Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options after exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor (PI), and anti-CD38 antibody (triple-class exposure [TCE]). However, current understanding about the management of these patients and associated health care resource use (HCRU) is limited outside the United States. The objective of the International Treatment pattern and resource use Evaluation for Multiple myeloma In a Study of triple-class Exposed patients (ITEMISE) study was to use a physician-developed survey fielded to hematologists across Europe and Canada to assess the treatment, management, HCRU, and end-of-life care for patients with RRMM after TCE. The ITEMISE study used a 3-phase Delphi-like approach that consisted of in-depth interviews with 7 hematology experts; the development of a cross-sectional survey fielded to hematologists across Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom from August to October 2020; and a final workshop of hematology experts to validate the pooled findings. Hematologists were asked to consider the management of patients in the first 3 treatment lines after TCE, including treatment options, treatment duration and outcomes, and frequency of outpatient visits and hospitalizations. The survey was completed by 202 hematologists (60% from academic hospitals, 38% from other public hospitals, and 2% from private hospitals). Hematologists estimated that 55% of patients would receive active treatment after TCE, the equivalent of fourth-line treatment onward since diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Immunomodulatory drug, anti-CD38 antibody plus immunomodulatory drug, and PI-based regimens (received by 22.5%, 17.8%, and 15.1% of patients, respectively) were reported for first treatment strategy after TCE. Pomalidomide, daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and carfilzomib were the most frequently selected antimyeloma agents. Associated outcomes of median overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate for first treatment after TCE were estimated as 12 months, 4 months, and 40%, respectively. HCRU included outpatient visits and unplanned hospitalizations that were commonly reported during treatment after TCE. Findings indicate an intent to actively treat patients after TCE with a range of combination regimens frequently consisting of immunomodulatory drugs, PIs, and anti-CD38 antibodies, highlighting the lack of standard of care and suggesting a large clinical unmet need. Estimated clinical outcomes are consistent with data from US studies and indicate the poor prognosis for patients after TCE. Substantial HCRU is associated with management of patients after TCE across Europe and Canada, signifying a high patient and societal impact and a need for better treatment options to reduce this burden.

Background Our aim was to extend traditional parametric models used to extrapolate survival in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) by integrating individual-level patient data (IPD) from a clinical trial with estimates from experts regarding long-term survival. This was illustrated using a case study evaluating survival of patients with triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) in KarMMa (a phase 2, single-arm trial). Methods The distribution of patients expected to be alive at 3, 5, and 10 years given the observed survival from KarMMa (13.3 months of follow-up) was elicited from 6 experts using the SHeffield ELicitation Framework. Quantities of interest were elicited from each expert individually, which informed the consensus elicitation including all experts. Estimates for each time point were assumed to follow a truncated normal distribution. These distributions were incorporated into survival models, which constrained the expected survival based on standard survival distributions informed by IPD from KarMMa. Results Models for ide-cel that combined KarMMa data with expert opinion were more consistent in terms of survival as well as mean survival at 10 years (survival point estimates under different parametric models were 29–33% at 3 years, 5–17% at 5 years, and 0–6% at 10 years) versus models with KarMMa data alone (11–39% at 3 years, 0–25% at 5 years, and 0–11% at 10 years). Conclusion This case study demonstrates a transparent approach to integrate IPD from trials with expert opinion using traditional parametric distributions to ensure long-term survival extrapolations are clinically plausible.

AUGUSTUS trial demonstrated that, for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) having acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), an antithrombotic regimen with apixaban and P2Y12 resulted in less bleeding, fewer hospitalizations, and similar ischemic events than regimens including a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), aspirin, or both. This study objective was to evaluate long-term health and economic outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of apixaban over VKA, as a treatment option for patients with AF having ACS/PCI. A lifetime Markov cohort model was developed comparing apixaban versus VKA across multiple treatment strategies (triple [with P2Y12 + aspirin] or dual [with P2Y12] therapy followed by monotherapy [apixaban or VKA]; triple followed by dual and then monotherapy; dual followed by monotherapy). The model adopted the Spanish healthcare perspective, with a 3-month cycle length and costs and health outcomes discounted at 3%. Treatment with apixaban resulted in total cost savings of €883 and higher life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) per patient than VKA (net difference, LYs: 0.13; QALYs: 0.11). Bleeding and ischemic events (per 100 patients) were lower with apixaban than VKA (net difference, -13.9 and -1.8, respectively). Incremental net monetary benefit for apixaban was €3,041, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, apixaban was dominant in the majority of simulations (92.6%), providing additional QALYs at lower costs than VKA. Apixaban was a dominant treatment strategy than VKA from both the Spanish payer's and societal perspectives, regardless of treatment strategy considered.

