scholarly journals Economic Burden of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the Era of Oral Targeted Therapies in the United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiushi Chen ◽  
Nitin Jain ◽  
Turgay Ayer ◽  
William G. Wierda ◽  
Christopher R. Flowers ◽  
...  

Purpose Oral targeted therapies represent a significant advance for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); however, their high cost has raised concerns about affordability and the economic impact on society. Our objective was to project the future prevalence and cost burden of CLL in the era of oral targeted therapies in the United States. Methods We developed a simulation model that evaluated the evolving management of CLL from 2011 to 2025: chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as the standard of care before 2014, oral targeted therapies for patients with del(17p) and relapsed CLL from 2014, and for first-line treatment from 2016 onward. A comparator scenario also was simulated where CIT remained the standard of care throughout. Disease progression and survival parameters for each therapy were based on published clinical trials. Results The number of people living with CLL in the United States is projected to increase from 128,000 in 2011 to 199,000 by 2025 (55% increase) due to improved survival; meanwhile, the annual cost of CLL management will increase from $0.74 billion to $5.13 billion (590% increase). The per-patient lifetime cost of CLL treatment will increase from $147,000 to $604,000 (310% increase) as oral targeted therapies become the first-line treatment. For patients enrolled in Medicare, the corresponding total out-of-pocket cost will increase from $9,200 to $57,000 (520% increase). Compared with the CIT scenario, oral targeted therapies resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $189,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusion The increased benefit and cost of oral targeted therapies is projected to enhance CLL survivorship but can impose a substantial financial burden on both patients and payers. More sustainable pricing strategies for targeted therapies are needed to avoid financial toxicity to patients.

2016 ◽  
Vol Volume 8 ◽  
pp. 475-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Rubio-Terrés ◽  
Luis Felipe Casado ◽  
Amparo Burgos ◽  
Eva González-Haba ◽  
Javier Loscertales ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5587-5587
Author(s):  
Mkaya Mwamburi ◽  
Vasudha Bal ◽  
Teresa Cascella ◽  
Anshul Shah ◽  
Merena Nanavaty ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Treatment of CLL has advanced tremendously in the past decade with significant extension of life expectancy in patients diagnosed with the disease. Three anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAB) combinations approved for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients are obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (OBI-CHL), ofatumumab-chlorambucil (OFA-CHL), and rituximab-chlorambucil (RTX-CHL), have comparable efficacy but varying safety profiles in pivotal trials. Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs), including infusion-related reactions (IRRs), neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and infections differ by each mAB. Grade 3-4 AEs, defined as requiring hospitalization or life-threatening, result in reductions in patient quality of life (QoL) and bear cost implications. We sought to compare the safety of the IV-administered anti-CD20 mABs in the first-line treatment of CLL and to evaluate the respective QoL and economic implications of these AEs. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library for the time period of 2010-2016 and in conference proceedings of ASH, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Hematology Association (EHA) for 2014-2016. Search was limited to clinical trials conducted on humans and published in English language. The IRRs were compared directly as CHL is administered orally. A Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) was conducted with data from phase 3 trials using SAS® (v9.3) to compare grade 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and infections associated with the three anti-CD20 mABs. A pooled analysis of data from phase 2 trials and cohort studies was conducted using MedCalc® version 16.2.1. Analyses were also conducted to estimate the potential impact of the AEs of respective anti-CD20 mABs on QoL and cost of care based on the NMA results and previously published estimates of utilities associated with CR (0.780), PR (0.790), SD/PD (0.760); disutilities associated with IRR (-0.11), neutropenia (-0.09), thrombocytopenia (-0.05), anemia (-0.09), and infections (-0.20); and costs associated with episodes of IRR ($4,482), neutropenia ($5,406), thrombocytopenia ($12,621), anemia ($8,894), and infections ($7,163) in CLL. Results: Of the 86 studies screened, 10 studies were included. Direct comparison showed that the rate of IRRs in OBI-CHL, OFA-CHL, and RTX-CHL were 21%, 10%, and 4%, respectively. Risks for neutropenia were lower for OFA-CHL compared to OBI-CHL (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.12-4.59) and similar to RTX-CHL (1.08; 0.20-5.82); for thrombocytopenia were lower for OFA-CHL compared to OBI-CHL (0.16; 0.02-1.33) and to RTX-CHL (0.49; 0.06-4.15); for anemia were lower for OFA-CHL compared to OBI-CHL (0.80; 0.21-3.06) and similar to RTX-CHL (1.08; 0.24-4.64); and for infections OFA-CHL, OBI-CHL (1.00; 0.15-6.74) and RTX-CHL (0.86; 0.15-4.43) were similar. The pooled analyses of AEs observed in phase 2 / cohort studies revealed similar trends when assessed. The mean pre-progression QoL utilities associated with OBI-CHL, OFA-CHL, and RTX-CHL weighted by rates of AEs, utilities associated with respective response rates to treatments, and disutilities of the respective AEs were 0.772, 0.761, and 0.748 respectively. The total cost of treating AEs per 1,000 patients on OFA-CHL, OBI-CHL and RTX-CHL were $3.9M, $8.0M and $4.2M, respectively. Conclusion: The safety profile was most desirable for OFA-CHL, followed by RTX-CHL and OBI-CHL. Though RTX-CHL had the lowest rate of grade 3-4 IRR, OFA-CHL had the better grade 3-4 hematologic safety profile compared to OBI-CHL and RTX-CHL. As efficacy of CLL treatments has improved substantially, safety of treatments is increasingly important particularly on the impact of QoL. In addition, in the cost-conscious payer environment, selecting drugs with a better safety profile and lower cost implications is vital. Our findings demonstrate that better safety profile is associated with less impact on QoL and lower costs. We found that for every 1,000 patients covered by a payer, safety alone can save an excess of $4M based on regimen choice. Fewer incidences of AEs also results in better adherence and reduction in treatment interruption or discontinuation. Safety with the QoL and cost implications should be taken into consideration to maximize the overall benefits of the treatment to CLL patients. Disclosures Mwamburi: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bal:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Cascella:Novartis Oncology: Employment. Shah:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Nanavaty:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Gala:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17556-e17556
Author(s):  
A. Benedict ◽  
R. A. Figlin ◽  
C. Charbonneau ◽  
N. Kreif ◽  
S. Hariharan ◽  
...  

