A Budget Impact Model of the Addition of Telotristat Ethyl Treatment to the Standard of Care in Patients with Uncontrolled Carcinoid Syndrome
Kelly Fust1 · Michael Maschio2 · Michele Kohli2 · Simron Singh3 · D. Mark Pritchard4 · Florence Marteau5 · Peter Myrenfors6 · Marion Feuilly5
Abstract
Background Carcinoid syndrome, a rare condition in patients with neuroendocrine tumours, characterised by flushing and diarrhoea, severely affects patients’ quality of life. The current carcinoid syndrome standard of care includes somatostatin analogues, but some patients experience uncontrolled symptoms despite somatostatin analogue therapy. Telotristat ethyl is a novel treatment approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US FDA that significantly reduces bowel move- ment frequency in patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome.
Objective We developed a model to evaluate the 5-year budget impact of introducing telotristat ethyl to standard care in Swedish patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome.
Methods Treatment response in the 12-week phase III TELESTAR trial (NCT01677910) informed telotristat ethyl efficacy; subsequently, health states were captured by a Markov model using 4-week cycles. TELESTAR open-label extension data informed telotristat ethyl discontinuation. The number of treatment-eligible patients was estimated from literature reviews reporting the prevalence, incidence and mortality of carcinoid syndrome. A Swedish database study informed real-world costs related to carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease costs. Telotristat ethyl market share was assumed to increase annually from 24% (year 1) to 70% (year 5).
Results Over the 5-year model horizon, 44 patients were expected to initiate telotristat ethyl treatment. The cumulative net budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to current standard of care was €172,346; per-year costs decreased from €66,495 (year 1) to €29,818 (year 5). Increased drug costs from adding telotristat ethyl were offset by reduced costs elsewhere.
Conclusions The expected budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to the standard of care in Sweden was relatively low, largely because of the rarity of carcinoid syndrome.
1 Introduction
Carcinoid syndrome (CS) is a rare but serious condition that develops in some patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) [1–3]. Studies from the USA have estimated the prevalence of NETs to range between 0.035 and 0.048% [4, 5]. Secretion of vasoactive peptides and amines by some NETs, including serotonin, results in the characteristic symptoms of CS, such as cutaneous flushing, diarrhoea and wheezing [1]. CS develops most commonly in patients with small intestinal NETs and hepatic metastases [3, 6] and less commonly in patients with pancreatic tumours or lung NETs; CS can also occur when secretions drain directly from tumours into the central circulation [3, 7–9]. Approximately 6–19% of patients with NETs will develop CS [1–3, 10], and 20–50% of patients with CS develop carcinoid heart dis- ease (CaHD) [11]. In CaHD, secretion of serotonin and other vasoactive substances can cause the deposition of plaques on the right side of the heart, leading to right heart valve dysfunction and possible heart failure [12]. CS progression and response to treatment can be measured through urinary or plasma levels of the serotonin metabolite 5-hydroxyin- doleacetic acid (5-HIAA) [13, 14], with elevated urinary 5-HIAA (u5-HIAA) being associated with more severe CS and CaHD [15, 16].
The US National Comprehensive Cancer Network guide-lines and European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society guide- lines currently recommend somatostatin analogues (SSAs), such as lanreotide and octreotide, as treatment for patients with CS [17, 18]. These long-acting therapeutics can slow tumour progression and, importantly, reduce symptoms of CS [19–23]. In patients with particularly severe CS, symp- tom burden can be further reduced by dose escalation of long-acting SSAs and the addition of short-acting SSAs and anti-diarrheal therapies to the backbone long-acting SSA therapy [8, 18, 24–29]. However, despite SSA therapy, CS symptoms can persist in approximately 20–40% of patients [24, 28, 30–32], and over 60% experience sustained debili- tating diarrhoea and flushing [30]. Few options exist for patients whose CS symptoms remain uncontrolled despite treatment with SSAs. The limited alternative treatment options include costly, invasive medical interventions that target tumour load and decrease serotonin secretion [30, 33]. Telotristat ethyl (TE), a novel tryptophan hydroxylase inhibitor, was approved for the treatment of diarrhoea in patients with CS by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 and by Health Can- ada and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration in 2018 [34–37]. TE has been shown to reduce daily bowel movement frequency in patients whose CS diarrhoea symp- toms are inadequately controlled by SSAs, subsequently improving health-related quality of life when used alongside the current standard of care [38, 39]. Treatment guidelines in the USA were recently updated to include TE as a treat- ment option when CS symptoms are poorly controlled [18]. The high healthcare cost of CS, particularly for patients with CS that is uncontrolled by the current standard of care, presents a healthcare, societal, and patient burden. A 2018 Swedish study found the cost per patient with controlled CS over an 8-month period to be €15,500, rising to €21,700 per patient with uncontrolled CS [33]. Furthermore, CS symp- toms can be debilitating for patients and have a marked impact on health-related quality of life [22, 40–42]; diar- rhoea and flushing, in particular, have been associated with reduced physical functioning, increased pain, sleep disturbance, depression and anxiety [41].