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of abatacept (ABA) as first-line (1L) therapy in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using data from the Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis database. A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the cost per American College of Rheumatology response of at least 50% improvement (ACR50) responder and per patient in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission from a Japanese healthcare payers' perspective over a 2-year time horizon. Clinical characteristics of patients on ABA-1L were matched with those of patients on ABA second or later line (2L+) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-1L directly or using propensity scores. Resource utilisation and medical costs were calculated from the Japan Medical Data Center claims database. Parameter uncertainty was addressed by sensitivity and subgroup analyses (age, treatment duration, Japanese version of Health Assessment Questionnaire [J-HAQ] score). Incremental costs per member per month (ΔPMPM) for ABA-1L versus TNFi-1L and ABA-2L+ were -1,571 Japanese Yen (JPY) and 81 JPY, respectively. For ABA-1L versus TNFi-1L, ΔPMPM by ACR50 response was -11,715 JPY and by CDAI and SDAI remission 11,602 JPY and 47,003 JPY, respectively. Corresponding costs for ABA-1L were lower for all outcome parameters versus those for ABA-2L+. Scenario analyses showed that ABA-1L was cost-effective over TNFi-1L in patients <65 years for any outcome. Furthermore, ABA-1L was cost-effective over ABA-2L+ for all outcomes in patients with age <65 years, disease duration <5 years and J-HAQ ≥1.5. ABA-1L demonstrated a favourable cost-effectiveness profile in RA patients, accruing savings for the Japanese healthcare payers.

Background Here we aim to evaluate the relationship between progression-free survival (PFS) and patient-reported symptoms (measured by health-related quality of life scores) among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Methodology Pain and fatigue were identified as the most common patient-relevant symptoms within RRMM based on a predefined literature review of patient preference/qualitative studies (confirmed by clinical experts). Consequently, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 pain, QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms (pain in different locations), and QLQ-C30 fatigue domains were selected. Change from baseline scores per symptom domain was jointly modeled with PFS assuming a current slope association structure. For each symptom, we evaluated trial-specific joint models based on individual patient data from 7 RRMM clinical trials. The association between symptoms and PFS was summarized via association-effect hazard ratios (HRs) from the joint models, where a HR > 1 indicates that symptom worsening was associated with an increased hazard of a progression/death event. Meta-analyses were performed to synthesize the joint model HRs from all trials into one summary statistic (meta-HR) per symptom domain. Results Across trials, worsening in pain and fatigue was associated with an increased hazard of progression events (disease progression/death) based on joint-model-association-effect HRs. Specifically, meta-HRs (95% CI) were 1.10 (1.02, 1.19) for QLQ-C30 pain, 1.10 (1.01, 1.20) for QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms, and 1.11 (1.05, 1.17) for QLQ-C30 fatigue. Conclusions This study demonstrated that worsening in pain and fatigue was consistently associated with an increased hazard of disease progression or death events across numerous RRMM clinical trials with varying disease severity. This suggests risk of PFS events may align with patient experience in terms of worsening symptom burden.

Substantial uncertainty exists about how providers assess the value of genomic testing. We developed and administered a discrete choice experiment to a national sample of providers. We analyzed responses using an error components mixed logit model. We received responses from 356 providers. The attributes important to providers were patient health and function, life expectancy, cost, expert agreement, and biomarker prevalence. Providers significantly valued reducing uncertainty only when it eliminated the possibility of decreased life expectancy. Providers valued improving certainty about life expectancy gains from 12 ± 18 to 12 ± 6 months at US$400 (US$200–600) versus US$200 (-US$60–500) for 4 ± 4 to 4 ± 2 years. Providers value resolving uncertainty most when it eliminates the possibility of substantial harm.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Background/Objective AUGUSTUS trial demonstrated that, for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) having acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), an antithrombotic regimen with apixaban and P2Y12 resulted in less bleeding, fewer hospitalizations, and similar ischemic events than regimens including a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), aspirin, or both. This study objective was to evaluate long-term health and economic outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of apixaban over VKA, as a treatment option for patients with AF having ACS/PCI. Methods A lifetime Markov cohort model was developed comparing apixaban versus VKA across multiple treatment strategies (triple [with P2Y12 + aspirin] or dual [with P2Y12] therapy followed by monotherapy [apixaban or VKA]; triple followed by dual and then monotherapy; dual followed by monotherapy). The model adopted the Spanish healthcare perspective, with a 3-month cycle length and costs and health outcomes discounted at 3%. Results Treatment with apixaban resulted in total cost savings of €883 and higher life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) per patient than VKA (net difference, LYs: 0.13; QALYs: 0.11). Bleeding and ischemic events (per 100 patients) were lower with apixaban than VKA (net difference, –13.9 and –1.8, respectively). Incremental net monetary benefit for apixaban was €3,041, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, apixaban was dominant in the majority of simulations (92.6%), providing additional QALYs at lower costs than VKA. Conclusions Apixaban was a dominant treatment strategy than VKA from both the Spanish payer’s and societal perspectives, regardless of treatment strategy considered.