Symptomatic Skeletal Events and the Use of Bone Health Agents in a Real-World Treated Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer Population:Results From the CAPRI-Study in the Netherlands

Background: Patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are at risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSE). Bone health agents (BHA, ie bisphosphonates and denosumab) and new life-prolonging drugs (LPDs) can delay SSEs. The aim of this study is to investigate the use of BHAs in relation to SSEs in treated real-world mCRPC population. Patients and Methods: We included patients from the CAPRI registry who were treated with at least one LPD and diagnosed with bone metastases prior to the start of first LPD (LPD1). Outcomes were SSEs (external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to the bone, orthopedic surgery, pathologic fracture or spinal cord compression) and SSE-free survival (SSE-FS) since LPD1. Results: One-thousand nine hundred and twenty-three patients were included with a median follow-up from LPD1 of 16.7 months. Fifty-two percent (n = 996) started BHA prior or within 4 weeks after the start of LPD1 (early BHA). In total, 41% experienced at least one SSE. SSE incidence rate was 0.29 per patient year for patients without BHA and 0.27 for patients with early BHA. Median SSE-FS from LPD1 was 12.9 months. SSE-FS was longer in patients who started BHA early versus patients without BHA (13.2 vs. 11.0 months, P =.001). Conclusion: In a real-world population we observed an undertreatment with BHAs, although patients with early BHA use had lower incidence rates of SSEs and longer SSE-FS. This finding was irrespective of type of SSE and presence of risk factors. In addition to LPD treatment, timely initiation of BHAs is recommended in bone metastatic CRPC-patients with both pain and/or opioid use and prior SSE

Multinomial network meta-analysis using response rates: relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treatment rankings differ depending on the choice of outcome

Background : Due to the fast growing relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treatment landscape, a comparison of all the available treatments was warranted. For clinical practice it is important to consider both immediate effects such as response quality and prolonged benefits such as progression-free survival (PFS) in a meta-analysis. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the choice of outcome on the treatment rankings in RRMM. Methods : A multinomial logistic network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the ranking of sixteen treatments based on both complete and objective response rates (CRR and ORR). Seventeen phase III randomized controlled trials from a previously performed systematic literature review were included. Treatment ranking was based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Sensitivity analysis was conducted. Results : The ranking of treatments differed when comparing PFS hazard ratios rankings with rankings based on CRR. Pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone ranked highest, while a substantial lower ranking was observed for the triplet elotuzumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone. The ranking of treatments did not differ when comparing PFS hazard ratios and ORR. The scenario analyses showed that the results were robust. In all scenarios the top three was dominated by the same triplets. The treatment with the highest probability of having the best PFS and ORR was the triplet daratumumab, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in the base case. Conclusion : This analysis shows that depending on the chosen outcome treatment rankings in RRMM may differ. When conducting NMAs, the response rate, a clinically recognized outcome, should therefore be more frequently considered

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of MammaPrint® to Guide the Use of Endocrine Therapy in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Background: Gene expression profiling tests can predict the risk of disease recurrence and select patients who are expected to benefit from therapy, while allowing other patients to forgo therapy. For breast cancers, these tests were initially designed to tailor chemotherapy decisions, but recent evidence suggests that they may also guide the use of endocrine therapy. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of a prognostic test, MammaPrint®, to guide the use of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients eligible according to Dutch treatment guidelines. Methods: We constructed a Markov decision model to calculate the lifetime costs (in 2020 Euros) and effects (survival and quality-adjusted life-years) of MammaPrint® testing versus usual care (endocrine therapy for all patients) in a simulated cohort of patients. The population of interest includes patients for whom MammaPrint® testing is currently not indicated, but for whom it may be possible to safely omit endocrine therapy. We applied both a health care perspective and a societal perspective and discounted costs (4%) and effects (1.5%). Model inputs were obtained from published research (including randomized controlled trials), nationwide cancer registry data, cohort data and publicly available data sources. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty around input parameters. Additionally, threshold analyses were performed to identify under which circumstances MammaPrint® testing would be cost effective. Results: Adjuvant endocrine therapy guided by MammaPrint® resulted in fewer side effects, more (quality-adjusted) life-years (0.10 and 0.07 incremental QALYS and LYs, respectively) and higher costs (€18,323 incremental costs) compared with the usual care strategy in which all patients receive endocrine therapy. While costs for hospital visits, medication costs and productivity costs were somewhat higher in the usual care strategy, these did not outweigh costs of testing in the MammaPrint® strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €185,644 per QALY gained from a healthcare perspective and €180,617 from a societal perspective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that the conclusions remained the same under changed input parameters and assumptions. Our results show that MammaPrint® can become a cost-effective strategy when either the price of the test is reduced (> 50%), or the proportion of patients for which treatment is altered (i.e. those with ultra-low risk) increases to > 26%. Conclusion: Standard MammaPrint® testing to guide the use of endocrine therapy in our simulated patient population appears not to be a cost-effective strategy compared with usual care. The cost effectiveness of the test can be improved by reducing the price or preselecting a population more likely to benefit from the test

Towards sustainability and affordability of expensive cell and gene therapies? Applying a cost-based pricing model to estimate prices for Libmeldy and Zolgensma

