2021 Summer Prime Therapeutics Report

Prime Therapeutics Report Summer 2021

Gene Therapies for Rare Diseases: Changing Landscape and Pipeline

HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer: CNS Metastases and Proper Management

HIV Update: Treatment and Effective Management

CAR-T Update: Expanding Landscape and Payer Implications

SP ECIALT Y SOLUTIONS FOR MANAGED CARE

Prime Therapeutics S U M M E R 2021

Report

ALS:

Robust Pipeline and Payer Impact primetherapeutics.com

Magellan Rx Report MEDICAL AND PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGEMENT Summer 2021

ALS:

Robust Pipeline and Payer Impact

SUMMIT SPECIALTY

AUGUST 31, 2021 | 11

A -

ED

Register today and get ready to transform your mind with new ideas and insights on how we grow from here. magellanrx.com/specialtysummit

Magellan Rx Management would like to say

THANK YOU

to our 2021 Specialty Summit sponsors thus far!

ELITE SPONSORS

PREMIER SPONSORS

Interested in sponsorship?

MRxEvents@magellanhealth.com Supported by sponsors who provided funding. Sponsors have had no input into the content of the materials used at this meeting/conference.

IN THIS ISSUE | Summer 2021

4 Managed Care Newsstand

28 HIV Update:

6 Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis:

35 CAR-T Update:

15 Gene Therapies for Rare Diseases:

40 COVID-19 and Oncology Care:

19 HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer:

45 Pipeline

Robust Pipeline and Payer Impact

Changing Landscape and Pipeline

CNS Metastases and Proper Management

Treatment and Effective Management

Expanding Landscape and Payer Implications

Long-Term Implications

Published By Magellan Rx Management 15950 N. 76th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Contributors Caroline Carney, M.D., M.Sc., FAPM, CPHQ

Tel: 401-344-1000 Fax: 401-619-5215

SVP, Market General Manager, MRx Specialty

CMO, Magellan Health, Magellan Rx Management

Steve Cutts, Pharm.D.

Haita Makanji, Pharm.D.

VP, Clinical Strategy and Innovation, Specialty

magellanrx.com Editor Lindsay Speicher, J.D.

Project Manager, Magellan Method lspeicher@magellanhealth.com 401-344-1105

Advertising, Sales and Distribution Carole Kallas ckallas@magellanhealth.com 401-344-1132

The content of Magellan Rx Report — including text, graphics, images, and information obtained from third parties, licensors, and other material (“content”) — is for informational purposes only. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Magellan RxTM Report does not verify any claims or other information appearing in any of the advertisements contained in the publication and cannot take responsibility for any losses or other damages incurred by readers in reliance on such content.

Developed by D Custom.

Chief Pharmacy Officer & VP Clinical Analytics, Strategy & Innovation, Excellus BlueCross BlueShield

Dennis Bourdette M.D., FAAN, FANA

Chair and Roy and Eulalia Swank Family Research Professor, Department of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University

Yousaf Ali M.D., FACR

Misty Greficz

Director, Marketing

Chief, Division of Rheumatology, Mount Sinai West; Professor of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Joe Tavares

Steven L. D’Amato, B.S.Pharm.

Corrado Panno

Joseph Mikhael M.D., M.Ed., FRCPC, FACP

Stacy Inman, Pharm.D.

Natalie Tate, Pharm.D., MBA, BCPS

SVP, Sales and Business Development, Specialty VP, Business Development, Magellan Method Senior Clinical Project Manager, Magellan Method

Carole Kallas Project Manager

Brian Kinsella, Esq. TM

Editorial Advisory Board Mona M. Chitre, Pharm.D., CGP

Senior Legal Counsel

Alina Young

Associate Legal Counsel

Executive Director, New England Cancer Specialists

Chief Medical Officer, International Myeloma Foundation Vice President, Pharmacy Management, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee

Steve Marciniak, R.Ph.

Director II, Medical Benefit Drug Management, BlueCross BlueShield of Michigan

Saira A. Jan, M.S., Pharm.D.

Director of Pharmacy Strategy and Clinical Integration, Horizon BlueCross BlueShield of New Jersey

Lilly Ackley

VP, Corporate Communications

Maria James

Director, External Communications

ISSN: 2159-5372

10444M

A NOTE FROM OUR CMO

Dear Managed Care Colleagues, Welcome to our summer 2021 issue of the Magellan Rx Report In the first half of 2021, widespread vaccine administration and reopening as COVID-19 infections slowed have been front of mind. Despite COVID-related health concerns, there have been many exciting advancements — including 30 new drug approvals. In this issue, Magellan Rx Management continues to provide our readers with the most up-to-date information across health trends, changing treatment landscapes, and clinical advances.

Our cover story (page 6) focuses on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the current treatment landscape, and a robust pipeline. As treatment options have been limited for this condition, which has 5,000 new cases diagnosed annually, new therapies will increase payer awareness in this area.

In another article, we highlight the area of gene therapies, specifically in the treatment of rare diseases page 1 . The growing availability of these innovative, potentially curative treatments will change many aspects of healthcare and managed care moving forward, including disease management opportunities and economic impact.

Other timely topics in this issue include developments in human immunodeficiency virus HIV treatment page and CAR T (page 35) and the impact of COVID-19 on oncology care (page 40). As always, the issue is rounded out with our pipeline update (page 45) and managed care newsstand (page 4).

To learn more about Magellan Rx Management and our support for payer initiatives of the future, please feel free to contact us at MagellanRxReport@magellanhealth.com. As always, we value any feedback you may have. I hope you enjoy the report!

Sincerely,

Caroline Carney, M.D., M.Sc., FAPM, CPHQ ie edica cer Magellan Health & Magellan Rx Management

We also discuss the complexities of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer, specifically focusing on central nervous system metastases page 1 . The story addresses the challenges and outcomes of treatment, as well as the resulting impact on payers.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY! Stay on top of managed care trends and become a Magellan Rx Report subscriber. Email us at MagellanRxReport@magellanhealth.com to subscribe today. Magellan Rx Report provides pharmacy and medical management solutions for managed care executives and clinicians. We hope you enjoy the issue; thank you for reading.

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 3

MANAGED CARE NEWSSTAND Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 3.0 Introduced U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Sheldon Whitehouse, R-R.I., introduced the bipartisan Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) 3.0 to help combat the opioid epidemic, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill increases the funding authorization levels for the CARA programs enacted in 2016. The bipartisan national effort was designed to ensure that federal resources were devoted to evidence-based education, treatment, and recovery programs that work. CARA programs were funded at $782 million in 2021. Several key provisions of CARA 2.0 were enacted as part of the SUPPORT Act on Oct. 24, 2018. CARA 3.0 builds on these efforts by increasing the funding authorization levels and laying out new policy reforms to strengthen the federal government’s response to this crisis (e.g., it permanently allows providers to prescribe medication-assisted treatment via audio-only telehealth).

