Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Costs of Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with First-Line Treatment

AIM

This study evaluated costs associated with adverse events (AEs) in previously untreated real-world patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in the USA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective longitudinal cohort study analyzed data from the Merative MarketScan Research Database (1 January 2014-30 September 2021). Adult patients with aRCC receiving first-line systemic treatments for aRCC (tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs], or combination therapies of TKIs and immunotherapy) on or after the date of aRCC diagnosis were included. A total of 27 AEs of interest were included based on a review of product labels of the first-line treatments included in the study and identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Incremental costs associated with AEs between cases and controls (unadjusted and adjusted for relevant baseline characteristics) were estimated by two-part modeling. Analyses were performed over three AE cost assessment periods (7, 14, and 30 days).

RESULTS

The study included 1681 patients with aRCC (mean [standard deviation; SD] age, 60.8 [10.6] years; 73.1% male), of which 1542 (91.7%) had at least one AE. AEs were mostly diagnosed in the outpatient (OP) setting. For most AEs, cases had significantly higher unadjusted and adjusted costs than controls. Costs associated with AEs ranged from < 300 US dollars (USD) for proteinuria to nearly 60,000 USD for hypophosphatemia. Seventeen AEs had adjusted 30-day costs exceeding 10,000 USD; of these, nine (pancreatitis, acute kidney injury, dyspnea, hypotension, hyperkalemia, hypomagnesemia, hyponatremia, hypophosphatemia, and neutrophil decreased/neutropenia) had 30-day costs exceeding 20,000 USD.

LIMITATIONS

The study was subject to limitations of all observational analyses of claims data (e.g., residual confounding). Observed cost differences may not have been solely attributable to an AE of interest. Study findings may not be generalizable to aRCC patient populations outside the USA.

CONCLUSION

Most patients experienced at least one AE after initiation of first-line treatment with a TKI or combination therapies of TKIs and immunotherapy. There were substantial costs associated with AEs. Considering both safety and efficacy profiles when selecting optimal treatments can potentially mitigate healthcare costs for aRCC.

Disproportionality analysis of cardiac adverse events associated with lenvatinib using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database

AIMS

This study was conducted to examine disproportionality, times to onset, incidence rates and outcomes of lenvatinib-associated cardiac adverse events (AEs) using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.

METHODS

We analysed data for the period between April 2004 and May 2023. Data on cardiac AEs were extracted and the relative disproportionality of AEs was estimated using reporting odds ratios (RORs). Furthermore, Weibull distribution parameters were calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 2 230 863 reports analysed, we identified 7684 reports of AEs associated with lenvatinib, including 317 cardiac AEs. Signals were detected for eight cardiac AEs: hypertension, cardiac failure, myocarditis, myocardial infarction, immune-mediated myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, angina unstable and cardiotoxicity. Among these, fatal outcomes were observed for cardiac failure, myocarditis and myocardial infarction. Histograms of median times to onset for the eight detected cardiac AE signals showed that AEs occurred at a median of 3.5-134.5 days after lenvatinib administration. The Weibull distributions showed that cardiac failure occurred early after administration (early failure type), myocarditis occurred in a dose-dependent manner (wearout failure type), and myocardial infarction occurred constantly throughout the exposure period (random failure type).

CONCLUSIONS

We focused on cardiac AEs associated with lenvatinib as post-marketing AEs. Serious outcomes can arise after lenvatinib administration. Patients should be monitored for signs of onset of these AEs not only at the start of administration, but also over an extended period.

Long-Term Temporal Trends of Real-World Healthcare Costs Associated with Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab and Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM + AXI) are first-line (1L) treatments for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), although the long-term trends in their associated real-world healthcare costs are not well defined. We compared the real-world healthcare costs of patients with aRCC who received 1L NIVO + IPI or PEM + AXI over 24 months.

METHODS

Adults with RCC and secondary malignancy who initiated 1L NIVO + IPI or PEM + AXI were identified in the Merative MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (01/01/2004 to 09/30/2021). All-cause and RCC-related healthcare costs (unadjusted and adjusted) were assessed per patient per month (PPPM) at 6-month intervals post-treatment initiation (index date) up to 24 months, and differences between the NIVO + IPI and PEM + AXI cohorts were compared.

