Cost-effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service Perspective

PURPOSE

A prior randomized controlled trial (COMPARZ [Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib]) found non-inferior progression-free survival for pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was employed. The model time horizon was 5 years. For each treatment strategy, the model generated expected progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. Results were reported as incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact on results of methodological and parameter uncertainty.

FINDINGS

In the base case, pazopanib was associated with higher QALYs and lower costs and dominated sunitinib. Using willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the net monetary benefits with pazopanib were €6508 and €7702 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 85% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 86% at a threshold of €30,000, and 81% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions.

IMPLICATIONS

These results suggest that pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy.

Network Meta-analysis of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in First-Line Treatment of BRAF Mutation-Positive Metastatic Melanoma

INTRODUCTION

The present study aimed to inform an economic evaluation of dabrafenib and trametinib combination as first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma in a Canadian setting. A network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS)and overall survival (OS) of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus other first-line treatments of BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma including dabrafenib, trametinib, vemurafenib, ipilimumab, and dacarbazine (DTIC).

METHODS

HRs for PFS and OS were from randomized controlled trials identified from systematic literature reviews. HRs for PFS and OS (adjusted for crossover as appropriate) were analyzed using multivariate and univariate Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In multivariate network-meta analyses (HRs for PFS and OS estimated simultaneously to account for the correlation of treatment effects on PFS and OS), HRs (95% credible interval) for PFS and OS favored dabrafenib plus trametinib [PFS: 0.23 (0.18-0.29) versus DTIC, 0.32 (0.24-0.42) versus ipilimumab plus DTIC, 0.52 (0.32-0.83) versus trametinib, 0.57 (0.48-0.69) versus vemurafenib, and 0.59 (0.50-0.71) versus dabrafenib]; OS [0.41 (0.29-0.56) versus DTIC, 0.52 (0.38-0.71) versus ipilimumab plus DTIC, 0.68 (0.47-0.95) versus trametinib, 0.69 (0.57-0.84) versus vemurafenib, and 0.72 (0.60-0.85) versus dabrafenib]. The beneficial effects on OS of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus ipilimumab plus DTIC and versus trametinib were attenuated when HRs were estimated using univariate network meta-analysis (HRs for PFS and OS estimated separately).

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates improved PFS and OS with dabrafenib + trametinib versus dabrafenib, trametinib, vemurafenib, ipilimumab plus DTIC, and DTIC as first-line treatment for patients with BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

In Canada and elsewhere, pazopanib and sunitinib-tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). A large randomized noninferiority trial of pazopanib versus sunitinib (comparz) demonstrated that the two drugs have similar efficacy; however, patients randomized to pazopanib experienced better health-related quality of life (hrqol) and nominally lower rates of non-study medical resource utilization.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care system perspective was evaluated using a partitioned-survival model that incorporated data from comparz and other secondary sources. The time horizon of 5 years was based on the maximum duration of follow-up in the final analysis of overall survival from the comparz trial. Analyses were conducted first using list prices for pazopanib and sunitinib and then by assuming that the prices of sunitinib and pazopanib would be equivalent.

RESULTS

Based on list prices, expected costs were CA$10,293 less with pazopanib than with sunitinib. Pazopanib was estimated to yield 0.059 more quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Pazopanib was therefore dominant (more qalys and lower costs) compared with sunitinib in the base case. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in 79% of simulations and was cost-effective in 90%-100% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Assuming equivalent pricing, pazopanib yielded CA$917 in savings in the base case, was dominant in 36% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sunitinib, pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care perspective.

Overall Survival Endpoint in Oncology Clinical Trials: Addressing the Effect of Crossover--The Case of Pazopanib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To identify the issues of using overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint in the presence of crossover and the statistical analyses available to adjust for confounded OS due to crossover in oncology clinical trials.

METHODS

An indirect comparison was conducted between pazopanib and sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Statistical adjustment methods were used to estimate the true comparative effectiveness of these treatments. Recently, a head-to-head trial comparing pazopanib and sunitinib was completed. This provided the opportunity to compare the OS treatment effect estimated for pazopanib versus sunitinib using indirect comparison and statistical adjustment techniques with that observed in the head-to-head trial.