New X-Waiver Guidelines Issued The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued new practice guidelines as it looks for ways to address the opioid epidemic. The new guidelines are slightly different from those issued under the Trump administration, which were rescinded in January. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse

4 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse midwives may now treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine under a waiver established under the new guidance. Providers will still need to submit notice of their intention to prescribe buprenorphine to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, but they will now be exempted from training requirements.

GAO Reports on Behavioral Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic The U.S. Government Accountability Office GAO recently released a report on issues related to the demand for behavioral health, coverage and payment for these services, and how they have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report, the result of a request made by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., last year, describes: (1) what is known about the need for and availability of behavioral health services and how these have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (2) what issues selected stakeholders identified regarding the payment of claims for behavioral health services. Key findings focus on workforce shortage, denials and delay of payment, and parity issues.

HRSA Implements COVID-19 Coverage Assistance Fund On May 3, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announced a new program covering the cost of administering COVID-19 vaccines to patients enrolled in health plans that either do not cover vaccination fees or cover them with patient cost-sharing. This new program is called the HRSA COVID-19 Coverage Assistance Fund (CAF). Providers

must enroll in the CAF program and submit uncovered claims for vaccines administered on or after Dec. 14, 2020.

Prior to submitting claims for reimbursement under the program, providers are required to bill the patient’s health plan and receive confirmation that vaccine administration is not covered or includes patient cost-sharing.

House Committees Hold Hearings on Drug-Pricing Legislation The House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Education and Labor held hearings on major drug pricing legislation on May 4 and 5 with the hopes of bringing the bill to the oor in the coming weeks. House Democratic and Republican leaders filed separate bills that were similar in scope to the bills introduced in the last Congress. The Democratic bill, HR3, passed the House in late 2019 nearly along party lines. The Republican bill, HR19, the counter to the Democratic bill, did not receive a vote in the last Congress. The Senate Committee on Finance passed its own drug-pricing bill in 2019, but that bill never made it to the oor. The Democratic bill calls for government negotiation of high-cost drugs that have little or no competition. The bill also proposes a Medicare in ation rebate among the many other provisions. Both bills call for capping out-of-pocket costs for Part D beneficiaries and eliminating the coverage gap in the Part D benefit, but they differ on payment responsibilities in the catastrophic phase; the Democratic bill calls for drug manufacturers to bear a greater share of the cost burden in this phase. Witnesses at the hearing said these Part D redesign proposals would do little to control costs but would likely increase premiums and overall program costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that HR3 would save

$450 billion over a 10-year period. The Democratic proposal would use most of those savings to provide dental, hearing, and vision benefits under Medicare.

Following the hearing, a number of Democratic House members have expressed concern over the bill. Recent media reports suggest that as many as eight to 10 Democrats may not support the bill. Democrats hold a six-seat majority and can lose few Democratic members if most — if not all — Republicans oppose the bill. Negotiations are likely to continue in the coming weeks to try and shore up Democratic support for the bill. If it passes, it faces an unlikely future in the Senate. The Senate failed to take up HR3 in 2020 when the Republicans controlled the chamber. Democrats now hold the majority, but the Senate is evenly divided at 50-50, so the bill will likely require all Democratic senators to support it. At this point, passage of a major drug-pricing bill appears unlikely, but the recent hearings and legislative action suggest that drug-pricing will remain a significant issue within Congress over the coming years.

House Votes on a Package of Mental Health Bills The U.S. House voted on a package of 14 mental health bills on May 12. The bills included increased authorization of funding for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and funding to conduct a suicide prevention media campaign. Other bills included funding directed to improving suicide awareness in emergency medical facilities and funding to support school-based awareness campaigns.

The 988 Suicide Prevention Lifeline is expected to be in place by July 2022.

Additional bills included block grants to support individual wellness programs for those involved in communitybased organizations and first responders

who deal with addiction and mental health issues, as well as funding for school-based mental health services.

The package of bills has broad support.

It is not clear when the Senate may take up the legislation, but it is expected that the package of bills will pass Congress at some point this year.

President Biden Releases FY2022 Budget On May 28, President Joe Biden released a trillion proposed budget for fiscal year 2022. The proposal, which is expected to undergo many changes before being signed into law, presents a significant increase in federal spending and includes significant investments in President Biden’s top priorities, including infrastructure, education, research, public health, paid family leave, and child care.

The budget also calls on Congress to act “to further strengthen healthcare by lowering prescription drug costs and expanding and improving health coverage.” The president’s healthcare agenda includes cutting prescription drug costs by letting Medicare negotiate prices, reducing deductibles for Affordable Care Act ACA marketplace plans, improving Medicare benefits, creating a public option and giving people age 60 and older the option to enroll in Medicare, and closing the Medicaid coverage gap to help millions of uninsured Americans gain health insurance.

FDA Announces New Drug Supply Chain Guidance On June 3, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced two new finalized and two draft guidance documents to further enhance the security of prescription drugs in the U.S. supply chain via proper identification and tracking. The guidance documents lay out the

FDA’s recommendations for compliance with applicable Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) requirements, including those for enhanced drug distribution security at the package level that go into effect in November 0 .

On June 8, the Biden-Harris administration announced its key findings from the reviews directed under a February Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains, as well as immediate actions the administration will take to strengthen American supply chains to promote economic security, national security, and good-paying union jobs. The administration has called on HHS and other agencies to: •

•

•

Establish a public-private consortium — leveraging the Defense Production Act (DPA) and existing partnerships — to bolster the production of critical drugs on U.S. soil.

Invest around $60 million from the DPA appropriation in the American Rescue Plan to create “novel platform technologies” for domestic active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) production.

Increase funding of advanced manufacturing technologies for drug and API production.

HHS Looks to Rescind Insulin Rule The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing to rescind the Trump administration drug rule that required community health centers to pass on all their insulin and epinephrine discount savings to patients. The proposal to retract the rule is under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Once it clears OMB, HHS can publish it at any time. The rule was previously delayed until July 20, 2021.