Background aims: Drug prices are regarded as one of the most influential factors in determining accessibility and affordability to novel therapies. Cell and gene therapies such as OTL-200 (brand name: Libmeldy) and AVXS-101 (brand name: Zolgensma) with (expected) list prices of 3.0 million EUR and 1.9 million EUR per treatment, respectively, spark a global debate on the affordability of such therapies. The aim of this study was to use a recently published cost-based pricing model to calculate prices for cell and gene therapies, with OTL-200 and AVXS-101 as case study examples. Methods: Using the pricing model proposed by Uyl-de Groot and Löwenberg, we estimated a price for both therapies. We searched the literature and online public sources to estimate (i) research and development (R&D) expenses adjusted for risk of failure and cost of capital, (ii) the eligible patient population and (iii) costs of drug manufacturing to calculate a base-case price for OTL-200 and AVXS-101. All model input parameters were varied in a stepwise, deterministic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses to assess their impact on the calculated prices. Results: Prices for OTL-200 and AVXS-101 were estimated at 1 048 138 EUR and 380 444 EUR per treatment, respectively. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, varying R&D estimates had the greatest impact on the price for OTL-200, whereas for AVXS-101, changes in the profit margin changed the calculated price substantially. Highest prices in scenario analyses were achieved when assuming the lowest number of patients for OTL-200 and highest R&D expenses for AVXS-101. The lowest R&D expenses scenario resulted in lowest prices for either therapy. Conclusions: Our results show that, using the proposed model, prices for both OTL-200 and AVXS-101 lie substantially below the currently (proposed) list prices for both therapies. Nevertheless, the uncertainty of the used model input parameters is considerable, which translates in a wide range of estimated prices. This is mainly because of a lack of transparency from pharmaceutical companies regarding R&D expenses and the costs of drug manufacturing. Simultaneously, the disease indications for both therapies remain heavily understudied in terms of their epidemiological profile. Despite the considerable variation in the estimated prices, our results may support the public debate on value-based and cost-based pricing models, and on “fair” drug prices in general

Cost-Effectiveness of Abemaciclib in Early Breast Cancer Patients: One Size Fits All or Tailoring to Patients’ Needs?

Purpose: The addition of two years of abemaciclib treatment to standard adjuvant endocrine therapy in all patients with high risk ER+, HER2-early breast cancer (EBC) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Pre-selection of patients with an immediate risk of recurrence within the group of clinically high risk patients using detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) using patient-informed circulating tumor DNA assays during follow-up could enhance efficacy. Here, we investigate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of two years abemaciclib in all high risk HR+, HER2-patients and in MRD-guided high risk patients only. Methods: Two semi-Markov models were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding two years of abemaciclib compared to “standard treatment”: 1) “abemaciclib all” and 2) “MRD-guided abemaciclib” using MRD-guidance. Data of the MonarchE trial were used to model the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). Since iDFS and overall survival (OS) data of abemaciclib were currently limited, abemaciclib effects were extrapolated using a favorable, intermediate and unfavorable effect scenario. Results: The addition of abemaciclib in all high-risk EBC patients prolonged iDFS slightly (0.04 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs)) and led to higher costs compared to standard ET, leading to a high incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1,551,876/QALY. Neither the favorable effect scenario (additional 1.09 QALYs) was cost-effective (ICER €62,935/QALY), using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY. The “MRD-guided abemaciclib” strategy resulted in lower costs and an increase in QALYs (1.27) compared to “standard treatment” in the unfavorable effect scenario. Conclusion: The addition of abemaciclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy in all high-risk ER+, HER2-EBC patients is not cost-effective. However, using MRD detection to justify the addition of abemaciclib treatment dominates standard treatment in this cost-effectiveness analysis. Further evaluation of MRD detection in EBC by means of prospective clinical trials assessing clinical utility is recommended and promising in terms of cost-effectiveness

Symptomatic Skeletal Events and the Use of Bone Health Agents in a Real-World Treated Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer Population: Results From the CAPRI-Study in the Netherlands

Background: Patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are at risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSE). Bone health agents (BHA, ie bisphosphonates and denosumab) and new life-prolonging drugs (LPDs) can delay SSEs. The aim of this study is to investigate the use of BHAs in relation to SSEs in treated real-world mCRPC population. Patients and Methods: We included patients from the CAPRI registry who were treated with at least one LPD and diagnosed with bone metastases prior to the start of first LPD (LPD1). Outcomes were SSEs (external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to the bone, orthopedic surgery, pathologic fracture or spinal cord compression) and SSE-free survival (SSE-FS) since LPD1. Results: One-thousand nine hundred and twenty-three patients were included with a median follow-up from LPD1 of 16.7 months. Fifty-two percent (n = 996) started BHA prior or within 4 weeks after the start of LPD1 (early BHA). In total, 41% experienced at least one SSE. SSE incidence rate was 0.29 per patient year for patients without BHA and 0.27 for patients with early BHA. Median SSE-FS from LPD1 was 12.9 months. SSE-FS was longer in patients who started BHA early versus patients without BHA (13.2 vs. 11.0 months, P =.001). Conclusion: In a real-world population we observed an undertreatment with BHAs, although patients with early BHA use had lower incidence rates of SSEs and longer SSE-FS. This finding was irrespective of type of SSE and presence of risk factors. In addition to LPD treatment, timely initiation of BHAs is recommended in bone metastatic CRPC-patients with both pain and/or opioid use and prior SSE