RESULTS

Using a rank-preserving structural failure time model to adjust for crossover in the pazopanib registration trial, the indirect comparison of pazopanib versus sunitinib resulted in an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.97, while an unadjusted analysis resulted in an OS HR of 1.96. The head-to-head trial reported a final OS HR of 0.92 for pazopanib versus sunitinib.

CONCLUSION

This case study supports the need to adjust for confounded OS due to crossover, which enables trials to meet ethical standards and provides decision makers with a more accurate estimate of treatment benefit.

Cost effectiveness of dabrafenib as a first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus dacarbazine and vemurafenib as first-line treatments in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a Canadian healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival analysis model with three mutually exclusive health states (pre-progression, post-progression, and dead) was used. The proportion of patients in each state was calculated using survival distributions for progression-free and overall survival derived from pivotal trials of dabrafenib and vemurafenib. For each treatment, expected progression-free, post-progression, overall, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were calculated. Costs were based on list prices, a clinician survey, and published sources. A 5-year time horizon was used in the base case. Costs (in 2012 Canadian dollars [CA$]) and QALYs were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Dabrafenib was estimated to yield 0.2055 more QALYs at higher cost than dacarbazine. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CA$363,136/QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, at a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, there was an 8.2% probability that dabrafenib is cost effective versus dacarbazine. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, cost effectiveness was sensitive to survival distributions, utilities, and time horizon, with the hazard ratio for overall survival for dabrafenib versus dacarbazine being the most sensitive parameter. Assuming a class effect for efficacy of BRAF inhibitors, dabrafenib was dominant versus vemurafenib (less costly, equally effective), reflecting its assumed lower daily cost. Assuming no class effect, dabrafenib yielded 0.0486 more QALYs than vemurafenib.

CONCLUSIONS

At a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, dabrafenib is unlikely to be cost effective compared with dacarbazine. It is not possible to make reliable conclusions regarding the relative cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus vemurafenib based on available information.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for renal cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

Current first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include the multityrosine kinase inhibitors pazopanib and sunitinib. Both agents had similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the COMPARZ trial (Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib); however, the adverse event profiles of the 2 agents are different. In the PISCES trial (Patient Preference Study of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Advanced or Metastatic Kidney Cancer), patients and physicians preferred pazopanib primarily because it offered better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and caused less fatigue.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from a U.S. health care system perspective in the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (preprogression, postprogression, and dead), data from 2 randomized controlled trials of pazopanib versus sunitinib (COMPARZ and PISCES), and secondary sources were used to calculate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib. A time horizon of 37.5 months was used in the base case, consistent with the duration of follow-up used in the COMPARZ trial. The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier survival distributions for PFS and OS from the COMPARZ trial. Utility values were obtained from the PISCES trial. Costs were based on medical resource utilization data from the COMPARZ trial and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with sunitinib (pazopanib dominant). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was projected to be dominant in 69% of the simulations. The probability that pazopanib was more cost-effective than sunitinib was ≥ 90% for threshold values of cost-effectiveness between the range of $10,000-$160,000 per QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in all scenarios examined.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study suggest that pazopanib is cost-effective compared with sunitinib as the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

In the phase iii palette trial of pazopanib compared with placebo in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (sts) who had received prior chemotherapy, pazopanib treatment was associated with improved progression-free survival (pfs). We used an economic model and data from palette and other sources to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in patients with advanced sts who had already received chemotherapy.

METHODS

We developed a multistate model to estimate expected pfs, overall survival (os), lifetime sts treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) for patients receiving pazopanib or placebo as second-line therapy for advanced sts. Cost-effectiveness was calculated alternatively from the health care system and societal perspectives for the province of Quebec. Estimated pfs, os, incidence of adverse events, and utilities values for pazopanib and placebo were derived from the palette trial. Costs were obtained from published sources.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, pazopanib is estimated to increase qalys by 0.128. The incremental cost of pazopanib compared with placebo is CA$20,840 from the health care system perspective and CA$15,821 from the societal perspective. The cost per qaly gained with pazopanib in that comparison is CA$163,336 from the health care system perspective and CA$124,001 from the societal perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, pazopanib might be cost-effective from the Canadian health care system and societal perspectives depending on the threshold value used by reimbursement authorities to assess novel cancer therapies. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for advanced sts, pazopanib might nevertheless be an appropriate alternative to currently used treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma in the United kingdom