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 5

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Robust Pipeline and Payer Impact The strong ALS pipeline promises innovative treatment possibilities for a debilitating disease that, historically, has had limited options. With several phase-three therapies in the pipeline, this category may become a priority for payers.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ALS is a progressive, disabling, fatal neurodegenerative disorder affecting up to 30,000 adults in the United States, with an estimated 5,000 new cases diagnosed every year.1 The estimated national economic burden of ALS, which includes medical, nonmedical, and indirect costs, ranges from $256 million to $1.023 billion.2 This burden is expected to increase proportionately to the increase in prevalence and may be up 34% by 2040.2 Individually, the total cost of care for an ALS patient can be significant around 0,000 annually.2 Contributing factors in total cost of care often include hospitalizations, in-home care, nutrition, physical and occupational therapy, and drug therapy.3 The patient burden extends beyond financial cost; patients experience significantly decreased quality of life as the disease progresses, with family and caregivers often impacted as well.2 Christina Barrington, Pharm.D. Vice President, Pharmacy Programs Priority Health

ALS is most common in adults over 60. The cause is unknown, but studies suggest links to both genetics and environmental factors.1, 3 Earlier disease is defined by twitching and cramping of the muscles, loss of muscle control in the hands and arms, impaired use of the arms and legs, weakness and fatigue, tripping and falling, dropping things, slurred or thick speech, and difficulty projecting voice. As the disease progresses, symptoms become more severe and include shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, difficulty swallowing, and paralysis.2 Diagnosis is typically based on a review of symptom history and a physical exam, often accompanied by a series of tests to rule out other diseases that present with similar symptoms.3 The presence of upper and lower motor neuron symptoms strongly suggests ALS. Disease progression is typically measured using the widely accepted ALS Functional Rating Scale ALSFRS R ; point increases in the ALSFRS R can re ect a substantial decline in function.4

6 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

Current Treatment Landscape

As more treatment options In 1995, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for ALS become available, riluzole (Rilutek ) for the treatment of ALS. At the time, it was the only ALS treatment available. The first trial for riluzole showed that updated guidelines will time to tracheostomy or death was about 90 days longer for patients treated with riluzole versus placebo. A second trial showed an be key to provide clear early increase in survival rates (about 60 days longer) for patients guidance around the treated with either 100 mg or 200 mg of riluzole per day, compared with placebo. Because no difference in survival rates was observed appropriate management between those treated with 100 mg or 00 mg of riluzole per day and there was an increase in adverse events, such as nausea and as- and place in therapy for thenia, with the higher dose the recommended dosing of riluzole is 100 mg per day. Adverse events associated with riluzole include these treatments.

Riluzole (Rilutek®) ®

5

5

asthenia, spasticity, and mild elevations in aminotransferase levels.5

Edaravone (RADICAVA®) The FDA approved edaravone (RADICAVA®) for the treatment of ALS in 01 .6 Edaravone is an IV infusion treatment administered by a healthcare practitioner with an initial treatment cycle of 14 days of dosing followed by 14 drug free days. Subsequent treatment cycles are dosed on 10 of 14 days followed by 14 drug-free days.6 Edaravone is associated with adverse reactions such as bruising and gait disturbance, as well as more serious risks such as hives, swelling, shortness of breath, and allergic reactions to sodium bisulfite.6

The MCI186-19 phase three, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial included patients ages 0 to who met specific inclusion criteria, including definite or probable ALS, Japan classification grade 1 or 2, a disease duration of less than two years since symptom onset, normal respiratory function defined as forced vital capacity (FVC) >80%), a score of >2 on all items on the ALSFRS-R score, and a deterioration of ALSFRS-R score during the 12-week pre-study observation period of 1 to 4 points. , Those treated with edaravone experienced 33% less functional loss during the 24week trial period compared to the placebo group. , Challenges around the use of edaravone include strict coverage criteria and the administration burden of infusion treatment for patients. An oral formulation of edaravone is currently undergoing phase three trials, which presents an opportunity for ease of administration and, potentially, access to treatment.

Treatment Guidelines The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines currently recommend riluzole for the treatment of ALS.9 The AAN guidelines do not mention edaravone in the treatment of ALS, although the guidelines have been reaffirmed since the approval of edaravone.9 As more treatment options for ALS become available, updated guidelines will be key to provide clear guidance around the appropriate management and place in therapy for these treatments.

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 7

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS | Continued

Table 1. ALS Pipeline10 Drug

Manufacturer

Route of Administration

Mechanism of Action

Status

arimoclomol

Orphazyme

oral

molecular chaperone modulator

phase three

BHV-3241 (verdiperstat)

Biohaven Pharmaceuticals

oral

MPO inhibitor

phase three

BIIB0

Biogen; Ionis Pharmaceuticals

intrathecal

antisense oligonucleotide

phase three

CNM-Au8 (gold nanocrystal)

Clene Nanomedicine

oral

immunomodulator

phase three

masitinib

AB Science

oral

receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor

phase three

MN-166

KYORIN Pharmaceutical Co.; MediciNova

oral

PDE4 inhibitor

phase three

MT-1186 (edaravone)

Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma

oral

neuroprotective agent

phase three

NurOwn®

BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics

intrathecal

cellular immunotherapy

phase three

pridopidine

Prilenia Therapeutics

oral

sigma-1 receptor agonist

phase three

RA101495 (zilucoplan)

UCB

SQ

complement inhibitor

phase three

ULTOMIRIS® (ravulizumab-cwvz)

Alexion Pharmaceuticals

IV

complement inhibitor

phase three

tofersen

Emerging Therapies

Management Implications

nutritionists; social workers; respiratory therapists; clinical psychologists; and home care and hospice nurses.3 A patient’s treatment team can effectively develop and provide an individualized treatment plan, provide special equipment, and improve quality of life.3 Appropriate management by managed care organizations and the care team can optimize outcomes and potentially delay disease progression.3

ALS management should be multidisciplinary, including a comprehensive team comprised of a combination of the following: physicians; pharmacists; physical, occupational, and speech therapists;

Because treatment options for ALS have historically been limited and the patient population is so small, the category has not been a priority for payers. However, with several pipeline therapies in

The ALS pipeline is robust, promising innovative treatment possibilities for this debilitating disease. This is an exciting advancement in a space where options have been limited for patients and providers. See Table 1 for a complete ALS pipeline.

8 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

Stay ahead of trend: Gene therapy management strategies

magellanrx.com/trendreport

phase three, payers may start strategizing how to best manage the space and ensure that patients have access to the most appropriate therapy. Additionally, early research shows the opportunity for potentially curative results with gene therapy in ALS patients. As research and development progresses, this patient

population will become a higher management priority for payers.

A robust landscape of treatment options, coupled with high-cost therapies, will create an urgency for payers to address the ALS space, developing creative strategies for cost management and ensuring access to proper treatment for patients.

References 1.

ALS Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Johns Hopkins Medicine, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/centers_ clinics/als/conditions/als_amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis.html.

6.

FDA approves drug to treat ALS. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, May 01 , https www.fda.gov news events press announcements/fda-approves-drug-treat-als.

2.

Santaniello, Briana. ALS Managed Care Considerations. American Journal of Managed Care, Aug. 01 , https www.ajmc.com view als-managed-care-considerations.

.

Shefner, J., et al. Long term edaravone efficacy in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis Post hoc analyses of Study 1 MCI1 1 . Muscle & Nerve, 01 , doi 10.100 mus.

40.

3.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ALS Fact Sheet. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 1 June 0 1, https www. ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Fact-Sheets/ Amyotrophic-Lateral-Sclerosis-ALS-Fact-Sheet.

8.

4.

Berry, James, et al. New considerations in the design of clinical trials for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clinical Investigation (London).

011, doi 10.41 cli.11.1 .

Palumbo, Joseph, et al. Post hoc analyses of the edaravone clinical trials Study 1 and Study 1 a step toward more efficient clinical trial designs in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration, vol. 20, no. 5-6, 2019, pp.

