Jensen, Chelsee

Abstract Background: In 2022, Medicare alone spent $42.1 billion on prescription drugs, with antineoplastic and classical hematology drugs accounting for 44% and 8% of the total, respectively (2024 MedPAC Data Book). While antineoplastic drugs have been extensively studied, classical hematology drugs have received comparatively little attention. We analyzed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of classical hematology drugs over the past 30 years and examined their per-patient costs and annual total US sales. Methods: We identified all classical hematology drugs (those prescribed by hematologist/oncologists for non-malignant indications) approved by the FDA from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2024, including novel pharmaceuticals (synthesized from chemical compounds), biologics (derived from living organisms), and biosimilars (highly similar, but not identical, to biologics previously approved). Cost estimates for 2024 were based on wholesale acquisition costs (WAC), using annual WAC for continuous-duration treatments and typical course WAC for fixed-duration treatments. WAC and US gross sales data for 2024 were obtained from IPD Analytics (Aventura, FL). Results: A total of 98 classical hematology drugs were approved over the past 30 years—11% in 1995–2004, 26% in 2005–2014, and 63% in 2015–2024. These included pharmaceuticals (36%), biologics (54%), and biosimilars (10%). Six gene therapies received approval: 3 for hemophilia and 1 each for sickle disease, beta thalassemia, and sickle cell disease/beta thalassemia (dual indication). Common categories of indications included bleeding (31%), anemia (30%), neutropenia (9%), and thrombocytopenia (9%). Leading diagnoses were hemophilia (25%), chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (9%), thromboembolism (8%), paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH; 7%), anemia of chronic kidney disease (6%), iron deficiency anemia (6%), and immune thrombocytopenia (5%). The median cost for gene therapies was $2.9 million per treatment (range: $2.2 million–$3.5 million). Among non-gene therapies, median costs were $3,000 per course for fixed-duration treatments (range: $64–$378,000) and $467,000 annually for continuous-duration treatments (range: $2,400–$1.8 million). The most expensive fixed-duration treatments targeted hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis ($378,000/8-week course), while the most expensive continuous-duration treatments were for hemophilia (median: $630,000/year; range: $270,000–$853,000). Estimated 2024 US gross sales across all drugs exceeded $70 billion. Top-selling indications included thromboembolism ($43.5 billion), hemophilia ($6.9 billion), immune thrombocytopenia ($4.9 billion), PNH ($4.7 billion), chemotherapy-induced neutropenia ($2.8 billion), anemia of chronic kidney disease ($2.0 billion), and iron deficiency anemia ($1.8 billion). Total sales for all gene therapies combined were $143 million. Six drugs have been discontinued (year approved/year discontinued/reason): betrixaban (2017/2020/business), daprodustat (2023/2024/business), fidanacogene elaparvovec (2024/2025/business), oprelvekin (1997/2011/business), peginesatide (2012/2013/safety), and voxelotor (2019/2024/safety). There are limitations to our study. Some drugs have non-classical hematology indications (anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation; luspatercept in myelodysplastic neoplasm) and/or may also be prescribed by non-classical hematologists (erythropoiesis stimulating agents by nephrologists and medical oncologists). We were unable to disaggregate the sales data in these situations. Therefore, the annual sales for certain indications may be overestimated. Conclusions: Classical hematology drugs contribute substantially to US prescription drug spending, with over $70 billion in annual sales and medications for thromboembolism accounting for over half of the costs. Approvals have accelerated over the past three decades, doubling each decade. Biologics and biosimilars now represent two-thirds of approvals. Continuous-duration treatments, particularly for rare hereditary diseases like hemophilia, carry significant financial burden, with annual costs per patient often exceeding $0.5 million. In these conditions, if gene therapies demonstrate durable efficacy, they may prove to be cost-effective alternatives. As more gene therapies are developed, evaluating their long-term value relative to chronic high-cost treatments will be essential for shaping future reimbursement and access strategies.