TE has been approved for reimbursement by the Swed- ish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) [43], but the affordability of using TE in combination with SSA therapy has not yet been demonstrated at the regional level. The aim of this study was to estimate the 5-year budget impact on the Swedish healthcare system of using TE in combination with SSAs, compared with using SSAs only, in patients with inadequately controlled CS. To investigate this, we created a budget impact model, taking into account the drug acquisition cost and all healthcare costs associated with TE treatment.
2 Methods
2.1 Budget Impact Model
Base-case model analyses were performed from the perspec- tive of the Swedish healthcare system and included direct healthcare costs only. The time horizon of the model analysis was 5 years (2018–2022). This analysis compared two sce- narios: (1) a ‘world-without TE’ scenario in which only SSA therapy was available and (2) a ‘world-with TE’ scenario in which TE 250 mg was available in addition to SSA therapy. In the model, the size of the target population and the num- ber of patients initiating treatment were estimated. A deci- sion tree and Markov model were then used to estimate the intensity of symptoms and the associated healthcare costs.
2.1.1 Population and Market Share
The target population was patients with CS inadequately controlled by SSA therapy. The number of eligible incident cases for years 1–5 and the number of prevalent cases for year 1 were estimated using data from systematic and tar- geted literature reviews (Table 1) [4, 5, 26, 44–47]. Figure 1 demonstrates how these data were used to estimate incident and prevalent cases, with the resulting estimates shown in Table 2. For years 2–5, the number of prevalent cases was calculated by the model as the patients continuing from pre- vious years who had not died. Ten incident patients were estimated to be eligible for TE therapy in each year of the analysis (based on incidence estimates in Table 1). Addition- ally, 72 prevalent cases were eligible for therapy in year 1. Prevalent patients were assumed to initiate TE treatment in year 1 only.
As SSAs are the current standard of care for CS and for some stages of NETs, all patients were assumed to have received SSA treatment (lanreotide or octreotide) in both the world-with TE and world-without TE scenarios [48]. In the SSA + TE arm, both prevalent and incident cases were considered eligible to commence treatment with TE 250 mg in year 1 (2018), whereas only incident cases were consid- ered eligible in years 2–5 (2019–2022) (Table 2). Based on the assumption that TE has just been introduced and most patients with inadequately controlled disease will receive TE, internal forecasting estimates projected that the market share of TE would increase annually, from 24% of eligible patients in year 1 to 70% in year 5 (Table 2). SSA market share did not vary, as TE is to be used in combination with SSAs.
2.1.2 Decision Tree and Markov Model Structure
The model structure used to estimate the intensity of symp- toms, duration of treatment and associated costs had two components: a decision tree that tracked the response to the initial 12 weeks of TE treatment using data from TEL- ESTAR, and a Markov model using 4-week (28-day) cycles that tracked the longer-term response to treatment for the remaining model time horizon (Fig. 2). Adverse events reported in TELESTAR were not expected to increase healthcare costs significantly or substantially affect patients’ quality of life so were not included in the model.