4 1 4 1., doi 10.10 0 1 4 1. 01 .1 .

9.

“AAN Summary of Evidence-based Guideline for CLINICIANS: The care of the patient with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Drug, Nutritional, and Respiratory Therapies. American Academy of Neurology, 11 Jan. 0 0, https www.aan.com Guidelines home GuidelineDetail 0.

5.

Miller, R.G., et al. “Clinical trials of riluzole in patients with ALS. ALS/ Riluzole Study Group II. Neurology, Oct. 1996, https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 0 .

10. IPD Analytics.

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 9

Å ç è ê Å ù †≠è Ä Å è

Å ì† ü çî è † è † ã ç Å ì† ü çî è † è † ãÖ

èê ù † ≠ ùè é ì† ü çî ° ù † † èù † è è å ù é Ñ èù † è ù è å è ù ç ù ô ç ù † ç ù è â ç ¢ è † è ù † ù Ñ ù è å Ñ èù † è è ùù ù

èê ù † ≠ ùè

é † ù † ç ù ù ç ù ì î ç ù ö è † ù † † ã ù † ù † å ù è † ã ç ì ïî ù é † ù ù è ì öî ùù † è ìã î ç ù è ùù ù ö çè õ ã ìõãî † èù è è ù ù ö Ñ ù ù ç è ç ù ù ì â è † úñ û

Å ê ù ù è ù † ≠ÄÇÄÉ ê ê † ê Ñ ÖÑÇÇÜá†Ä Ç ÇÄàÄÉ

çè ê

è† ù â è ç Ü ä ç ç Ü ä ê ãê ÑÉ è åù é

Å ç Åèêù † ≠ ÄÇÄÉ

Ñ ÖÖÜÜ á àâ ä Å Ñ ã

Ñ ÜÅ å

ë Ñ ù Ñ ç å è ÄÄÜí ù † è† åù ÉÇäÄ Ç è ì É íÜÉÄ è î

ï è† ñ ó

ò ó ì ô å çî ó ì çîÇ

Å ç èê è ê ù† † ù† † ≠ Ä Ç É Ñ Ö Ü Ä † á Üàâä ã É Ñå á Ü Ä á é âä É Ñå á Ü Ä á é âÄ ë É Ñ Ö Ü Ä Å † á ÜàâÄ í á Ö Ä Ä

èê ù † ≠ ùè

ãÖÜ íÇÇ à í ù ùù î ê è ö ç ù è è ù èù è ù ö † ù † è ù † ç è ç ç † è ù è ö ù £ â ù è é † ç ù † à ç ç ù † ç ù ° † â † ° è é ù ç ç ù ü ü † è † Ñ † † è † † † ç â

èê ù † ≠ ùè

é † ì í§ É§ ù ç î• ù è ùè å ùù ù è ç ô ü ç ù ù ù è ù ù å

ê Ä ê Ç É Ñ É Ö ãÖ ¶ ã ß £ é ¶ £ ê ãê ÑÉ ¶ ÑÉ£ ê ¶ £ ® ¶ ù £ ã ¶ † ù Ü áÖ è† ì† ü çî ù ç àÖ ï © Ññ Ö è° ê Éááä£É™ÉìÉî•áäÑÉÉÇ âÖ ® è ©è öö ÄÇÉģɴìÉÉî•ÄÉÇäÑÄÉÉá äÖ ã ©è ¨ õ ÄÇÉí£ÄÆÜ•ÉÄíÑÉÄÆ ãÖ Ö ã ù öö ÄÇÇá£ííÇìíî•´ÆÜÑ´ä™ åÖ ©è ® è êç è ï ÄÇÉÆ£ÉÇìÉÄî•ÉÜíäÑÉÜÜÜ éÖ ©è ö ÄÇÉ™£ÆÜìÉî•ääÑ´í ëÖ Ö â ® ã ò ãÉíÇÇÆ ù ç ÄÇÉÄ ê íÖ Ö â ® ã ò ãÉíÇÇä ç ÄÇÉÄ ê áìÖ ö õ ® ïé ò ÄÇÄÇ£ÉÑÉí •ÉÇ ÉÉÉÉà ù ÉÆÇÆÇ ááÖ Ö â ® ã ò ãÉíÇÇ´ êù ÄÇÄÇ ê áàÖ Ö â ç ÄÇÄÇ ê áâÖ Ö â ® â Ñ ç õ è ÄÇÄÉ ê áäÖ ï è Ñï ö ö õ ÄÇÉá£í´ÉìÉíî•ÉÄÉ™ÑÉÄÄÆ áãÖ Ö â êéê êç ÜÉÆ è ÄÇÉá ê áåÖ Ö â è è ÄÇÉá ê

BRIEF SUMMARY OF FULL PRESCRIBING INFORMATION ENTYVIO (vedolizumab) for injection, for intravenous use FULL PRESCRIBING INFORMATION INDICATIONS AND USAGE ENTYVIO is indicated in adults for the treatment of: ï moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. ï moderately to severely active Crohnís disease.

CONTRAINDICATIONS ENTYVIO is contraindicated in patients who have had a known serious or severe hypersensitivity reaction to ENTYVIO or any of its excipients (such as dyspnea, bronchospasm, urticaria, flushing, rash and increased heart rate) [see Warnings and Precautions].

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS Infusion-Related Reactions and Hypersensitivity Reactions Infusion-related reactions and hypersensitivity reactions have been reported, including anaphylaxis, dyspnea, bronchospasm, urticaria, flushing, rash, and increased blood pressure and heart rate [see Adverse Reactions]. These reactions may occur with the first or subsequent infusions of ENTYVIO and may vary in their time of onset from during infusion or up to several hours post-infusion.

If anaphylaxis or other serious infusion-related or hypersensitivity reactions occur, discontinue administration of ENTYVIO immediately and initiate appropriate treatment.

Infections Patients treated with ENTYVIO are at increased risk for developing infections [see Adverse Reactions]. The most commonly reported infections in clinical trials occurring at a rate greater on ENTYVIO than placebo involved the upper respiratory and nasal mucosa (e.g., nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection). Serious infections have also been reported in patients treated with ENTYVIO, including anal abscess, sepsis (some fatal), tuberculosis, salmonella sepsis, Listeria meningitis, giardiasis and cytomegaloviral colitis.

ENTYVIO is not recommended in patients with active, severe infections until the infections are controlled. Consider withholding treatment in patients who develop a severe infection while on treatment with ENTYVIO. Exercise caution when considering the use of ENTYVIO in patients with a history of recurring severe infections. Consider screening for tuberculosis (TB) according to the local practice. For progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), see Warnings and Precautions.

Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy PML, a rare and often fatal opportunistic infection of the central nervous system (CNS), has been reported with systemic immunosuppressants, including another integrin receptor antagonist. PML is caused by the John Cunningham (JC) virus and typically only occurs in patients who are immunocompromised.