In the phase III PALETTE trial, pazopanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (mSTS) who had received prior chemotherapy. We used a multistate model to estimate expected PFS, overall survival (OS), lifetime STS treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients receiving pazopanib, placebo, trabectedin, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line mSTS therapies. The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib was expressed as the incremental costs per QALY gained. Estimates of PFS/OS, adverse events, and utilities for pazopanib and placebo were from the PALETTE trial. Estimates of relative effectiveness of the other comparators were from an unadjusted indirect comparison versus pazopanib. Costs were from published sources. Pazopanib is estimated to increase QALYs by 0.128 and costs by £7,976 versus placebo; cost per QALY gained with pazopanib versus placebo is estimated to be £62,000. Compared with the other chemotherapies, pazopanib provides similar QALYs at a lower cost. Pazopanib may not be cost-effective versus placebo but may be cost-effective versus the most commonly used active treatments, although this conclusion is uncertain. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for mSTS, pazopanib may be an appropriate alternative to some currently used medications in the United Kingdom.

Healthcare costs associated with skeletal-related events in breast cancer patients with bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer are pre-disposed to skeletal-related events (SREs), including spinal cord compression (SCC), pathologic fracture (PF), surgery to bone (SB), and radiotherapy to bone (RT).

OBJECTIVE

To document current patterns of healthcare utilization and costs of SREs in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 9/2002 to 6/2011. Study subjects included all persons with claims for breast cancer and for bone metastases, and ≥1 claims for an SRE. Unique SRE episodes were identified based on a gap of at least 90 days without an SRE claim, and classified by treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) and SRE type (SCC, PF, SB, or RT).

RESULTS

Of 17,266 patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, 9142 (53%) had one or more SRE episodes. Among 5809 patients who met all other criteria, there were 7617 SRE episodes over mean (SD) follow-up of 17.2 (15.2) months. The percentage of episodes that required inpatient treatment ranged from 11% (RT) to 76% (SB). On average, inpatient SCC episodes (n=83 episodes) were most costly; while outpatient PF episodes (n=552 episodes) were least costly. Of the total SRE costs (mean [SE] $21,072 [$36,462]/episode), 36% were attributable to outpatient RT (n=5265 episodes) and 31% to inpatient PF (n=838 episodes).

LIMITATIONS

The administrative claims data used in this study may lack sensitivity and specificity for identification of clinical events and may not be generalizable to other populations. Also, for some SRE episode categories, the number of events was small and cost estimates may lack precision.

CONCLUSION

In patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, SREs are associated with high costs and hospitalizations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lapatinib plus Letrozole in Post-Menopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-and HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

In the EGF30008 and TAnDEM (TrAstuzumab in Dual HER2 ER-positive Metastatic breast cancer) trials, anti-HER2 therapy plus an aromatase inhibitor (lapatinib + letrozole (LAP + LET) and trastuzumb + anastrozole (TZ + ANA), respectively) improved time to progression versus aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (LET and ANA, respectively) in post-menopausal women with previously untreated hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

A partitionedsurvival analysis model using data from EGF30008 and published results of TAnDEM and other literature was used to evaluate the incremental direct medical cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with LAP + LET versus LET, ANA, and TZ + ANA in post-menopausal women with previously untreated HR+ and HER2+ metastatic breast cancer from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

RESULTS

Incremental costs for LAP + LET are £ 34,737 versus LET, £ 35,995 versus ANA, and £ 5,513 versus TZ + ANA. Corresponding QALYs gained are 0.467, 0.601, and 0.252 years. Cost/QALY gained with LAP + LET is £ 74,448 versus LET, £ 59,895 versus ANA, and £ 21,836 versus TZ + ANA. Given a threshold of £ 30,000/QALY, the estimated probability that LAP + LET is cost-effective is 1.4% versus LET, 9.2% versus ANA, and 51% versus TZ + ANA.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on criteria for the evaluation of health technologies in the UK (£ 30,000/QALY), LAP + LET is not likely to be cost-effective versus aromatase inhibitor monotherapy but may be cost-effective versus TZ + ANA, although the latter comparison is associated with substantial uncertainty.