Patients in the ‘SSA Only’ arm who had a durable response to SSAs during the initial 12 weeks of treatment entered the Markov model in the ‘respond to SSA’ health state, whereas the remaining patients in the SSA Only arm entered in the ‘inadequate response’ health state. Patients within the SSA Only arm were assumed to remain on SSA therapies for the entire simulation, regardless of response status. In the SSA + TE arm, patients who achieved a dura- ble response to TE during the initial 12 weeks of treatment entered the Markov model in the ‘durable response’ health state, whereas patients who did not demonstrate a durable response entered in the ‘discontinue TE’ health state (and no longer received TE). The inadequate response health state captured patients in the SSA + TE arm who did not main- tain a durable response but still continued to receive TE. All health states were stratified by whether the patient had CaHD or not, and the model allowed patients to develop
CaHD as time progressed. Patients could die in any cycle while in any of the health states.
2.1.3 Model Inputs
Initial TE treatment efficacy was informed by data from the 12-week double-blind treatment period of the phase III TELESTAR trial (NCT01677910). A total of 135 patients entered the trial and were randomised to one of three study arms: TE 500 mg, TE 250 mg, or placebo, each three times daily. All patients remained on the dose of SSA therapy that they were receiving upon entry. Full details of the TEL- ESTAR study design and results have been published pre- viously [38]. For this analyses, a durable response during either stage (the initial 12 weeks of treatment or the 4-week Markov cycles) was defined as a ≥ 30% reduction in bowel movement frequency for ≥ 50% of the time, matching the definition used in TELESTAR [38].
The target population for treatment with TE has been defined as patients who have not adequately responded to SSA treatment. In other words, patients who receive TE treatment are not expected to have further symptom reduc- tion with SSAs alone. Therefore, for the base-case analy- sis, the proportion of durable responders was assumed to be 0% for patients receiving SSA treatment alone. All patients in the SSA Only arm entered the Markov model in the inadequate response health state and did not ever enter into the respond to SSA health state. Within the SSA + TE treatment arm, the proportion of patients with a durable response attributable to TE after 12 weeks of treatment was 24.4% (Table 1). This was calculated using data from the TELESTAR trial, in which 20 of the 45 (44.4%) patients randomised to SSA + TE demonstrated a durable response compared with 9 of the 45 (20%) patients randomised to SSA + placebo [38].
The 4-week probability of transitioning to the discontinue TE health state was set to 0.0321 based on data from the open-label extension period of TELESTAR, which was not placebo controlled [49]. The probability of transitioning to the inadequate response health state was set to 0 under the assumption that clinicians would discontinue TE treatment if patients stopped showing a durable response to TE. The impact of this assumption was tested in sensitivity analyses by increasing the probability that patients would transition to the inadequate response health state to 0.5, in the situa- tion where a physician does not discontinue TE in a fragile patient even though the patient is not benefiting from treat- ment, given a lack of alternative options.
To incorporate CaHD into the model, the following assump- tions were made: an increase in 5-HIAA levels is associated with an increase in CaHD incidence; TE reduces 5-HIAA lev- els regardless of durable response status [38]; and individuals with CaHD have an increased risk of death compared with those shown in (parentheses), with the relevant sources in [brackets]. aFore- casting assumption based on interviews with healthcare professionals. CS carcinoid syndrome, G1/G2 grade 1/grade 2, NET neuroendocrine tumour, SSA somatostatin analogue, TE telotristat ethyl without. Levels of u5-HIAA were informed through analysis of data from the TELESTAR clinical trial [38]. The incidence of CaHD based on u5-HIAA was calculated using CaHD incidence as reported in Bhattacharyya et al. [50], which was the only study identified in a systematic literature review examining the link between 5-HIAA levels and CaHD incidence (Table 1).
The mean age of the cohort at the start of the simulation was assumed to be 64 years based on TELESTAR patient characteristics [38]. Relative 5-year survival rates for grade 1 and 2 tumours located in the intestinal tract were deter- mined through application of the relative survival rates in Korse et al. [45] to the Swedish age-specific mortality rates.
Patients with a durable response to TE begin the Markov process in the ‘SSA + TE’ arm. Patients who do not experience a durable response are assumed to discontinue TE but maintain SSA treatment and start in the ‘SSA only’ arm. The transi- tion between durable response and inadequate response in the SSA + TE arm was set to 0 for the base-case analysis. There were no deaths during the first 12 weeks of the model (the trial period). CaHD carcinoid heart disease, SSA somatostatin analogue, TE telotristat ethyl
For the base case, the mortality risk associated with CaHD was calculated using data from Westberg et al. [51]. Base- case model inputs for mortality risk are shown in Table 1.