One case of PML in an ENTYVIO-treated patient with multiple contributory factors has been reported in the postmarketing setting (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] infection with a CD4 count of 300 cells/mm3 and prior and concomitant immunosuppression). Although unlikely, a risk of PML cannot be ruled out.

Monitor patients on ENTYVIO for any new onset, or worsening, of neurological signs and symptoms. Typical signs and symptoms associated with PML are diverse, progress over days to weeks, and include progressive weakness on one side of the body or clumsiness of limbs, disturbance of vision, and changes in thinking, memory, and orientation leading to confusion and personality changes. The progression of deficits usually leads to death or severe disability over weeks or months. If PML is suspected, withhold dosing with ENTYVIO and refer to a neurologist; if confirmed, discontinue dosing permanently.

Liver Injury There have been reports of elevations of transaminase and/or bilirubin in patients receiving ENTYVIO. In general, the combination of transaminase elevations and elevated bilirubin without evidence of obstruction is generally recognized as an important predictor of severe liver injury that may lead to death or the need for a liver transplant in some patients. ENTYVIO should be discontinued in patients with jaundice or other evidence of significant liver injury [see Adverse Reactions].

Live and Oral Vaccines Prior to initiating treatment with ENTYVIO, all patients should be brought up to date with all immunizations according to current immunization guidelines.

Patients receiving ENTYVIO may receive non-live vaccines (e.g., influenza vaccine injection) and may receive live vaccines if the benefits outweigh the risks. There are no data on the secondary transmission of infection by live vaccines in patients receiving ENTYVIO [see Adverse Reactions].

ADVERSE REACTIONS The following topics are also discussed in detail in the Warnings and Precautions section: ï Infusion-Related Reactions and Hypersensitivity Reactions [see Warnings and Precautions] ï Infections [see Warnings and Precautions] ï Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy [see Warnings and Precautions] ï Liver Injury [see Warnings and Precautions] Clinical Trials Experience Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a drug cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another drug and may not reflect the rates observed in practice.

The data described below reflect exposure to ENTYVIO in 3,326 patients and healthy volunteers in clinical trials, including 1,396 exposed for greater than one year, and 835 exposed for greater than two years.

The safety data described in Table 2 are derived from four controlled Phase 3 trials (UC Trials I and II, and CD Trials I and III); data from patients receiving open-label ENTYVIO treatment at Weeks 0 and 2 (prior to entry into UC Trial II and CD Trial III) and from Weeks 6 to 52 (non-responders at Week 6 of UC Trial I and CD Trial I) are included.

In these trials, 1,434 patients received ENTYVIO 300 mg for up to 52 weeks, and 297 patients received placebo for up to 52 weeks. Of these, 769 patients had ulcerative colitis and 962 patients had Crohnís disease. Patients were exposed for a mean duration of 259 days (UC Trials I and II) and 247 days (CD Trials I and III).

Adverse reactions were reported in 52% of patients treated with ENTYVIO and 45% of patients treated with placebo (UC Trials I and II: 49% with ENTYVIO and 37% with placebo; CD Trials I and III: 55% with ENTYVIO and 47% with placebo). Serious adverse reactions were reported in 7% of patients treated with ENTYVIO compared to 4% of patients treated with placebo (UC Trials I and II: 8% with ENTYVIO and 7% with placebo; CD Trials I and III: 12% with ENTYVIO and 9% with placebo).

The most common adverse reactions (reported by 3% of patients treated with ENTYVIO in the UC Trials I and II and CD Trials I and III combined group and 1% higher than in combined placebo group) were nasopharyngitis, headache, arthralgia, nausea, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, fatigue, cough, bronchitis, influenza, back pain, rash, pruritus, sinusitis, oropharyngeal pain and pain in extremities (Table 2).

Table 2. Adverse Reactions in 3% of ENTYVIO-Treated Patients and 1% Higher than in Placebo (UC Trials I and II* and CD Trials I and III*) Adverse Reaction

ENTYVIOÜ (N=1434)

Placeboá (N=297)

Nasopharyngitis Headache

13% 12%

7% 11%

Arthralgia

12%

10%

Nausea

9%

8%

Pyrexia

9%

7%

Upper respiratory tract infection

7%

6%

Fatigue

6%

3%

Cough

5%

3%

Bronchitis

4%

3%

In uenza

4%

2%

Back pain

4%

3%

Rash

3%

2%

Pruritus

3%

1%

Sinusitis

3%

1%

Oropharyngeal pain

3%

1%

Pain in extremities

3%

1%

*Data from patients receiving open-label ENTYVIO treatment at Weeks 0 and 2 (prior to entry into UC Trial II and CD Trial III) and from Weeks 6 to 52 (non-responders at Week 6 of UC Trial I and CD Trial I) are included. Ü Patients who received ENTYVIO for up to 52 weeks. á Patients who received placebo for up to 52 weeks.

Safety data for patients (n=279) in UC Trials I and II and CD Trials I and III who received ENTYVIO at Weeks 0 and 2 and were then randomized to placebo at Week 6 for up to 52 weeks, and for patients (n=416) in CD Trial II, a 10 week Crohnís disease trial, are similar to those listed in Table 2.

Infusion-Related Reactions and Hypersensitivity Reactions Serious infusion-related reactions and hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis have been reported following ENTYVIO administration in clinical trials [see Warnings and Precautions]. In UC Trials I and II and Crohnís Trials I and III, one case of anaphylaxis [one out of 1,434 patients treated with ENTYVIO (0.07%)] was reported by a Crohnís disease patient during the second infusion (symptoms reported were dyspnea, bronchospasm, urticaria, flushing, rash and increased blood pressure and heart rate) and was managed with discontinuation of infusion and treatment with antihistamine and intravenous hydrocortisone.

In UC Trials I and II and CD Trials I and III, 4% of patients treated with ENTYVIO and 3% of patients treated with placebo experienced an infusion-related reaction (IRR). The most frequently observed IRR in the patients treated with ENTYVIO (reported more than twice) were nausea, headache, pruritus, dizziness, fatigue, infusion-related reaction, pyrexia, urticaria and vomiting (each of these adverse reactions occurred in <1% in all patients treated with ENTYVIO) and no individual adverse reaction reported occurred at a rate above 1%. These reactions generally occurred within the first two hours after the infusion and resolved with no treatment or following antihistamine and/or IV hydrocortisone treatment. Less than 1% of patients treated with ENTYVIO had IRRs assessed by the investigator as severe, and IRRs requiring discontinuation of study treatment occurred in <1%.

In clinical trials, for patients with mild IRRs or hypersensitivity reactions, physicians were allowed to pretreat with standard medical treatment (e.g., antihistamine, hydrocortisone and/or acetaminophen) prior to next infusion.

Infections In UC Trials I and II and CD Trials I and III, the rate of infections was 0.85 per patient-year in the patients treated with ENTYVIO and 0.7 per patient-year in the patients treated with placebo [see Warnings and Precautions]. The infections consisted primarily of nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis and urinary tract infection. Two percent of patients discontinued ENTYVIO due to infections.