Retrospective Study of the Prevalence, Predictors, and Consequences of Nonadherence With Lapatinib in Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer Who Were Previously Treated With Trastuzumab

Background. Lapatinib is an oral small molecule dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has been shown to improve time to progression versus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab. Objective. To describe extent, predictors, and consequences of nonadherence with lapatinib in women with MBC who were previously treated with trastuzumab. Methods. This was a retrospective observational study using data from a large health insurance claims databases spanning January 2000 to March 2010. Measures of lapatinib adherence included medication possession ratio (MPR), time to discontinuation (end of supply), time to first treatment interruption (gap during treatment of 30 days without supply), and duration of continuous therapy (time to gap of 30 days without supply or end of supply). Predictors of nonadherence to lapatinib and the association between nonadherence and outcomes, utilization, and costs were examined using multiple regression analysis. Results. A total of 666 patients met all inclusion criteria. Mean initial lapatinib dosage was 1161 mg daily; 63% received index lapatinib in combination with capecitabine. Mean MPR was 87%; 22% of patients had MPR < 80%. Median time to lapatinib discontinuation was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval = 8.0-10.2). Twenty-seven percent of patients had one or more treatment interruptions during follow-up. Median duration of continuous therapy was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval = 5.1-6.1). Concomitant therapy with a taxane was a predictor of nonadherence (odds ratio for MPR < 80% = 10.30; P < .001). There was a statistically significant association between nonadherence to lapatinib and greater number of outpatient visits ( P = .028). Conclusions. In women with MBC who were previously treated with trastuzumab, mean adherence to lapatinib in typical clinical practice is relatively high overall, although there is a small group of patients with high nonadherence. Targeted efforts to improve adherence to lapatinib in this subgroup may be warranted.

Health-care utilization and costs with fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in asthma patients at risk for exacerbations

Although studies have established that adding long-acting beta agonists (LABA) to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy among patients with inadequately controlled asthma is associated with better outcomes than increasing ICS dosage, outcomes with ICS versus fixed-dose ICS/LABA combination among patients with recent asthma exacerbation or frequent use of rescue medication are unavailable. This study was designed to compare health-care utilization/costs among patients with recent asthma exacerbation or frequent rescue medication use who received fluticasone propionate (FP) alone versus fixed-dose FP/salmeterol combination (FSC). A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large health insurance data set. Patients with one or more claims with asthma diagnosis, two or more prescriptions for FSC (250/50- or 100/50-mg formulations) or FP (220- or 110-mg formulations), and one or more asthma exacerbations or five or more short-acting beta agonist (SABA) prescriptions within 1 year before initial receipt of study medications were included. Health-care utilization/costs and controller therapy compliance were compared for patients receiving FSC versus FP using multivariate regression analysis controlling for FP dose and baseline characteristics. A total of 7779 patients met inclusion criteria (5769, FSC, and 2010, FP) with comparable mean follow-up (FSC, 685 days; FP, 670 days; p = 0.151). Controlling for FP dosage and baseline characteristics, FSC patients had lower risks of asthma-related exacerbations, fewer SABAs and systemic corticosteroids, higher costs of asthma medications and total asthma-related health care, and lower total asthma-related health-care costs excluding study medication cost. In asthma patients with recent exacerbation or frequent SABA use, receipt of FSC reduced asthma-related exacerbation risks and rescue medication use versus receipt of FP.

Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole in her2-positive, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in Canada

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with lapatinib plus letrozole for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (hr+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (her2+) metastatic breast cancer (mbc) has not been assessed from the Canadian health care system and societal perspectives.

METHODS

A partitioned survival analysis model with 3 health states (alive, pre-progression; alive, post-progression; dead) was developed to estimate direct and indirect costs and quality-adjusted life years (qalys) with lapatinib-letrozole, letrozole, anastrozole, or trastuzumab-anastrozole as first-line treatment. Clinical inputs for lapatinib-letrozole and letrozole were taken from the EGF30008 trial (NCT00073528). Clinical inputs for anastrozole and trastuzumab-anastrozole were taken from a network meta-analysis of published studies. Drug costs were obtained from the manufacturer's price list, the Quebec list of medications, and imsBrogan. Other costs were taken from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan's Schedule of Benefits and Fees and published studies. A 10-year time horizon was used. Costs and qalys were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of changes in model parameters.

