Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral azacitidine maintenance therapy in acute myeloid leukemia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bewersdorf JP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8759135 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral azacitidine maintenance therapy in acute myeloid leukemia.
Bewersdorf Jan Philipp JP Patel Kishan K KK Huntington Scott F SF Zeidan Amer M AM
Blood advances 20211101 22
Similar Datasets
Project description:Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have worse rates of complete remission and shorter overall survival than younger patients. The epigenetic modifier CC-486 is an oral formulation of azacitidine with promising clinical activity in patients with AML in Phase I studies. The Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled QUAZAR AML Maintenance trial (CC-486-AML-001) examines CC-486 maintenance therapy (300 mg/day for 14 days of 28-day treatment cycles) for patients aged ?55 years with AML in first complete remission. The primary end point is overall survival. Secondary end points include relapse-free survival, safety, health-related quality of life and healthcare resource utilization. This trial will investigate whether CC-486 maintenance can prolong remission and improve survival for older patients with AML.
| S-EPMC5684733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The phase 3 VIALE-A trial reported that venetoclax in combination with azacitidine significantly improved response rates and overall survival compared with azacitidine alone in older, unfit patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, the cost-effectiveness of azacitidine-venetoclax in this clinical setting is unknown. In this study, we constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the cost and effectiveness of azacitidine-venetoclax with azacitidine alone in previously untreated AML. Event-free and overall survival curves for each treatment strategy were derived from the VIALE-A trial using parametric survival modeling. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of azacitidine-venetoclax from a US-payer perspective. Azacitidine-venetoclax was associated with an improvement of 0.61 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with azacitidine alone. However, the combination led to significantly higher lifetime health care costs (incremental cost, $159 595), resulting in an ICER of $260 343 per QALY gained. The price of venetoclax would need to decrease by 60% for azacitidine-venetoclax to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. These data suggest that use of azacitidine-venetoclax for previously untreated AML patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Significant price reduction of venetoclax would be required to reduce the ICER to a more widely acceptable value.
| S-EPMC7903235 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10429164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and clinical activity of an oral formulation of azacitidine in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), or acute myeloid leukemia (AML).Patients and methodsPatients received 1 cycle of subcutaneous (SC) azacitidine (75 mg/m2) on the first 7 days of cycle 1, followed by oral azacitidine daily (120 to 600 mg) on the first 7 days of each additional 28-day cycle. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles were evaluated during cycles 1 and 2. Adverse events and hematologic responses were recorded. Cross-over to SC azacitidine was permitted for nonresponders who received ≥ 6 cycles of oral azacitidine.ResultsOverall, 41 patients received SC and oral azacitidine (MDSs, n = 29; CMML, n = 4; AML, n = 8). Dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3/4 diarrhea) occurred at the 600-mg dose and MTD was 480 mg. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events were diarrhea (12.2%), nausea (7.3%), vomiting (7.3%), febrile neutropenia (19.5%), and fatigue (9.8%). Azacitidine exposure increased with escalating oral doses. Mean relative oral bioavailability ranged from 6.3% to 20%. Oral and SC azacitidine decreased DNA methylation in blood, with maximum effect at day 15 of each cycle. Hematologic responses occurred in patients with MDSs and CMML. Overall response rate (i.e., complete remission, hematologic improvement, or RBC or platelet transfusion independence) was 35% in previously treated patients and 73% in previously untreated patients.ConclusionOral azacitidine was bioavailable and demonstrated biologic and clinical activity in patients with MDSs and CMML.