In UC Trials I and II and CD Trials I and III, the rate of serious infections was 0.07 per patient-year in patients treated with ENTYVIO and 0.06 per patient-year in patients treated with placebo. Serious infections were more common in Crohnís disease patients than ulcerative colitis patients, and anal abscesses were the most frequently reported serious adverse reaction in Crohnís disease patients. Over 48 months, there was no increase in the rate of serious infections.

In controlled- and open-label long-term extension trials in adults treated with ENTYVIO, serious infections have been reported, including anal abscess, sepsis (some fatal), tuberculosis, salmonella sepsis, Listeria meningitis, giardiasis and cytomegaloviral colitis.

In UC Trials I and II and CD Trials I and III, sepsis, including bacterial sepsis and septic shock, was reported in four of 1,434 (0.3%) patients treated with ENTYVIO and in two of 297 patients treated with placebo (0.7%). During these trials, two Crohnís disease patients treated with ENTYVIO died due to reported sepsis or septic shock; both patients had significant comorbidities and a complicated hospital course that contributed to the deaths. In an open-label, long-term extension trial, additional cases of sepsis (some fatal), including bacterial sepsis and septic shock, were reported. The rate of sepsis in patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohnís disease receiving ENTYVIO was two per 1,000 patient-years.

In clinical trials, all patients were screened for tuberculosis. One case of latent, pulmonary tuberculosis was diagnosed during the controlled trials with ENTYVIO. Additional cases of pulmonary tuberculosis were diagnosed during the open-label trial. All of these observed cases occurred outside the United States, and none of the patients had extrapulmonary manifestations.

Liver Injury There have been reports of elevations of transaminase and/or bilirubin in patients receiving ENTYVIO [see Warnings and Precautions]. In UC Trials I and II and CD Trials I and III, three patients reported serious adverse reactions of hepatitis, manifested as elevated transaminases with or without elevated bilirubin and symptoms consistent with hepatitis (e.g., malaise, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, anorexia). These adverse reactions occurred following two to five ENTYVIO doses; however, based on case report information it is unclear if the reactions indicated drug-induced or autoimmune etiology. All patients recovered following discontinuation of therapy with some requiring corticosteroid treatment. In controlled trials, the incidence of ALT and AST elevations 3x ULN was 2% in patients treated with ENTYVIO and in patients treated with placebo. In the open-label trial, one additional case of serious hepatitis was observed.

Malignancies In UC Trials I and II and CD Trials I and III, malignancies (excluding dysplasia and basal cell carcinoma) were reported in six of 1,434 (0.4%) patients treated with ENTYVIO, including colon cancer (n=2), transitional cell carcinoma (n=1),

breast cancer (n=1), carcinoid tumor of the appendix (n=1) and squamous cell carcinoma (n=1). Malignancy was reported in one of 297 (0.3%) patients treated with placebo (squamous cell carcinoma).

Malignancies (excluding dysplasia and basal cell carcinoma) observed during the ongoing open-label long-term extension trial included B-cell lymphoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, malignant hepatic neoplasm, malignant lung neoplasm, malignant melanoma, lung cancer of primary neuroendocrine carcinoma, renal cancer and squamous cell carcinoma. Overall, the number of malignancies in the clinical trials was small; however, long-term exposure was limited.

Live and Oral Vaccines There are no data on the secondary transmission of infection by live vaccines in patients receiving ENTYVIO. In a placebo-controlled study of healthy volunteers, 61 subjects were given a single ENTYVIO 750 mg dose (2.5 times the recommended dose), and 62 subjects received placebo followed by intramuscular vaccination with Hepatitis B surface antigen and oral cholera vaccine. After intramuscular vaccination with three doses of recombinant Hepatitis B surface antigen, those treated with ENTYVIO did not have lower rates of protective immunity to Hepatitis B virus. However, those exposed to ENTYVIO did have lower seroconversion rates and anti-cholera titers relative to placebo after receiving the two doses of a killed, oral cholera vaccine. The impact on other oral vaccines and on nasal vaccines in patients is unknown.

Immunogenicity As with all therapeutic proteins, there is potential for immunogenicity. The detection of antibody formation is highly dependent on the sensitivity and specificity of the assay. Additionally, the observed incidence of antibody (including neutralizing antibody) positivity in an assay may be influenced by several factors, including assay methodology, sample handling, timing of sample collection, concomitant medications, and underlying disease. For these reasons, comparison of the incidence of antibodies to vedolizumab in the studies described below with the incidence of antibodies in other studies or to other products may be misleading.

In UC Trials I and II and CD Trials I and III, in patients who received ENTYVIO, the frequency of antibodies detected in patients was 13% at 24 weeks after the last dose of study drug (greater than five half-lives after last dose). During treatment, 56 of 1,434 (4%) of patients treated with ENTYVIO had detectable anti-vedolizumab antibody at any time during the 52 weeks of continuous treatment. Nine of 56 patients were persistently positive (at two or more study visits) for anti-vedolizumab antibody and 33 of 56 patients developed neutralizing antibodies to vedolizumab. Among eight of these nine subjects with persistently positive anti-vedolizumab antibody and available vedolizumab concentration data, six had undetectable and two had reduced vedolizumab concentrations. None of the nine subjects with persistently positive anti-vedolizumab antibody achieved clinical remission at Weeks 6 or 52 in the controlled trials.

Postmarketing Experience The following adverse reactions have been identified during post-approval use of ENTYVIO. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure.

Immune system disorders: Anaphylaxis [see Warnings and Precautions] DRUG INTERACTIONS Natalizumab Because of the potential for increased risk of PML and other infections, avoid the concomitant use of ENTYVIO with natalizumab.

TNF Blockers Because of the potential for increased risk of infections, avoid the concomitant use of ENTYVIO with TNF blockers.

Live Vaccines Live vaccines may be administered concurrently with ENTYVIO only if the benefits outweigh the risks [see Warnings and Precautions].

USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS Pregnancy Pregnancy Exposure Registry There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to ENTYVIO during pregnancy. Information about the registry can be obtained by calling 1-877-TAKEDA7 (1-877-825-3327).

Risk Summary Available pharmacovigilance data, data from the ongoing pregnancy registry, and data from published case reports and cohort studies in pregnant women have not identified an ENTYVIO associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes. There are risks to the mother and the fetus associated with inflammatory bowel disease in pregnancy (see Clinical Considerations). No fetal harm was observed in

animal reproduction studies with intravenous administration of vedolizumab to rabbits and monkeys at dose levels 20 times the recommended human dosage (see Data).

The estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage for the indicated populations is unknown. All pregnancies have a background risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes. In the U.S. general population, the estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage in clinically recognized pregnancies is 2 to 4% and miscarriage is 15 to 20%, respectively.

Clinical Considerations Disease-associated maternal and embryo/fetal risk Published data suggest that the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with increased disease activity. Adverse pregnancy outcomes include preterm delivery (before 37 weeks of gestation), low birth weight (less than 2,500 g) infants, and small for gestational age at birth.