RESULTS

Quality-adjusted life years gained with lapatinib-letrozole were 0.236 compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole, 0.440 compared with letrozole, and 0.568 compared with anastrozole. Assuming a health care system perspective, incremental costs were $5,805, $67,029, and $67,472 respectively. Given a cost per qaly threshold of $100,000, the probability that lapatinib-letrozole is preferred was 21% compared with letrozole, 36% compared with anastrozole, and 68% compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole. Results from the societal perspective were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In postmenopausal women with hr+/her2+ mbc receiving first-line treatment, lapatinib-letrozole may not be cost-effective compared with letrozole or anastrozole, but may be cost-effective compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole.

Utilization of intravenous bisphosphonates in patients with bone metastases secondary to breast, lung, or prostate cancer

Purpose

Cancer patients with bone metastases (BMets) are predisposed to skeletal complications. Bone-targeted therapies such as denosumab or intravenous bisphosphonates (IVBs) reduce the risk of these complications. This study characterized patterns of IVB use in these patients in the USA.

Methods

This was a retrospective, observational study using the Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare databases (2002–2011). Subjects with ≥1 claims of diagnosis of breast, lung, or prostate cancer (BC, LC, or PC) and ≥1 claims of BMets diagnosis were included. The date of first BMet diagnosis claim was the “index date.” Key exclusion criteria were diagnosis of other primary cancer, receipt of IVB, or <6 months continuous enrollment pre-index. Cumulative incidence of treatment initiation, interruption, and discontinuation were estimated. Proportions of IVB claims with chemotherapy administered on the same day and with renal monitoring within 2 weeks prior were summarized. Multivariate regressions assessing factors associated with IVB initiation were conducted.

Results

Cumulative incidence of IVB initiation at 12 months post-index was greatest for BC followed by PC and LC, and it declined with age in all tumor types, e.g., in BC from 62 % at age <50 years to 47 % at age ≥75 years. At 12 months, IVB treatment interruption ranged from 16 % (LC) to 31 % (PC), with discontinuation ranging from 46 % (BC) to 83 % (LC).

Conclusions

IVBs are used more frequently in patients with BMets secondary to BC than PC or LC. Many patients interrupt or discontinue IVB therapy within 12 months of initiation potentially impacting effectiveness.

Utilization of intravenous bisphosphonates (IVBs) in patients with bone metastases (BMets) secondary to breast, lung, or prostate cancer (BC, LC, PC)

e20665

Background: Cancer patients with BMets are predisposed to skeletal complications. Bone targeted therapies such as denosumab or IVBs reduce the risk of these complications. The objective of this study was to characterize patterns of IVB use in these patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases (9/02 - 6/11). Subjects were all persons with ≥1 claim with a diagnosis (Dx) of BC, LC, or PC and ≥1 claim with a Dx of BMets. The date of first BMet Dx claim was the “index date”. Key exclusion criteria were Dx of other primary cancer, receipt of IVB pre-index, or <6 mos continuous enrollment pre-index. Cumulative incidence of treatment initiation (first IVB claim, death as competing risk), interruption (gap of >60 days between IVB claims, discontinuation as competing risk), and discontinuation (last IVB claim) were analyzed. Results: Cumulative incidence of initiation of IVB at 12 mos post-index was greatest for BC followed by PC and LC (Table). IVB treatment interruption at 12 mos ranged from 16% (LC) to 31% (PC). IVB treatment discontinuation at 12 mos ranged from 46% (BC) to 83% (LC). Cumulative incidence of initiation of IVB at 12 mos declined with age in all tumor types: e.g., in BC, from 62% at age<50 years to 47% at age 75+ years. Conclusions: IVBs are used more frequently in patients with BMets secondary to BC than PC or LC. Many patients interrupt or discontinue IVB therapy within 12 mos. of initiation, potentially impacting effectiveness. [Table: see text]