RESULTS

Of 325 patients with aRCC, 219 received NIVO + IPI and 106 received PEM + AXI as the 1L treatment. According to patients' follow-up length, the analyses for months 7-12 included 210 patients in the NIVO + IPI cohort and 103 in the PEM + AXI cohort; months 13-18 included 119 and 48 patients, respectively; and months 19-24 included 81 and 25 patients. PPPM unadjusted all-cause total costs were $46,348 for NIVO + IPI and $38,097 for PEM + AXI in months 1-6; $26,840 versus $27,983, respectively, in months 7-12; $22,899 versus $25,137 in months 13-18; and $22,279 versus $27,947 in months 19-24. PPPM unadjusted RCC-related costs were $44,059 for NIVO + IPI and $36,456 for PEM + AXI in months 1-6; $25,144 versus $26,692, respectively, in months 7-12; $21,645 versus $23,709 in months 13-18; and $20,486 versus $25,515 in months 19-24. PPPM costs declined more rapidly for patients receiving NIVO + IPI compared to those receiving PEM + AXI, resulting in significantly lower all-cause costs associated with NIVO + IPI during months 19-24 (difference - $10,914 [95% confidence interval - $21,436, - $1091]) and RCC-related costs during months 7-12 (- $4747 [(- $8929, - $512]) and 19-24 (- $10,261 [- $20,842, - $421]) after adjustment. Cost savings for NIVO + IPI versus PEM + AXI were driven by differences in drug costs which, after adjustment, were significantly lower in months 7-12 (difference - $5555 [all-cause], - $5689 [RCC-related]); 13-18 (- $7217 and - $6870, respectively); and 19-24 (- $16,682 and - $16,125).

CONCLUSION

Although the real-world PPPM healthcare costs of 1L NIVO + IPI were higher compared with PEM + AXI in the first 6 months of treatment, the costs associated with NIVO + IPI rapidly declined thereafter, resulting in significantly lower costs vs. PEM + AXI from months 7 to 24.

Estimated cost of VEGFR TKI associated adverse events in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients

INTRODUCTION

The majority of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receive one or more VEGFR TKI agents, alone or in combination with an immune-oncology (IO) agent or an mTOR inhibitor. To date, the cost of adverse events (AEs) common to VEGFR TKIs has not been quantified. This study estimated the potential impact of differences in VEGFR TKI AE profiles on treatment cost efficiency in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting.

METHODS

Patients with documented mRCC who were treated with VEGFR TKI therapies between Jan 2015 and Mar 2021 were identified using EMR. ICD-10 diagnosis codes were used to identify the first occurrence of each class effect AE. Patients were matched to 3rd party insurance claims, and costs associated to TKI AEs within 90 days of index event were captured. Average per patient AE cost data was calculated and applied to published incidence data to estimate regimen-specific AE total cost burden within a hypothetical commercial plan for mRCC patients undergoing treatment in the R/R setting.

RESULTS

The highest total cost for AE management was attributed to lenvatinib and everolimus use at $13,303, followed closely by sunitinib at $13,092. Tivozanib treatment was associated with the lowest total cost of AE management at $7,523, driven by the relatively lower incidence of certain high-cost AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated costs of managing VEGFR TKI class-effect AEs were lowest with tivozanib, and highest with lenvatinib and everolimus, indicating potentially differential healthcare resource burden by TKI regimen. The use of tivozanib in the 3 L + mRCC setting suggests potential costs offsets when compared to other TKI regimens.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Combination Therapy as First-line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in Japan

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) combination therapy (NIVO + IPI) compared with the sunitinib (SUN) therapy for Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the perspective of a Japanese health insurance payer.

METHODS

A lifetime horizon was applied, and 2% per annum was set as the discount rate. The threshold was set as $ 75 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the analytical method, we used a partitioned survival analysis model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated by dividing incremental costs by incremental QALYs. Progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death were set as health states. Additionally, cost parameters and utility weights were set as key parameters. We set the intermediate/poor-risk population as the base case. Scenario analysis was conducted for the intention-to-treat population and the favorable risk population. Furthermore, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted for each population.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the QALYs of NIVO + IPI and SUN were 4.32 and 2.99, respectively. NIVO + IPI conferred 1.34 additional QALYs. Meanwhile, the total costs in the NIVO + IPI and SUN were $692 288 and $475 481, respectively. As a result, the ICER of NIVO + IPI compared with SUN was estimated to be $162 243 per QALY gained. The parameter that greatly affected the ICER was the utility weight of progression-free survival in NIVO + IPI.

CONCLUSIONS

NIVO + IPI for advanced renal cell carcinoma seems to be not cost-effective compared with the SUN in the Japanese healthcare system.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan Versus Trastuzumab Emtansine for Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine as second-line therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer from a US healthcare sector perspective.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine. For both treatments, modeled patients were administered treatment intravenously every 3 weeks indefinitely or until disease progression. Transition parameters were principally derived from the updated DESTINY-Breast03 phase III randomized clinical trial. Costs include drug costs extracted from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services average sales price and administrative, adverse event, and third-line therapy costs derived from published literature, measured in 2022 US dollars. Health utilities for health states and disutilities for adverse events were sourced from published literature. Effects were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We conducted both probabilistic sensitivity analysis and comprehensive scenario analysis to test model assumptions and robustness, while utilizing a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

In our base-case analysis, total costs for trastuzumab deruxtecan were $1 266 945, compared with $820 082 for trastuzumab emtansine. Total QALYs for trastuzumab deruxtecan were 5.09, compared with 3.15 for trastuzumab emtansine. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $230 285/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that trastuzumab deruxtecan had an 11.1% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the higher efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer, our findings raise concern regarding its value at current prices.