Fetal/Neonatal adverse reactions ENTYVIO administered during pregnancy could affect immune responses in the in utero exposed newborn and infant. The clinical significance of low levels of ENTYVIO in utero-exposed infants is unknown. The safety of administering live or live-attenuated vaccines in exposed infants is unknown.

Data Animal Data A reproduction study has been performed in pregnant rabbits at single intravenous doses up to 100 mg/kg administered on gestation Day 7 (about 20 times the recommended human dosage) and has revealed no evidence of impaired fertility or harm to the fetus due to vedolizumab. A pre- and post-natal development study in monkeys showed no evidence of any adverse effect on pre- and post-natal development at intravenous doses up to 100 mg/kg (about 20 times the recommended human dosage).

Lactation Risk Summary Available published literature suggests the presence of vedolizumab in human milk. The effects of local gastrointestinal exposure and expected low systemic exposure to vedolizumab on the breastfed infant are unknown. There are no data on the effects of vedolizumab on the breastfed infant, or the effects on milk production. The developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the motherís clinical need for ENTYVIO and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed infant from ENTYVIO or from the underlying maternal condition.

Pediatric Use Safety and effectiveness of ENTYVIO in pediatric patients have not been established.

Geriatric Use Clinical trials of ENTYVIO did not include sufficient numbers of subjects aged 65 and over (46 Crohnís and ulcerative colitis patients aged 65 and over were treated with ENTYVIO during controlled Phase 3 trials) to determine whether they respond differently from younger subjects. However, no overall differences in safety or effectiveness were observed between these patients and younger patients, and other reported clinical experience has not identified differences in responses between the elderly and younger patients.

Manufactured by: Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. Deerfield, IL 60015 U.S. License No. 1898 Revised: March 2020 ENTYVIO is a trademark of Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. and is used under license by Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. All other trademark names are the property of their respective owners. ©2014 ñ 2020 Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. For more information, go to www.ENTYVIO.com or call 1-877-TAKEDA-7 (1-877-825-3327).

VMB245 R4_Brf04/20

Gene Therapies for Rare Diseases: Changing Landscape and Pipeline As the gene therapy market expands, reimbursement and payment models will have to continue to transform.

The expansion of the gene therapy market in the past several years has provided exciting opportunities for treating various rare diseases. The number of these transformative therapies will continue to increase, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to review 10 to 20 of these drugs every year through 2025.1 The biopharmaceutical industry is increasingly investing in research and development specifically focused on gene therapy to correct rare disorders, with advances ranging from new gene-insertion methods to innovations allowing therapies to penetrate hard-to-reach tissues.2

Kimberly DornbrookLavender, Pharm.D., BCPS Director, Clinical Pharmacy Medica

Gene therapy works by modifying a patient’s genes to treat or cure a disease via agents that can replace a disease-causing gene with a functioning copy of the gene, deactivate a disease-causing gene that is misfunctioning, or introduce a new or modified gene to help treat the disease.3 Types of gene therapy products include plasmid DNA, viral vectors, bacterial vectors, human gene-editing technology, and patient-derived cellular gene therapy products.3

Current Gene Therapies for Rare Diseases Voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (LUXTURNA®) Voretigene nerparvovec-rzyl (LUXTURNA®, Spark Therapeutics , the first gene therapy approved in the U.S., is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy indicated for the treatment of patients with confirmed biallelic RPE mutation associated retinal dystrophy.4 The FDA approved it in December 2017.4 Real world use of voretigene neparvovec rzyl has shown a significant benefit

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 15

GENE THERAPIES | Continued

when treatment is initiated in early childhood. As of 2019, nine treatment centers across the U.S. were designated to administer it, with a few surgeons per site cleared to provide treatment.5 After treating nine children and five adults, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles reported observing the greatest benefit in young children through enrichment of their social, motor, and cognitive development.5

Onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (ZOLGENSMA®) Onasemnogene abeparvovec xioi OLGENSMA®, Novartis) was approved by the FDA in May 2019 for the treatment of pediatric patients under 2 years old who have spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with biallelic mutations in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene. As of this March, more than 1,000 children with SMA had been treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi in clinical trials, managed access programs, or in the commercial setting.7 Real world data suggest that older children, defined as months or older, achieved clinically meaningful benefit with onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi alone, after, or in combination with another SMA drug.7 Follow-up data from the clinical trials indicate that the children treated experienced a sustained benefit in the years following dosing, with milestones achieved years after treatment and sustained durability in children up to years old and more than five years post treatment.7

Gene Therapy Pipeline for Rare Diseases The pipeline for gene therapies is expansive, specifically around innovative treatments for rare diseases. With dozens of therapies being developed and researched, an in ux of novel gene therapies is on the horizon. See Table 1 for the full pipeline breakdown.

Challenges Associated With Gene Therapies and Managed Care Impact Patient and Provider Awareness The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) conducted a survey among healthcare professionals to identify knowledge gaps regarding gene therapies.9 The results showed that of respondents were unaware of current FDA-approved gene therapies, and overall, respondents reported low comfort levels in discussing gene therapies with their patients.9 More than half of respondents noted that limited healthcare professional knowledge was a top barrier to gene therapy use, and only 0 discuss gene therapy options with patients.9 These responses indicate a major need for provider and, transitively, patient education around gene

16 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

With dozens of therapies being developed and researched, an in u o nove gene t era ies is on the horizon. therapies, especially as more enter the market. Without robust provider knowledge and comfort around gene therapies, patient access to potentially curative therapies may be limited.

Financial Burden The costs associated with the currently available gene therapies are very high. Voretigene neparvovec-rzyl has a wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $850,000, or $425,000 per eye damaged by an RPE gene mutation. The current WAC for onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi is $2.125 million.10 These high costs are, and will continue to be, a significant challenge for payers; moving forward, navigating this space and efficiently strategizing will be key to ensuring that patients have access to potentially lifesaving therapy while managing the financial burden payers face. The substantial burden of these high-cost therapies has resulted in some exclusionary policies relating to gene therapies.1 Some plans and employer groups have made the decision to cease coverage of any medical or prescription drug charges related to gene therapy, with or without FDA approval.1 Many payers are not currently equipped to effectively manage the cost associated with gene therapies; thus, innovative financial solutions will be necessary.1 Payers have expressed concerns around actuarial management, effectiveness and outcomes of the therapies, and payment timing.1 Financial solutions that may be explored to effectively address payer anxiety around some of these concerns include outcomesbased performance contracts, annuities payments, and reinsurance models.1 Manufacturers and payers are often working together to develop innovative models to overcome these barriers. One model is treatment milestone-based, where the payer pays a certain amount upfront and is partially reimbursed if the therapy fails to provide the intended outcomes in a predetermined time frame.11 Another model is subscription based, including a fixed fee for unlimited access to certain therapies.11 Plan members contribute a cer-