| S-EPMC3675699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) comprise a heterogeneous group of clonal myeloid malignancies characterized by multilineage cytopenias, recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities, and risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). AML, which can occur de novo as well as secondary to MDS, is characterized by malignant clones of myeloid lineage in the bone marrow and peripheral blood, with dissemination into tissues. The cytidine nucleoside analog and epigenetic modifier azacitidine is approved in the U.S. for the treatment of all French-American-British subtypes of MDS and in many countries for the treatment of AML with 20%-30% blasts and multilineage dysplasia according to the World Health Organization classification. Benefits of azacitidine treatment of patients with AML with >30% blasts have also been shown in a recent phase III trial. Oral administration of azacitidine may enhance patient convenience, eliminate injection-site reactions, allow for alternative dosing and scheduling, and enable long-term treatment. Phase I studies with oral azacitidine (CC-486) have shown biological activity, clinical responses, and tolerability in patients with MDS and AML. Extended dosing schedules of oral azacitidine (for 14 or 21 days of 28-day cycles) are currently under investigation as frontline therapy in patients with lower risk MDS, as maintenance therapy for patients with AML not eligible for stem cell transplant, and as maintenance therapy for patients with MDS or AML following stem cell transplant. This review presents clinical data supporting the use of injectable azacitidine in MDS and AML and examines the rationale for and results of the clinical development of oral azacitidine.
| S-EPMC4679081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:CPX-351 and venetoclax and azacitidine (ven/aza) are both indicated as initial therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in older adults. In the absence of prospective randomized comparisons of these regimens, we used retrospective observational data to evaluate various outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed AML receiving either CPX-351 (n = 217) or ven/aza (n = 439). This study used both a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database and the University of Pennsylvania EHR. Our study includes 217 patients who received CPX-351 and 439 who received ven/aza. Paitents receiving ven/aza were older, more likely to be treated in the community, and more likely to have a diagnosis of de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Other baseline covariates were not statistically significantly different between the groups. Median overall survival (OS) for all patients was 12 months and did not differ based on therapy (13 months for CPX-351 vs 11 months for ven/aza; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.08; P = .22). OS was similar across multiple sensitivity analyses. Regarding safety outcomes, early mortality was similar (10% vs 13% at 60 days). However, documented infections were higher with CPX-351 as were rates of febrile neutropenia. Hospital length of stay, including any admission before the next cycle of therapy, was more than twice as long for CPX-351. In this large multicenter real-world dataset, there was no statistically significant difference in OS. Prospective randomized studies with careful attention to side effects, quality of life, and impact on transplant outcomes are needed in these populations.
| S-EPMC9278286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The last decade has seen steadfast progress in drug development in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) which has moved progressively towards genomic-based therapy. With these advances, outcomes in AML have improved but remains far from satisfactory. One approach towards preventing relapse in AML is to use maintenance therapy in patients, after attaining remission. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an effective post-remission therapy that has been proven to reduce the risk of relapse. However, in patients who are ineligible for HSCT or have a high risk of relapse, other effective measures to prevent relapse are needed. There is also a need for post-HSCT maintenance to reduce relapse in high-risk subsets. Over the last 3 decades maintenance therapy in AML has evolved from the use of chemotherapeutic agents to more targeted therapies and better modulation of the immune system. Unfortunately, improvements in survival outcomes as a result of using these agents have not been consistently demonstrated in clinical trials. To derive the optimum benefit from maintenance therapy the time points of therapy initiation need to be defined and therapy must be selected precisely with respect to the AML genetics and risk stratification, prior treatment exposure, transplant eligibility, expected toxicity and the patient's clinical profile and desires. The far-reaching goal is to facilitate patients with AML in remission to achieve a normal quality of life while improving remission duration and overall survival. The QUAZAR trial was a welcome step towards a safe maintenance drug that is easy to administer and showed survival benefit but leaves many open issues for discussion. In this review we will discuss these issues, highlighting the development of AML maintenance therapies over the last 3 decades.
