Impact of Dosing Frequency of Oral Oncolytics on Refill Adherence Among Patients with Hematological Malignancies

Background : With advances in oral oncolytics for hematologic malignancies, it is important to consider dosing frequency and treatment (tx) adherence, as prior data have shown poor adherence to oral cancer medications may result in inferior tx outcomes (Huang WC, Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 2016; Muluneh B, J Oncol Pract, 2018). There is limited evidence regarding the impact of dosing frequency on tx adherence among patients with hematological malignancies treated with oral oncolytics. The objective of this study was to characterize real-world demographic and clinical characteristics, and compare refill adherence, among patients with hematological malignancies receiving once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) oral oncolytics. Methods : This retrospective cohort study used multi-year (2012-2020) commercial claims data from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics ® Data Mart Database and included adults (≥18 yr) with a diagnosis of a hematological malignancy identified using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes. The exposure of interest was receipt of an oral oncolytic, and the date of the first observed oral oncolytic (QD or BID) was considered the index date. All patients were required to have continuous health plan enrollment for ≥6 mo prior and ≥6 mo after the index date. The 6-mo period prior to the index date was considered the baseline period for determining patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and prior medication use. To minimize the effect of the differences in observable baseline patient characteristics between the QD and BID groups on refill adherence, 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching was used. Tx refill adherence to QD and BID oral oncolytics was measured using two established metrics: proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR). PDC, a conservative measure of refill adherence, was considered for primary analysis as it measures total days of drug coverage within a pre-specified follow-up period; whereas MPR which was included for sensitivity analysis, measures total drug supplied within the pre-specified follow-up period. PDC and MPR were measured at pre-defined time periods of 3 and 6 mo, and from the index date until the end of the follow-up period (variable-length follow-up). Patients with drug coverage for ≥80% (PDC or MPR ≥0.8) of pre-defined time periods were considered tx refill adherent. Results: The study identified 5,874 adults with hematological malignancies, of whom 4,938 (84.1%) received QD oral oncolytics and 936 (15.9%) received BID oral oncolytics. Before 1:1 PS matching, there were significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age (67.5 yr QD vs 61.6 yr BID, P<0.001), insurance type (Medicare, 65.4% QD vs 46.8% BID, P<0.001), being previously untreated (67.6% QD vs 63.7% BID, P=0.019), and Charlson's comorbidity score (mean: 1.61 QD vs 1.44 BID, P<0.001). After 1:1 PS matching, demographics, baseline comorbidities, cancer histology, and line of therapy were well-balanced. The matched cohort comprised 936 patients receiving QD oral oncolytics and 936 patients receiving BID oral oncolytics. Table 1 summarizes refill adherence among patients with hematological malignancies receiving QD versus BID oral oncolytics. The proportion of patients with ≥80% of drug coverage during follow-up was higher for QD versus BID recipients at 3 mo: numerically higher by PDC (70.8% vs 66.9%, P=0.065) and statistically significantly higher by MPR (72% vs 67.8%, P=0.049). The proportion of adherent patients was significantly higher for QD vs BID for both PDC and MPR at 6 mo (PDC: 62% vs 56.8%, P=0.024; MPR: 62.7% vs 57.5%, P=0.021) and at variable-length follow-up (PDC: 82.4% QD vs 77.7% BID, P=0.011; MPR: 84.9% QD vs 80.9%, P=0.020). These results suggest QD dosing is associated with improved tx adherence to oral hematological oncolytics compared to BID dosing. Conclusions: This study demonstrates significantly higher refill adherence in patients receiving QD versus BID oral hematological oncolytics at 6 mo and variable-length follow-up, highlighting the potential benefit of dosing convenience in improving adherence to oral oncolytics in the real-world setting. As suboptimal tx adherence may result in reduced tx effectiveness, real-world characterization of refill adherence rates of oral oncolytics can better inform on tx effectiveness outside of a controlled clinical trial environment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Challagulla: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Current Employment; AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kebede: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; ObsEva: Other. Rege: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company (paid to institution): Consultancy. Volodarsky: AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Current Employment. Osei-Bonsu: AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Current Employment. Karve: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Limited benefit and high financial burden of drugs used to manage cancer-associated anorexia/cachexia syndrome (CACS).