PURPOSE Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurs in 56%-80% of bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) used in multiple myeloma (MM). Risk mitigation strategies are required to expedite escalation of care if toxicities develop. The rarity of grade 3 or 4 CRS compels protocolized outpatient management of BsAbs as outpatient practice may avoid hospital admissions and costly resource utilization without compromising safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with MM who received BsAb step-up dosing (SUD) from August 23, 2023, to March 29, 2024, were enrolled. Baseline demographics, patient outcomes, and CRS management were reviewed to assess the safety of outpatient practice. Resource utilization was also analyzed. RESULTS In this study, 34 patients received outpatient SUD of BsAbs (teclistamab n = 17, talequetamab n = 17) with 16 remaining outpatient throughout the entire SUD period. CRS occurred in seven patients who did not require hospitalization, demonstrating the safety of outpatient management of BsAb toxicity, regardless of low-grade CRS. CRS was observed in 24 patients (maximum grade 2) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome in four patients (maximum grade 3). All patients with CRS received steroids, including 12 patients at home when instructed. Tocilizumab was given to 13 patients, accounting for 18 doses. If all doses of BsAbs and tocilizumab were given outpatient, the medication margin would be $115,004 in US dollars (USD). CONCLUSION An outpatient-based practice for BsAb administration demonstrated safety and cost savings. The description of our practice and results of this study provide valuable insights into the safety, feasibility, and resource stewardship of outpatient management of BsAbs. Future research should attempt to predict and stratify CRS risk to deliver a tailored supportive strategy and continued increase of outpatient management.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) commonly occurs during initiation of bispecific T-cell engaging therapy (BsAbs) for multiple myeloma (MM) (NEJM 2022;387:495, NEJM 2022;387:2232, Nat Med 2023;29:2259). Pre-medications, step-up dosing (SUD), and monitoring minimize high-grade toxicity risk, while protocolized outpatient (OP) management of BsAbs and toxicities could reduce resource utilization and improve patient satisfaction. At Mayo Clinic, SUD, clinical assessment and grade 1 CRS management occurs primarily as an OP for patients with MM receiving BsAbs. This study aims to assess the current OP management practices of BsAbs and related toxicities including patient outcomes, admission rates, and resource utilization. Patients with MM who received SUD from August 23, 2023, to March 29, 2024, were included. Baseline demographics, patient outcomes, and CRS management details are summarized. Resource utilization outcomes included level of care, length of hospital stay (LOS), and high-cost drug administration. 38 patients received MM BsAbs during the study timeframe. 34 patients initiated OP SUD (teclistamab n=17 and talquetamab n= 17). The median age was 71 years, 59% were male, 82% were white, and 88% had Medicare coverage. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 6. There were 317 OP encounters with a median of 10 encounters per patient. Of these, 72% were planned in-person assessments, 5% were unplanned clinic visits for potential toxicity-related symptom assessment, and 20% were phone visits that obviated in-person assessment. 66 of 68 doses of talquetamab (total of 1,628 mg) and 48 of 50 doses of teclistamab (total of 2,048 mg) were administered and billed in the OP setting. 24 patients (71%) that initiated OP SUD developed CRS (grade 1 n=16, grade 2 n=7). Management of the initial CRS event included steroids and acetaminophen, with or without tocilizumab. 2,600 mg of tocilizumab administered in the OP setting. Recurrent CRS was seen in 5 patients and also treated entirely OP. 4 patients developed ICANS (grade 1 n=3, grade 3 n=1). Hospitalization following OP SUD initiation occurred in 18 (53%) patients at some point during treatment. Indications included grade 2 CRS (n=6), ICANS (grade 1 n=3), refractory CRS (n=7), infection (n=1), GI bleed (n=1), planned observation for comorbidities or prior CRS (n=2), loss of caregiver (n=1), atrial fibrillation (n=1), heart failure (n=1), and pain crisis (n=1). Median LOS was 2 days. Recurrent admission occurred in 41% and median LOS was also 2 days for subsequent admissions. Two patients were admitted to the intensive care unit for hypotension or arrhythmia. 1 patient required dialysis. In total for SUD during the study time frame, 51 mg of teclistamab, 176 mg of talquetamab, and 8,240 mg of tocilizumab were billed under an IP encounter, which likely was due to inpatient administration or hospital admission within 72 hours of receiving the OP SUD. This descriptive study of our OP BsAb management practice demonstrated that 47% of patients remained OP, even with a CRS event. The CRS rate did not surpass those in landmark clinical trials and aligns with real-world data previously reported (Blood Cancer J 2024;14:35.). Availability and use of patient monitoring capabilities along with lack of sentinel outcomes emphasizes the safety of an OP BsAb practice. Drivers of financial burdens and savings include location and reimbursement of high-cost drugs and admission rates. Median LOS was less than half of what's anticipated with inpatient SUD. Inpatient administration of high-cost drugs can be more costly compared to OP due to associated medical costs and insufficient reimbursement in a population primarily insured by Medicare which reimburses inpatient mediations based on the Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) unless the medication has New Technology Add on Payment (NTAP). Using expected Medicare reimbursement rates and wholesale acquisition costs while excluding variable DRG reimbursement and NTAP impacts for teclistamab, the total net revenue improvement for shifting use of all teclistamab, talquetamab, and tocilizumab OP is $115,004 for the period analyzed (CMS.gov 2024). In conclusion, OP management of patients undergoing SUD for MM BsAbs is safe and has substantial reductions in resource utilization and costs.