2.1.4 Cost Inputs
The unit cost of TE in Swedish krona (SEK) (10,100.00) [43] was converted to € using the European Central Bank conversion rate as of 28 November 2018 (€1 = SEK10.2823). Therefore, the unit cost of TE in Sweden is approximately €11.69 per 250 mg pill, cumulating in a total cost of €982.27 over 4 weeks (three pills per day). Patients in the SSA + TE arm during the initial treatment period and those in the dura- ble response and inadequate response to TE health states within the Markov model incurred this cost.
Real-world CS and CaHD-related costs, including health- care resource use (frequency per month), drug acquisition and SSA dosage (cost of average dose) for patients with controlled and uncontrolled CS were obtained from a ret- rospective Swedish database study [33] (Table 1). A num- ber of symptoms not limited to diarrhoea may contribute to cost differences between responders and non-responders in the model. The costs associated with patients with con- trolled CS were assigned to the respond to SSA and dura- ble response to TE health states. The costs associated with patients with uncontrolled CS were assigned to all remain- ing non-responder health states. Incremental costs for CaHD were determined by calculating the difference in monthly costs between patients with and without CaHD. The cost year for all model inputs was 2015, except for the Swedish total population size and TE unit cost, which used actual values as of reimbursement approval by the TLV in 2018.
2.2 Deterministic Sensitivity Analyses
Deterministic (one-way) sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of model parameters. Model parameters were varied using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or plausi- ble ranges as reported in the published literature. When the published study did not report 95% CIs or ranges, plausible ranges were specified or informed by clinical expert opin- ion, obtained through interviews with experts identified as knowledgeable about NET management and economic mod- els. Ranges for inputs included in the sensitivity analyses are shown in electronic supplementary material 1.
3 Results
3.1 Base‑Case Analysis
3.1.1 Number of Patients Treated
Based on the assumed TE market share and number of CS cases in the base population, approximately 44 patients would initiate TE therapy during the 5-year time horizon (Table 3). Because prevalent patients were assumed to ini- tiate TE treatment in year 1 only, the number of patients expected to begin TE therapy was highest in year 1 (19.8).
3.1.2 Costs
Table 4 shows a full breakdown of costs over 5 years in the world-without TE and world-with TE scenarios. The total cost in year 1 was €2,793,111 in the world-without TE scenario and €2,859,606 in the world-with TE scenario and subsequently declined over the 5-year period. The world- with TE scenario resulted in total drug costs €269,056 higher than in the world-without TE scenario over the 5-year period. Approximately 40% was offset by the reduced costs for other aspects of patient care in the world-with TE sce- nario, including medical and surgical interventions, exami- nations and imaging, outpatient visits, inpatient admissions, chemotherapy, other diarrhoea therapy and CaHD drug costs (Table 4).
The cumulative 5-year net budget impact of introduc- ing TE to the current standard of care was €172,346; the cumulative cost over 5 years of treatment was €13,263,595 for the world-without TE scenario and €13,435,941 for the world-with TE scenario (Table 5). The net budget impact per year of introducing TE to the current standard of care was predicted to decrease from €66,495 in year 1 to €29,818 in year 5.
3.2 Deterministic Sensitivity Analyses
Results of the deterministic sensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 3. The 5-year net budget impact of TE was most sensitive to the proportion of patients who continued TE therapy after 12 weeks of treatment despite lack of dura- ble response. If 50% of patients who did not achieve a durable response continued TE therapy, the cumulative budget impact would increase to €696,661. The price of TE (250 mg) was the second biggest factor affecting the model outcomes, with a 25% increase or decrease resulting in a 5-year cumulative net budget impact of €251,668 and €92,824, respectively.
4 Discussion
Despite most patients with NETs receiving SSA therapy, many of those with CS continue to experience uncontrolled symptoms [24, 28, 30, 31, 52]. TE offers an effective, novel treatment option for patients with CS with uncontrolled diar- rhoea. Used in combination with SSAs, TE has been shown to offer effective relief from CS diarrhoea and to improve the quality of life in patients who experience a durable response to treatment [38]. This study investigated the budget impact of the addition of TE to the current standard of care for CS in Sweden.