55 Background: To date, drugs used for CACS have limited efficacy and may have unwanted side effects. Despite this, clinicians commonly prescribe certain drugs for CACS, adding financial burden to patients through out-of-pocket costs near or at the end of life. We sought to describe the range of costs of the multiple drugs commonly used to manage CACS. Methods: We reviewed oncology, nutrition, and supportive care guidelines (ASCO, ESMO, ESPEN, MASCC) and compiled a list of drugs recommended for CACS. We also included drugs commonly used off-label in clinical practice as identified by study authors. Using GoodRx.com, we extracted available formulations (e.g., tablet [tab] vs capsule [cap] vs oral disintegrating tablet [ODT] vs solution [sol]), and brand name vs generic products for each drug. We identified the average retail price, and the lowest price with coupons, for each formulation using the most commonly used dosage for a 2-week period (typical fill). The average retail price is the cash price for consumers without prescription drug coverage. The lowest price represents a discounted, ‘’best case’’ scenario of out-of-pocket costs for patients without prescription drug coverage. We collected data using the zip code 10065 in May 2021 to describe the range of costs of these drug formulations. Results: We included 7 drugs available in 20 formulations (Table). For a 2-week fill, the least expensive options included generic olanzapine 5 mg tab (once daily) and generic mirtazapine 15 mg tab (once daily), costing $4.50 per fill. Brand-name solutions were costly, ranging from $605.50 (megestrol acetate, Megace ES) to $1,156.30 (dronabinol, Syndros). Costs between formulations of the same drug/dosage varied widely: for olanzapine 5 mg, the lowest price varied from $4.50 [generic, tab] to $238.40 [Zyprexa zydis, brand-name, ODT]. Conclusions: We found that the costs of drugs used for CACS are highly variable, ranging from < $5 to > $1000 per fill. Overall there is limited data supporting use of drugs for managing CACS. Thus, our findings can help guide patient-clinician discussions about the risk/benefit ratio of a prescription for managing CACS, while highlighting the importance of seeking less expensive formulations when possible.[Table: see text]

How can we improve patients’ access to new drugs under uncertainties? : South Korea’s experience with risk sharing arrangements

Background New drugs including cancer drugs and orphan drugs are becoming increasingly more expensive. Risk sharing arrangements (RSAs) could manage the risk based on both financial impact and the health outcome of new drugs if reimbursed. To improve patients’ access to new drugs under uncertainties, many developed countries have adopted RSAs. In this study, we aimed to understand the effects of RSAs in South Korea on patients’ access. Methods We reviewed current status of RSA drugs in South Korea. The number of appraisals and time gap between market approval and reimbursement per RSA drug were considered to quantify improvement of patients’ access as they showed how rapidly decisions on reimbursement of RSA drugs were derived. Then, we applied a comparative analysis to determine whether the RSA drugs in South Korea were reimbursed in the UK, Italy, and Australia. Most data for this study were obtained from websites of the governmental department/agencies responsible for appraisal of drug reimbursement in each country. And literatures related to RSAs were investigated as well. Results The eligibility for Korean RSAs had two key components - drugs for cancer and rare diseases and not having other alternative treatments. As of the first half of 2019, there were 39 RSA drugs reimbursed in South Korea, the majority of which were financial-based schemes. Refund and expenditure cap were the representative types (89.7%). After introduction of RSAs, the time gap and number of appraisals were decreased. Based on the indications of RSA drugs, the level of drug coverage in South Korea was found lower than Italy, similar to the UK, and higher than Australia. Conclusions RSAs in South Korea significantly enhanced patients’ access to new drugs and led to the alleviation of patients’ out-of-pocket expenses. The drug coverage of South Korea had a level comparable to that of other countries. This study provides implications for countries that have a dual mission of containing pharmaceutical expenditure and improving access to new drugs.