Introduction: Intravenous (IV) iron is routinely used throughout various medical specialties in addition to hematology, including nephrology, cardiology, obstetrics, gastroenterology, and neurology. While all formulations are considered safe, those with iron dextran (ID) are reported to have a relatively higher incidence of anaphylaxis, often prompting a test-dose prior to full administration. Recently, there has been an ongoing national shortage of ID, leading to higher usage of alternate formulations and need for further characterization of usage and safety. Methods: The Epic electronic health record was searched using the Slicer Dicer function to obtain information regarding intravenous iron administrations from 01/01/2021 to 08/31/2022 at the various Mayo Clinic sites throughout the United States. Adverse events were evaluated through the internal patient safety reporting system for adverse drug reactions. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were defined as those events requiring epinephrine administration, anaphylaxis, hypotension, tachycardia, or an allergic reaction (hives, rash, chest tightness, eye swelling) within 24 hours of IV iron infusion. Non-serious adverse events (NSAEs) were defined as those events requiring administration of an antihistamine, steroid, or reported gastrointestinal disturbance within 24 hours of IV iron infusion. Results: A total of 49,310 infusions were administered during the analyzed period and included the use of five formulations: ID, iron sucrose (IS), ferumoxytol (FM), ferric carboxymaltose (FC), and ferric gluconate (FG). Infusions were distributed amongst Rochester (n=23,899; 16%ID, 77%IS, 5%FM, 2%FC, 0%FG), Florida (n=5,755; 6%ID, 43%IS, 34%FM, 9%FC, 8%FG), Arizona (n=5,123; 4%ID, 81%IS, 3%FM, 11%FC, 1%FG), and the Health System (n=14,533; 3%ID, 85%IS, 9%FM, 2%FC, 1%FG). A total of 49 AEs were reported (59% SAEs; 41% NSAEs), representing 0.099% of all infusions. Most AEs were from IS (n=20; 41%), with ID (19; 39%), FM (9; 18%), and FC (1; 2%) accounting for the remainder. Both SAEs (n=13) and NSAEs (n=7) were reported with IS, with most SAEs occurring on the first dose (85%) and classified as hypotension (39%), allergic (31%), anaphylaxis requiring epinephrine (15%), and tachycardia (15%); no pre-medications were given. These IS AEs were dose independent (Table 1). The incidence of AEs for all IV iron formulations was less than 0.01% (Table 2). Conclusions: While ID was found to have a relatively higher incidence of AEs, all IV iron formulations were found to be safe. The most frequently used formulation was IS, which had a low incidence of AEs even at higher doses, suggesting feasibility for minimizing the number of infusions required to achieve therapeutic levels. Although all formulations demonstrated safety, each institution will likely individualize formulary preferences based upon location of administration (inpatient vs. outpatient), input from the various medical specialties, patient comorbidities, reimbursement patterns, and logistical constraints such as infusion chair time.

68 Background: While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment, their high cost and limited global supply pose major challenges. Optimizing ICI dosing to achieve a minimum effective dose that has shown to maintain clinical benefit may be a potential solution with significant savings to the health system. We investigated potential savings in Medicare that could be attained from alternative ICI dosing. Methods: We conducted a literature review including original Phase 1/2 trials describing the minimal effective dose of three commonly used ICIs: Pembrolizumab (P), Nivolumab (N) and Atezolizumab (A). Alternate dosing strategies based on existing data for Pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg), Nivolumab (1 mg/kg) and Atezolizumab (4 mg/kg) were proposed. Publicly available CMS data on Medicare Part B expenditure for these therapies was utilized to obtain average cost per dosage unit, mg/dosage unit, and number of Medicare beneficiaries between 2018-2021. Average cost per dose and total cost per ICI was calculated based on current FDA approved dosing and alternate dosing strategies. Results: The average wholesale cost per fixed dose for P (200 mg), N (480 mg), and A were $9,242.00, $12,460.80, and $8,616.00, respectively. Implementing the proposed alternate dosing strategies led to a substantial reduction in drug costs: P ($7,393.60), N ($2,076.80), and A ($2,297.60). The ensuing cost savings were calculated based on the annual number of Medicare beneficiaries. From 2018-2021, the average total savings were estimated to be $95,545,182 for Pembrolizumab, $294,734,264 for Nivolumab, and $62,937,582 for Atezolizumab (Table). The cumulative average total cost savings from 2018-2021 exceeded $453 million. Conclusions: We demonstrate potential savings in Medicare with implementation of an alternative ICI dosing strategy. Our study underscores an urgent need to better understand clinical efficacy and cost savings from a patient perspective, and feasibility from a regulatory standpoint. This perspective may hold considerable global implications, providing a roadmap for cost-effective care in the domain of immunotherapy. [Table: see text]