e17556 Background: RCC, the most prevalent kidney cancer, is a relatively rare malignancy that carries a poor prognosis. New targeted therapies, such as sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus, and bevacizumab + interferon-alfa (IFN-α), are now available in the US for the treatment of mRCC. In the absence of head-to-head trials, the aim of this analysis was to assess the economic value of these therapies as first-line treatment of mRCC from a U.S. third-party payer perspective, using an indirect comparison based on reported survival data. Methods: An economic model was built to simulate progression-free and overall survival based on each treatment's hazard ratio against IFN-α as reported from phase II and III clinical trials. Clinical model parameters were also derived from these trials and complemented with clinical experts’ opinions. Costs of drugs, routine follow-up, treatment-related adverse events, disease progression, and best supportive care of terminally-ill patients were included in the model. Results, expressed as life-years (LY), progression-free LY (PFLY), and quality adjusted LY (QALY) gained, treatment costs (applied in 2008 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), were obtained through probabilistic analysis over a 10-year time horizon. Since the phase III clinical trial of temsirolimus included the MSKCC (modified) poor risk group patients only, two separate evaluations were carried out: (1) comparison of sunitinib, sorafenib, and bevacizumab + IFN-α in all patients and (2) a similar comparison of sunitinib and temsirolimus in the poor-risk group patients only. Results: In the first comparison model, sunitinib was both more effective (with gains of 0.52 and 0.19 PFLY, and 0.17 and 0.03 QALY) and less costly (by $13,675 and $84,260) than sorafenib and bevacizumab + IFN-α, respectively, over 10 years. Similarly, sunitinib was both more effective (with gains of 0.12 PFLY and 0.07 QALY) and less costly (saving $9,605 over ten years) than temsirolimus in patients in the poor risk group. Conclusions: These model results suggest that sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib, bevacizumab + IFN-α, and temsirolimus as a first-line treatment of mRCC. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document