal cancer.Methods: Patient data was extracted through electronic health records (EHR) search of ICD-9 codes that matched patients with CRC and treated with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI from November 2013 to January 2016. The incidence rates of primary and secondary endpoints were estimated for patients who received either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI and same-day pegfilgrastim with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals. Fisher's exact test for 2 × 2 contingency tables was used to compare the incidence of primary and secondary endpoints between the two study groups performed at the α = 0.05 significance level. A study by Hecht et al. served as a historical control for next-day pegfilgrastim.Results: A total of 109 out of an initial 330 patients with appropriate ICD-9 criteria were eligible for study inclusion. The primary endpoint of incidence of FN recorded over 4 chemotherapy cycles with either FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI occurred in 3.7% of patients (95% CI, 1.1-9.4%). Secondary endpoints also occurred with a relatively low incidence: 13 patients developed grades 3/4 neutropenia (11.9%; 95% CI, 7.0-19.5%); 11 patients required dose reductions because of neutropenia or FN (10.1%; 95% CI, 5.6-17.3%); and 5 patients were hospitalized due to neutropenia or FN (4.6%; 1.7-10.6%). There were 4 reported events of FN (3.2%; 95% CI, 1.0-8.3%) for those who received next-day pegfilgrastim compared to 11 events in the placebo group (9.4%; 95% CI, 5.1-16.4%). The incidence of dose delays or dose reductions due to neutropenia or FN were 5 (4.1%, 95% CI, 1.5-9.4%) in the next-day pegfilgrastim group versus 26 (22.1%, 95% CI, 15.5-30.4%) in the placebo group.Limitations: The study was retrospective in design and utilized a historical control for the comparator.Conclusions: Our study results suggest that same-day pegfilgrastim administration may be a safe and effective alternative to 24-h post-chemotherapy administration in patients with esophageal, gastric, appendiceal, or colorectal cancer undergoing treatment with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations.Methods: MONITOR-GCSF is a prospective, observational study of 1447 evaluable patients from 140 cancers centers in 12 European countries treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for up to 6 cycles receiving biosimilar GCSF prophylaxis. Patients were classified as under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted with GCSF relative to guideline recommendations based on their chemotherapy risk, individual risk factors, and type of GCSF prophylaxis (primary versus secondary).Results: Differences between under- (17.4%), correctly- (56.6%), or over-prophylacted (26.0%) groups were found in terms of patient risk factors (age, performance status, history of FN, comorbid conditions) as well as prophylaxis patterns (type of prophylaxis, day of GCSF initiation, and GCSF duration). Rates of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) (all grades), FN, and CIN-related hospitalizations were consistently lower in over-prophylacted patients relative to under- and correctly-prophylacted patients. No differences were observed between under- and correctly-prophylacted patients except for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances. No GCSF safety differences were found between groups (except for headaches).Conclusions: The real-world evidence provided by the MONITOR-GCSF study indicates that providing GCSF support may yield better CIN, FN, and CIN/FN-related hospitalization outcomes if patients are prophylacted at levels above guideline recommendations. Patients who are under-prophylacted are at higher risk for disturbances to their chemotherapy regimens. Our findings support the guideline recommendation that CIN/FN risk be assessed at the beginning of each chemotherapy cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objectives of this study were to simulate for the European Union G5 countries the potential cost savings of converting patients from originator granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to a biosimilar filgrastim, to evaluate how reallocating these savings could increase patient access to antineoplastic therapy, and to estimate the number of patients needed to convert to provide antineoplastic treatment to one patient. Methods: Three models were built: (1) to estimate the costs of using originator G-CSFs and the savings generated from switching to a biosimilar G-CSF, (2) to estimate the incremental number of patients who could be provided antineoplastic therapy--rituximab or trastuzumab--in a hypothetical panel of 10,000 patients with cancer, and (3) to calculate the number of patients needed to convert to provide access to anticancer therapy. Scenarios were developed in which the rate of conversion was varied to estimate the effect on total cost savings. This study took the perspective of the payer in the European Union. Findings: The savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over the originator filgrastim ranged from €785 (day 4) to €2747 (day 14) and increased with longer duration of therapy. By contrast, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over pegfilgrastim decreased over time, ranging from €6199 (day 4) to €471 (day 14). In a hypothetical panel of 10,000 patients with cancer, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over the originator filgrastim and the expanded access to antineoplastic therapy improved over time, irrespective of conversion rates. Conversely, in the same hypothetical panel, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over pegfilgrastim reduced over time, irrespective of conversion rates, along with the expanded access to antineoplastic treatment. Under conversion of the originator filgrastim to the biosimilar filgrastim, the number needed to convert to expand access to rituximab ranged from 4 to 14 patients, and the number needed to convert to expand access to trastuzumab ranged from 11 to 38 patients. Under conversion of pegfilgrastim to the biosimilar filgrastim, the number needed to convert to expand access to rituximab ranged from 2 to 24 patients, and the number needed to convert to expand access to trastuzumab ranged from 5 to 63 patients. Implications: Use of biosimilar G-CSFs for supportive cancer care could yield potential cost savings and improve patient access to antineoplastic therapy in a budget neutral way--a financial effect with an ethical perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]