Objectives Lupron 11.25 mg has both a narrow indication and a high cost compared to other Lupron presentations. Prior to our study initiation there was no clear distinction between presentations when ordering within the health-system’s Electronic Health Record (EHR). This resulted in inappropriate product selection, payment and billing errors that negatively impact our healthcare system. To reinforce prior education efforts, a new approach was considered leveraging the EHR with information to steer prescribers to the proper Lupron presentation based on indication. This study aimed to reduce off-label prescribing for Lupron 11.25 mg (NDC 00074-3663-03) by 25% by 02/28/2022 without negatively impacting the insurance collection rate. Methods Baseline Lupron 11.25 mg adult kit administrations one year prior to intervention and off-label prescribing was found to account for 22.7% of administrations. In December 2021 intervention order questions were added to Lupron 11.25 mg in the EHR. One and two-month data was obtained after implementing order questions within the EHR. Lupron 11.25 mg administrations were classified into one of four categories to determine impact on off-label prescribing. Results In the one- and two-month post-implementation periods off-label prescribing was 0% and 15.3% respectively, a reduction of 22.7% to and 7.4% respectively from the baseline assessment. There were no clinical denials found in either post-implementation reporting period. Conclusion This report adds to the body of evidence that leveraging the EHR can lead to healthcare savings and illustrates how patient and healthcare system burden can be reduced by prompting thought and direction when a medication has indication specific dose requirements.

6552 Background: Significant amounts of expensive oncology drugs are discarded resulting in waste and financial consequences for patients. Beginning in 2023, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) will require drug manufacturers to refund Medicare for any single-use drugs where greater than 10% of the drug is wasted. We explored potential IIJA-associated savings through assessment of patterns in spending for discarded oncology agents between 2017-2020. Methods: We utilized the Medicare Part B Discarded Drug Units database from 2017-2020. Using J codes, we extracted spending and reimbursement data for discarded medications for antineoplastic and classical hematology therapies. The primary outcome was identification of therapies with high percentage of waste and the economic impact of retroactive application of the IIJA for discarded therapies. Results: Medicare Part B utilization data was extracted for a median 77 (64-152) oncologic therapies per year with median reimbursement for discarded treatments of $590 M ($566-616). From 2017-2020, bortezomib, romiplostim, and nab-paclitaxel were consistently among the top 5 therapies by value of wasted product. Pembrolizumab waste by value declined significantly after 2017 following transition to fixed dosing. In 2020, the top 5 therapies by value of wasted product were bortezomib, nab-paclitaxel, trastuzumab, romiplostim, and cabazitaxel with a value of $278 M. In 2020, the agents with the highest percentage of wasted product were bortezomib (27%), cabazitaxel (28%), decitabine (23%), topotecan (23%), and azacitidine (22%) with a collective discarded value of $160 M. Notably, these agents have weight-based dosing and single-use vials. Based upon the average number of drug claims per recipient and volume of product discarded, eliminating drug waste would allow an additional 6564 patients to receive treatment with discarded bortezomib. The number of additionally treated patients for the other top 5 agents: cabazitaxel (1216), decitabine (1509), topotecan (291), and azacitidine (2682). Retroactive application of IIJA policy would have impacted a median 20 (12-26) oncology agents resulting in median annual cost savings of $153 M (142-157) and the median annual spending on wasted oncology therapies would decline to $440 M (410-466). Conclusions: The IIJA would have yielded a median annual savings of $153 M in Medicare spending if applied retroactively. Given a 10% waste cutoff, a limited number of agents would be targeted by this legislation. In our study, we observe that drugs associated with weight-based dosing and single-use drug vials account for most drug waste. Strategies to minimize discarded units (through storage of unused product, approval of multi-dose vial formulations, or fixed-dose therapies) could yield substantial savings while enabling health equity in collaboration with communities with difficult access to these drugs.

PURPOSE: Precision oncology promises improved outcomes but the cost-effectiveness and accessibility of targeted therapies is debatable. We report price change patterns from 2015 to 2019 for several oral anticancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies. METHODS: We collected provider utilization and payment data from the public Medicare Part D database and extracted drug price information for commonly prescribed targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. We then calculated median Pearson correlation coefficient values for various drugs (containing more than two data points) within each therapeutic class. We also calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) for medication costs within each class and compared them with the consumer price index (CPI). RESULTS: Our study included six epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi; one generic), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKi), two B-Raf inhibitors (BRAFi), three hormonal agents (one generic), three cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), two poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi), and seven antiandrogen agents (two generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for cost of drugs within each therapeutic class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (–0.522 to 0.962) for antiandrogens. Therapies with two or fewer data points (generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide) were excluded. The median CAGRs in costs over the 5-year period were 4.56% (EGFRi), 6.40% (ALKi), 2.58% (BRAFi), 5.48% (hormonal agents), 5.21% (CDK4/6i), 27.29% (PARPi), and 34.8% (antiandrogens). The CPI over 5 years was 2.26%/year, and the average inflation rate was 1.90%/year. CONCLUSION: The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision-driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI and the average inflation. Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients to ensure that rising costs do not limit access to targeted therapies.