The total cost per year of treatment for patients with CS inclusive of TE therapy in Sweden declined over the 5-year time-period, from €2,859,606 in year 1 to €2,523,961 in year 5, as patients were assumed to discontinue TE due to adverse events, lack of effectiveness and CS progression. The cumu- lative 5-year net budget impact resulting from the addition of TE was relatively low at €172,346, with a per-year net cost of €66,495 in year 1 and decreasing thereafter.
The relatively low budget impact of adding TE to the existing standard of care in Sweden is likely due to two rea- sons. First, CS is a component of a rare disease, and the number of total prevalent and incident patients eligible for TE was estimated at approximately 80 patients each year over the 5 years; according to market share assumptions, only 44 patients would initiate treatment with TE by year 5. This aligns with findings from a 2014 study assessing the budget impact of orphan medicinal products in Swe- den and France, in which the low overall number of annual sales made the costs associated with these treatments sus- tainable [53]. Further to this, the TE budget impact model assumed that patients who responded to TE would gradually discontinue treatment either as the disease progressed, TE effectiveness decreased, adverse events occurred or patients died, which would also contribute to the small economic impact.
Second, the improved diarrhoea symptom control result- ing from treatment with TE translated into overall health- care system cost savings that offset the pharmacy cost of TE, an outcome previously reported for other treatments in rare chronic diseases [54, 55]. Although patients who respond to TE will still require ongoing monitoring for tumour progression, they would avoid the increased costs related to uncontrolled CS. The total costs per patient per year associated with medical and surgical interventions, examinations and imaging, outpatient visits, inpatient admissions, chemotherapy and other diarrhoea thera- pies were lower in the world-with TE scenario. This is in accordance with other studies showing that patients with CS who experience flushing and diarrhoea symptoms incur around $US14,766–29,890 more per year in healthcare costs than those experiencing improvements in symptoms [10, 56].
Our results are consistent with those from a US study that also showed a minimal budget impact on a US health plan of adding TE to SSA therapy [57]. In this study, the budget impact of adding TE totalled $US687,330 over 3 years. With a similar assumed market share (28% in year 1, 42% in year 2, and 55% in year 3), the net annual overall healthcare cost of TE ($US55–109 million) was well under the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) threshold for new molecular entities ($US915 million per year) when the study was published in 2017 [57]. While the ICER decreased the threshold to $US819 million in May 2019, the budget impact of adding TE to the standard of care in the USA still falls well under this amount [58].
A limitation of our study was the lack of readily available data, which is often a challenge when conducting budget impact analyses of treatments for orphan diseases [59, 60]. For example, prevalence and incidence data specific to Swe- den were not available, so this analysis used data from a systematic review conducted for Europe and the USA to esti- mate the size of the target population [44]. The derivation of cost inputs for patients with controlled and uncontrolled CS from Swedish databases presented another limitation for this study. It was assumed that patients demonstrating a durable response to TE would have the same resource use as patients with controlled CS, and patients without a dura- ble response to TE would have that of patients with uncon- trolled CS (despite the fact that the definition of a durable response relates to reductions in symptoms of diarrhoea). The impact of this assumption on our budget impact estimate is unknown. However, because diarrhoea is the most burden- some symptom of CS, this model focused on cost outcomes associated with this symptom, though durable responders have also been shown to have improvements in other symp- toms that would not be captured by this model [39]. It should be noted that this model does not account for the lost pro- ductivity to individual patients and society in general from the impact of CS on quality of life and consequences such as missed workdays.
5 Conclusions
Treatment with TE alongside SSAs more often results in durable improvement of diarrhoea symptoms than use of SSAs alone; symptomatic relief can lead to improved quality of life for patients with NETs and CS. This budget impact model demonstrated that TE could be an affordable addition to the current standard of care for patients with NETs and CS in Sweden. Therefore, further research assessing the health and budget impacts of TE and other treatments for CS and NETs in Sweden would be beneficial and is warranted.
References
1. Halperin DM, Shen C, Dasari A, Xu Y, Chu Y, Zhou S, et al. Fre- quency of carcinoid syndrome at neuroendocrine tumour diagno- sis: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(4):525–34.