Risk of asthma exacerbation, asthma-related health care utilization and costs, and adherence to controller therapy in patients with asthma receiving fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalation powder 100 μg/50 μg versus mometasone furoate inhalation powder

OBJECTIVE

National asthma treatment guidelines recommend low/medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) as initial therapy in mild asthma patients. However, low doses of a fixed-dose combination of ICS and long-acting β-agonists are sometimes used. This study compares asthma-related outcomes and health care utilization and costs in clinical practice in patients starting fluticasone propionate 100 μg and salmeterol 50 μg via Diskus (FSC) or mometasone furoate (MF).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare asthma-related outcomes in asthma patients who received FSC or MF, using a large health insurance claims dataset spanning January 2004-December 2008. Patients with ≥1 claim with an asthma ICD-9-CM diagnosis code and ≥2 FSC or MF prescriptions were included, stratified into FSC or MF groups by study drug received first and matched using propensity score.

RESULTS

A total of 18,283 patients met inclusion criteria (14,044 FSC and 4239 MF); 3799 matched pairs were identified (mean follow-up: FSC 548 days, MF 537 days). FSC patients had lower risk of asthma-related exacerbation (Hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95, p = .002), defined as either asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits/hospitalizations or receipt of systemic corticosteroids (SCSs); fewer SCS claims (mean 0.28 vs. 0.33, p = .021); and fewer asthma-related physician office (PO) and hospital outpatient (HO) visits (mean 1.17 vs. 1.63, p < .001). However, asthma-related ED visits were higher with FSC (p = .004), and FSC patients had higher total costs of asthma-related health care ($953 vs. $862, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

In asthma patients initiating ICS therapy, MF had lower asthma-related ED visits. However, FSC may reduce the use of SCS and asthma-related PO/HO visits.

Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who have received prior therapy with trastuzumab

BACKGROUND

In a phase III trial of women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab, an anthracycline, and taxanes (EGF100151), lapatinib plus capecitabine (L+C) improved time to progression (TTP) versus capecitabine monotherapy (C-only). In a trial including HER2+ MBC patients who had received at least one prior course of trastuzumab and no more than one prior course of palliative chemotherapy (GBG 26/BIG 03-05), continued trastuzumab plus capecitabine (T+C) also improved TTP.

METHODS

An economic model using patient-level data from EGF100151 and published results of GBG 26/BIG 03-05 as well as other literature were used to evaluate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained with L+C versus C-only and versus T+C in women with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

RESULTS

Expected costs were £28,816 with L+C, £13,985 with C-only and £28,924 with T+C. Corresponding QALYs were 0.927, 0.737 and 0.896. In the base case, L+C was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with T+C; cost per QALY gained was £77,993 with L+C versus C-only. In pairwise probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probability that L+C is preferred to C-only was 0.03 given a threshold of £30,000. The probability that L+C is preferred to T+C was 0.54 regardless of the threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared against capecitabine alone, the addition of lapatinib has a cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding the threshold normally used by NICE. Compared with T+C, L+C is dominant in the base case and approximately equally likely to be cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses over a wide range of threshold values.

Health care utilization and costs associated with skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with breast cancer (BC) and bone metastases (BMets)

72

Background: Patients with BMets secondary to BC are predisposed to SREs, defined as spinal cord compression (SCC), pathologic fracture (PF), surgery to bone (SB), and radiation therapy to bone (RT). Information on health care utilization and costs to treat SRE episodes in BC patients are limited. The objective of this study was to document current patterns of healthcare utilization and costs of SRE in patients with BC and BMets. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 9/2002 to 6/2011. Study subjects included all persons with claims for BC (ICD-9-CM 174.xx) and for BMets (ICD-9-CM 170.xx or 198.5x), and ≥1 claim(s) for SRE. Key inclusion criteria included no other primary cancer and continuous enrollment ≥6 mos prior to BMets diagnosis. Unique SRE episodes were identified based on a gap of ≥90 days without an SRE claim, and classified by treatment setting (inpatient [IP, hospitalized for SRE during episode] or outpatient [OP]) and SRE type (SCC; PF [and no SCC]; SB [and no SCC or PF]; RT [and no SCC, PF, or SB]). Results: Of 22,709 BC patients with BMets, 11,941 had ≥1 SRE. Among 5,809 patients who met all other criteria, there were 7,617 SRE episodes over a mean (SD) follow-up of 17.2 (15.2) mos. The percent of SRE episodes that required IP treatment ranged from 11% (RT) - 76% (SB) (23% overall). On average, IP SCC episodes were most costly; while OP PF episodes were least costly. Of the total SRE costs (mean [SD] $21,072 [$36,462]/episode), 36% were for OP RT and 31% were for IP PF. Conclusions: In patients with BC and BMets, SREs are frequent and associated with high costs and hospitalizations. OP RT and IP PF account for a large share of SRE costs. Treatments that prevent SREs in these patients may reduce these costs. [Table: see text]