| S-EPMC10483353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesUsing individual patient-level data from the phase 3 VIALE-A trial, this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of venetoclax in combination with azacitidine compared with azacitidine monotherapy for patients newly diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, from a United States (US) third-party payer perspective.MethodsA partitioned survival model with a 28-day cycle and three health states (event-free survival (EFS), progressive/relapsed disease, and death) was developed to estimate costs and effectiveness of venetoclax + azacitidine versus azacitidine over a lifetime (25-year) horizon. Efficacy inputs (overall survival (OS), EFS, and complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) rate) were estimated using VIALE-A data. Best-fit parametric models per Akaike Information Criterion were used to extrapolate OS until reaching EFS and extrapolate EFS until Year 5. Within EFS, the time spent in CR/CRi was estimated by applying the CR/CRi rate to the EFS curve. Past Year 5, patients still in EFS were considered cured and to have the same mortality as the US general population. Mean time on treatment (ToT) for both regimens was based on the time observed in VIALE-A. Costs of drug acquisition, drug administration (initial and subsequent treatments), subsequent stem cell transplant procedures, adverse events (AEs), and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with health states were obtained from the literature/public data and inflated to 2021 US dollars. Health state utilities were estimated using EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level data from VIALE-A; AE disutilities were obtained from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA), scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were also performed.ResultsOver a lifetime horizon, venetoclax + azacitidine versus azacitidine led to gains of 1.89 LYs (2.99 vs. 1.10, respectively) and 1.45 QALYs (2.30 vs. 0.84, respectively). Patients receiving venetoclax + azacitidine incurred higher total lifetime costs ($250,486 vs. $110,034 (azacitidine)). The ICERs for venetoclax + azacitidine versus azacitidine were estimated at $74,141 per LY and $96,579 per QALY gained. Results from the DSA and scenario analyses supported the base-case findings, with ICERs ranging from $60,718 to $138,554 per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to varying the parameters for the venetoclax + azacitidine base-case EFS parametric function (Gompertz), followed by alternative approaches for ToT estimation, treatment costs of venetoclax + azacitidine, standard mortality rate value and ToT estimation, alternative sources to inform HRU, different cure modeling assumptions, and the parameters for the venetoclax + azacitidine base-case OS parametric function (log-normal). Results from the PSA showed that, compared with azacitidine, venetoclax + azacitidine was cost-effective in 99.9% of cases at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that venetoclax + azacitidine offers a cost-effective strategy in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed AML who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy from a US third-party payer perspective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02993523. Date of registration: 15 December 2016.
| S-EPMC9300490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ivosidenib + azacitidine (IVO/AZA) is approved in the United States for newly diagnosed, older or intensive chemotherapy-ineligible patients with IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. We created a partitioned survival analysis model to evaluate the health economic implications of this approval. Model outputs were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of IVO/AZA versus AZA. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. In the base case scenario, IVO/AZA and AZA resulted in life-time costs of $403,062 and $161,887, respectively. With an incremental gain of 0.95 QALYs, the ICER of IVO/AZA was $252,782/QALY. In sensitivity analyses, only a reduction in the price of IVO by 59.3% lowered the ICER to below $150,000/QALY and 99.95% of model calculations yielded ICERs of >$150,000/QALY. In a model in which all patients received IVO monotherapy after progression on AZA monotherapy, the ICER was $155,453/QALY and various model inputs that would make IVO/AZA cost-effective were identified.
| S-EPMC9957935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) typically involves intensive chemotherapy (IC); however, there is an unmet need for approximately 50% of AML patients who are deemed unfit or ineligible for IC. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, from a Canadian perspective, the economic impact of venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (Ven+Aza) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed AML who are 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude using IC. A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Ven+Aza compared with Aza. Health states included event-free survival, progressive/relapsed disease, and death. Efficacy parameters were based on the VIALE-A trial. Analyses were conducted from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. Over a lifetime horizon, Ven+Aza was associated with a gain of 1.65 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with Aza. From an MoH perspective, Ven+Aza and Aza were associated with total costs of $204,305 and $82,333, respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $73,841/QALY. Results were similar from a societal perspective. This economic evaluation demonstrates that, in comparison with Aza, Ven+Aza is a cost-effective strategy for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed AML who are deemed unfit for IC.
| S-EPMC9601219 | biostudies-literature