2. Soga J. Carcinoids and their variant endocrinomas. An analysis of 11842 reported cases. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2003;22(4):517–30.
3. Tomassetti P, Migliori M, Lalli S, Campana D, Tomassetti V, Corinaldesi R. Epidemiology, clinical features and diagno- sis of gastroenteropancreatic endocrine tumours. Ann Oncol. 2001;12(Suppl 2):S95–9.
4. Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, Zhao B, Zhou S, Xu Y, et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1335–42.
5. Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, Dagohoy C, Leary C, Mares JE, et al. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prog- nostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(18):3063–72.
6. Kaltsas GA, Besser GM, Grossman AB. The diagnosis and medi- cal management of advanced neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr Rev. 2004;25(3):458–511.
7. Papadogias D, Makras P, Kossivakis K, Kontogeorgos G, Piaditis G, Kaltsas G. Carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid crisis secondary to a metastatic carcinoid tumour of the lung: a therapeutic chal- lenge. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19(12):1154–9.
8. Jensen RT, Cadiot G, Brandi ML, de Herder WW, Kaltsas G, Komminoth P, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the man- agement of patients with digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms: functional pancreatic endocrine tumor syndromes. Neuroendo- crinology. 2012;95(2):98–119.
9. Stamatakos M, Kontzoglou K, Sargedi C, Tsaknaki S, Iannescu R, Safioleas C, et al. Gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors: diagnosis and treatment. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2010;105(6):759–66.
10. Broder MS, Chang E, Romanus D, Cherepanov D, Neary MP. Healthcare Telotristat Etiprate and economic impact of diarrhea in patients with car- cinoid syndrome. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(6):2118–25.
11. Davar J, Connolly HM, Caplin ME, Pavel M, Zacks J, Bhattacha- ryya S, et al. Diagnosing and managing carcinoid heart disease in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: an expert statement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(10):1288–304.
12. Grozinsky-Glasberg S, Grossman AB, Gross DJ. Carcinoid heart disease: from pathophysiology to treatment–’something in the way it moves’. Neuroendocrinology. 2015;101(4):263–73.
13. Boudreaux JP, Klimstra DS, Hassan MM, Woltering EA, Jensen RT, Goldsmith SJ, et al. The NANETS consensus guideline for the diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine tumors: well-differ- entiated neuroendocrine tumors of the jejunum, ileum, appendix, and cecum. Pancreas. 2010;39(6):753–66.
14. Liu Q, Yang Q, Sun W, Vogel P, Heydorn W, Yu XQ, et al. Dis- covery and characterization of novel tryptophan hydroxylase inhibitors that selectively inhibit serotonin synthesis in the gas- trointestinal tract. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2008;325(1):47–55.
15. Fox DJ, Khattar RS. Carcinoid heart disease: presentation, diag- nosis, and management. Heart. 2004;90(10):1224–8.
16. Kulke MH, Benson AB, Bergsland E, Berlin JD, Blaszkowsky LS, Choti MA, et al. Neuroendocrine tumors. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2012;10(6):724–64.
17. Delle Fave G, O’Toole D, Sundin A, Taal B, Ferolla P, Ramage JK, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines update for gastroduodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms. Neuroendocrinology. 2016;103(2):119–24.
18. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/neuroendoc rine.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2019.
19. Caplin ME, Pavel M, Cwikla JB, Phan AT, Raderer M, Sedlackova E, et al. Lanreotide in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(3):224–33.
20. Rinke A, Muller HH, Schade-Brittinger C, Klose KJ, Barth P, Wied M, et al. Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, ran- domized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: a report from the PROMID study group. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4656–63.
21. Vinik AI, Wolin EM, Liyanage N, Gomez-Panzani E, Fisher GA. Evaluation of lanreotide depot/autogel efficacy and safety as a carcinoid syndrome treatment (elect): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(9):1068–80.
22. Ruszniewski P, Valle JW, Lombard-Bohas C, Cuthbertson DJ, Per- ros P, Holubec L, et al. Patient-reported outcomes with lanreotide autogel/depot for carcinoid syndrome: an international observa- tional study. Dig Liver Dis. 2016;48(5):552–8.