Retrospective study of predictors and consequences of nonadherence with lapatinib (LAP) in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who were previously treated with trastuzumab

e11067

Background: LAP, an oral small molecule dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been shown to improve time to progression in combination with capecitabine vs. capecitabine alone in women with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab, an anthracycline, and taxanes. Data on adherence, persistence, predictors and consequences of non-adherence with LAP in typical clinical practice are scarce. Methods: This was retrospective observational study of predictors and consequences of non-adherence with LAP in women with MBC who were previously treated with trastuzumab using Thomson MedStat MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare claims databases covering 80 million lives. Measures of LAP adherence were calculated from information on pharmacy claims and included medication possession ratio (MPR) and time to first treatment interruption (gap during treatment of 30 days without supply). Predictors of non-adherence to LAP and the association between non-adherence and healthcare utilization and costs were examined using multiple regression analyses. Results: A total of 666 patients met all inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 12 mos. Mean(SD) MPR was 87% (19%); 22% of patients had MPR<80%. Twenty seven percent of patients had >=1 treatment interruptions during follow-up. Concomitant therapy with a taxane was a predictor of non-adherence (Odds ratio MPR<80%=10.3, 95%CI 3.3 to 31.9, p<0.001). In generalized linear regression models, non-adherence with LAP (1-MPR[range: 0 to 1]) was associated with more physicians' office / hospital outpatient visits (Rate ratio = 1.26, 95%CI: 1.03-1.54, p=0.028). There was a statistically non-significant trend towards an association between adherence and total costs excluding the costs of LAP (Cost ratio = 1.23, 95%CI: 0.93-1.63, p=0.146). Conclusions: Most patients receiving LAP are adherent to therapy, although there is a small group with high non-adherence that may negatively impact healthcare resource utilization. Further research is needed to identify additional predictors of LAP non-adherence so that clinicians may develop strategies to enhance adherence and improve patient outcomes.

Treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain: A simulation model

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of a generalizable stochastic-simulation model of the treatment of neuropathic pain associated with peripheral neuropathies.

METHODS

We developed a model to simulate treatment outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of patients with peripheral neuropathies. Each patient was randomly assigned an average pretreatment daily pain score (on a 0-10 scale), based on an assumed distribution of mean pretreatment pain scores in the cohort. Patients were randomly assigned daily pain scores, based on their pretreatment average and an assumed distribution of daily pain scores around this mean. Treatment outcomes were then simulated using the expected mean change (vs. baseline) in pain scores. Model outcomes include the expected increase in days with no or mild pain (score < or = 3), days with > or = 30% and > or = 50% reductions in pain intensity, and days with 2- and 3-point absolute reductions in pain intensity. To illustrate its use, the model was estimated over a 12-week period using data from a recent clinical trial of a new antiepileptic (pregabalin).

RESULTS

Treatment over 12 weeks (84 days) was projected to result in 26 (+/-0.4) (mean [+/-SE]) additional (vs. no treatment) days with no or mild pain, 33 (+/-0.5) days with a > or = 30% reduction in pain intensity, 28 (+/-0.4) days with > or = 50% reduction in pain intensity, and 34 (+/-0.5) and 30 (+/-0.5) days with > or = 2-point and > or = 3-point absolute reductions in pain intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with data on health-state utilities and treatment costs, this new analytical tool can provide a foundation for formal cost-effectiveness evaluations of interventions for painful peripheral neuropathies.