23. Harris AG, Redfern JS. Octreotide treatment of carcinoid syn- drome: analysis of published dose-titration data. Aliment Phar- macol Ther. 1995;9(4):387–94.
24. Dimitriadis GK, Weickert MO, Randeva HS, Kaltsas G, Grossman A. Medical management of secretory syndromes related to gastro- enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2016;23(9):R423–36.
25. Khan MS, El-Khouly F, Davies P, Toumpanakis C, Caplin ME. Long-term results of treatment of malignant carcinoid syndrome with prolonged release lanreotide (somatuline autogel). Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34(2):235–42.
26. Oberg K, Knigge U, Kwekkeboom D, Perren A. Neuroendo- crine gastro-entero-pancreatic tumors: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(Suppl 7):vii124–30.
27. Strosberg J, Weber J, Feldman M, Goldman J, Almhanna K, Kvols L. Above-label doses of octreotide-LAR in patients with meta- static small intestinal carcinoid tumors. Gastrointest Cancer Res. 2013;6(3):81–5.
28. Strosberg JR, Benson AB, Huynh L, Duh MS, Goldman J, Sahai V, et al. Clinical benefits of above-standard dose of octreotide LAR in patients with neuroendocrine tumors for control of carci- noid syndrome symptoms: a multicenter retrospective chart review study. Oncologist. 2014;19(9):930–6.
29. Weber JM, Feldman M, Kvols L, Strosberg JR. Above-label doses of octreotide-LAR in patients with metastatic small-intestinal car- cinoid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15 Suppl):e14579.
30. Riechelmann RP, Pereira AA, Rego JF, Costa FP. Refractory car- cinoid syndrome: a review of treatment options. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2017;9(2):127–37.
31. Toumpanakis C, Garland J, Marelli L, Srirajaskanthan R, Soh J, Davies P, et al. Long-term results of patients with malignant car- cinoid syndrome receiving octreotide LAR. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30:733–40.
32. Pavel M, Baudin E, Couvelard A, Krenning E, Oberg K, Steinmul- ler T, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the management of patients with liver and other distant metastases from neuroendo- crine neoplasms of foregut, midgut, hindgut, and unknown pri- mary. Neuroendocrinology. 2012;95(2):157–76.
33. Lesén E, Björstad Å, Björholt I, Marlow T, Bollano E, Feuilly M, et al. Real-world treatment patterns, resource use and costs of treating uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease: a retrospective Swedish study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(12):1509–18.
34. European Medicines Agency. Xermelo European public assess- ment report. 2017. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/ overview/xermelo-epar-summary-public_en.pdf. Accessed 28
Mar 2019.
35. US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evalua- tion and Research. Approval package for application number 208794orig1s000 (xermelo). 2017. https://www.accessdata.fda. gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2017/208794Orig1s000Approv.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2019.
36. Health Canada. Regulatory decision summary – xermelo. 2018. https://hpr-rps.hres.ca/reg-content/regulatory-decision-summary- detail.php?linkID=RDS00469. Accessed 28 Mar 2019.
37. Australian Government Therapeutic Goods Administration. Final scheduling decisions and reasons for decisions by delegates of the secretary to the department of health for matters not referred to an advisory committee (delegate-only decisions). https://www.tga. gov.au/sites/default/files/delegates-final-decisions-jan-2018.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2019.
38. Kulke MH, Horsch D, Caplin ME, Anthony LB, Bergsland E, Oberg K, et al. Telotristat ethyl, a tryptophan hydroxylase inhibitor for the treatment of carcinoid syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(1):14–23.
39. Cella D, Beaumont JL, Hudgens S, Marteau F, Feuilly M, Houchard A, et al. Relationship between symptoms and health-related quality of life benefits in patients with carcinoid syndrome: Post-hoc analyses from TELESTAR. Clin Ther. 2018;40(12):2006–20.
40. Anthony L, Ervin C, Lapuerta P, Kulke MH, Kunz P, Bergsland E, et al. Understanding the patient experience with carcinoid syn- drome: Exit interviews from a randomized, placebo-controlled study of telotristat ethyl. Clin Ther. 2017;39(11):2158–68.
41. Beaumont JL, Cella D, Phan AT, Choi S, Liu Z, Yao JC. Com- parison of health-related quality of life in patients with neuroen- docrine tumors with quality of life in the general US population. Pancreas. 2012;41(3):461–6.
42. Frojd C, Larsson G, Lampic C, von Essen L. Health related qual- ity of life and psychosocial function among patients with carci- noid tumours A longitudinal, prospective, and comparative study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:18.
43. Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. Xermelo decision for inclusion in drug benefits. https://www.tlv.se/downl oad/18.76aefd0a16385647546422af/1527077011387/bes180517_ xermelo.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2019.
44. YolaRx Consultants. Assessment of prevalence and incidence of neuro-endocrine tumors (NETs) and carcinoid syndromes (CS) not adequately controlled by somatostatin analogs in Europe and the United States: Systematic review and target population siz- ing—final report version 1.0 [Data on file].
45. Korse CM, Taal BG, van Velthuysen ML, Visser O. Incidence and survival of neuroendocrine tumours in the Netherlands according to histological grade: experience of two decades of cancer registry. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(8):1975–83.
46. Statistics Sweden, 2017. http://www.scb.se/en/. Accessed 21 Mar 2019.
47. Caplin ME, Baudin E, Ferolla P, Filosso P, Garcia-Yuste M, Lim E, et al. Pulmonary neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumors: European neuroendocrine tumor society expert consensus and recommenda- tions for best practice for typical and atypical pulmonary carci- noids. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(8):1604–20.
48. Pavel M, O’Toole D, Costa F, Capdevila J, Gross D, Kianmanesh R, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of distant metastatic disease of intestinal, pancreatic, bronchial neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) and NEN of unknown primary site. Neuroendocrinology. 2016;103(2):172–85.
49. Pavel M, Gross DJ, Benavent M, Perros P, Srirajaskanthan R, Warner RRP, et al. Telotristat ethyl in carcinoid syndrome: safety and efficacy in the TELECAST phase 3 trial. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2018;25(3):309–22.
50. Bhattacharyya S, Toumpanakis C, Chilkunda D, Caplin ME, Davar J. Risk factors for the development and progression of car- cinoid heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107(8):1221–6.
51. Westberg G, Wängberg B, Ahlman H, Bergh CH, Beckman- Suurküla M, Caidahl K. Prediction of prognosis by echocardi- ography in patients with midgut carcinoid syndrome. Br J Surg. 2001;88(6):865–72.
52. Rubin de Celis Ferrari AC, Glasberg J, Riechelmann RP. Carci- noid syndrome: update on the pathophysiology and treatment. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2018;73(suppl 1):e490s.
53. Hutchings A, Schey C, Dutton R, Achana F, Antonov K. Estimat- ing the budget impact of orphan drugs in Sweden and France 2013–2020. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9(1):22.
54. Pollock RF, Meckley LM. An evaluation of the budget impact of a new 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin (ig20gly) for the man- agement of primary immunodeficiency diseases in Switzerland. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;10:223–9.
55. Woodward TC, Brown R, Sacco P, Zhang J. Budget impact model of tobramycin inhalation solution for treatment of pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients. J Med Econ. 2010;13(3):492–9.
56. Huynh L, Totev T, Vekeman F, Neary MP, Duh MS, Benson AB. Cost reduction from resolution/improvement of carcinoid syn- drome symptoms following treatment with above-standard dose of octreotide LAR. J Med Econ. 2017;20(9):945–51.
57. Joish VN, Frech F, Lapuerta P. Budgetary impact of tel- otristat ethyl, a novel treatment for patients with carcinoid syndrome diarrhea: a US health plan perspective. Clin Ther. 2017;39(12):2338–44.
58. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. ICER value assess- ment framework. https://icer-review.org/methodology/icers-metho ds/icer-value-assessment-framework/. Accessed 8 May 2019.
59. Cheng MM, Ramsey SD, Devine EB, Garrison LP, Bresnahan BW, Veenstra DL. Systematic review of comparative effec- tiveness data for oncology orphan drugs. Am J Manag Care. 2012;18(1):47–62.
60. Kanters TA, de Sonneville-Koedoot C, Redekop WK, Hakkaart L. Systematic review of available evidence on 11 high-priced inpa- tient orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:124.