Table 1. Rare Disease Gene Therapy Pipeline8 Drug Name

Manufacturer

Route of Administration

Status

Indications

Hemophilia etranacogene dezaparvovec

uniQure; CSL Behring

IV

phase three

hemophilia B

Spark Therapeutics; Pfizer

IV

phase three

hemophilia B

Sangamo Therapeutics; Pfizer

IV

phase three

hemophilia A

valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian)

BioMarin Pharmaceutical

IV

phase three

hemophilia A

AskBio009

Baxalta; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company

IV

phase two

hemophilia B

DTX201

Dimension Therapeutics; Bayer

IV

phase two

hemophilia A

SB-FIX

Sangamo Therapeutics

IV

phase two

hemophilia B

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company

IV

phase two

hemophilia A

Spark Therapeutics; Roche

IV

phase two

hemophilia A

fordadistrogene movaparvovec PF 0

Pfizer

IV

phase three (delayed)

DMD

delandistrogene moxeparvovec SRP 001

Sarepta Therapeutics

IV

phase two

DMD

GALGT2

Sarepta Therapeutics

injectable

phase two

DMD

SGT-001

Solid Biosciences

IV

phase two

DMD

beremagene geperpavec B VEC

Krystal Biotech

topical

phase three

EB

debcoemagene autoficel D Fi

Castle Creek Biosciences; Fibrocell Technologies

injectable

phase three

EB

EB 101

Abeona Therapeutics

other

phase three

EB

AAV-CNGA3

MeiraGTx; Janssen Pharmaceuticals

other

phase two

achromatopsia

AAV-CNGB3

MeiraGTx; Janssen Pharmaceuticals

other

phase two

achromatopsia

elivaldogene autotemcel (Lenti-D™)

bluebird bio

IV

phase three

adrenoleukodystrophy

lenadogene nolparvovec (GS010)

GenSight Biologics

ophthalmic

phase three

Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy

LYS-SAF302

Lysogene; Sarepta Therapeutics

other

phase three

mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA

simoladagene autotemcel (OTL-101)

Orchard Therapeutics

injectable

phase three

severe combined immunodeficiency SCID

timrepigene emparvovec AAV REP1

Nightstar Therapeutics; Biogen

intravitreal

phase three

choroideremia

eladocagene exuparvovec PTC AADC

PTC Therapeutics

injectable

phase two

aromatic l-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency (AADC)

betibeglogene autotemcel

bluebird bio

IV

pending

beta thalassemia

developing

metachromatic leukodystrophy

fidanacogene elaparvovec PF 0 giroctocogene fitelparvovec SB PF 0 0 4 0

SHP

4 ,

4

SPK 011 Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD)

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB)

Achromatopsia

Others

OTL-200

YNTEGLO®)

Orchard Therapeutics; GlaxoSmithKline

IV

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 17

GENE THERAPIES | Continued

tain monthly amount that is used to pay for these therapies if needed, with the plan taking on the risk as it guarantees to provide as much therapy as required.11 With this model, payers can potentially manage the actuarial uctuation that occurs with the funding of gene therapies.11 Another manufactureradvanced model prices therapies solely on the intrinsic value of the product or how it extends and improves quality of life and returns all cost offsets to the payers; this approach is vastly different from a typical reimbursement model but would undoubtedly ease some of the concerns payers have expressed.1 Value-based contracts currently exist in commercial markets across therapeutic areas, as well as in Medicaid programs under supplemental rebate agreements across five states.1 Moving forward, these reimbursement agreements based on promised outcomes may be essential in effectively managing this space.

The manufacturer behind voretigene neparvovec-rzyl, Spark

Therapeutics, advanced an outcomes-based rebate arrangement that aligned with longer term efficacy of the gene therapy; the manufacturer will share risk with payers by paying rebates if patient outcomes fail to meet a specified threshold.12 As more gene therapies enter the market, reimbursement and payment models will have to continue to transform; currently, both payers and manufacturers have been open about concerns associated with reimbursement models, citing limitations around program complexity, the burden of information tracking, insurance, regulatory barriers, and government pricing and reporting requirements.1 As additional therapies become available, developing creative payment models through collaboration of all stakeholders will be critical in ensuring the current system works to effectively manage these treatments, the financial burdens, and the patient population.

References 1.

2.

Neumann, Ulrich. Paying for cell and gene therapy Is the future already here?” Reuters Events, 2 Nov. 2020, https://www. reutersevents.com/pharma/medical/paying-cell-and-gene-therapyfuture-already-here.

Weintraub, Arlene. “The next generation of gene therapy for rare diseases forges ahead as developers weather hurdles.” Fierce Biotech, 14 Dec. 0 0, https www.fiercebiotech.com biotech next-generation-gene-therapy-for-rare-diseases-forges-ahead-asdevelopers-weather-hurdles.

3.

“What is Gene Therapy?” U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 25 July 2018, https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-genetherapy-products/what-gene-therapy.

4.

“LUXTURNA.” U.S. Food & Drug Administration, July 01 , https www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapyproducts/luxturna.

5.

Nagiel, Aaron. One Year in Perspectives on Voretigene. Retina Today, July/Aug. 2019, https://retinatoday.com/articles/2019-julyaug/one-year-in-perspectives-on-voretigene.

.

OLGENSMA. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 1 Mar. 0 1, https www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/zolgensma.

7.

“New Zolgensma data demonstrate age-appropriate development when used early, real world benefit in older children and durability 5+ years post-treatment.” Novartis, 15 Mar. 2021, https://www. novartis.com/news/media-releases/new-zolgensma-datademonstrate-age-appropriate-development-when-used-early-realworld benefit older children and durability years post treatment.

18 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

8.

IPD Analytics.

9.

DonFrancesco, Valaree. “NORD and FMC’s Gene Therapy Survey: A Call to Action for Healthcare Professional Education. NORD, 1 Apr. 2020, https://rarediseases.org/nord-and-fmcs-gene-therapy-surveya-call-to-action-for-healthcare-professional-education/.

10. Melquist, Chanttel. “Gene therapy: A promising future at a high price.”

Prime Therapeutics, 10 Apr. 2020, https://www.primetherapeutics. com/en/news/Stories/2020/story-overview-gene-therapy.html.

11. Vaidya, Anuja. “Innovative payment models to support cell and gene therapies on the rise.” MedCity News, 9 Dec. 2020, https:// medcitynews.com/2020/12/innovative-payment-models-to-supportcell-and-gene-therapies-on-the-rise/?rf=1.

12.

Spark Therapeutics Announces First of their kind Programs to Improve Patient Access to LU TURNA voretigene neparvovec rzyl), a One-time Gene Therapy Treatment.” Spark Therapeutics, 3 Jan. 2018, https://sparktx.com/press_releases/spark-therapeuticsannounces first of their kind programs to improve patient access to-luxturna-voretigene-neparvovec-rzyl-a-one-time-gene-therapy-treatment/.

HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer: CNS Metastases and Proper Management An estimated 3.6 million women were living with breast cancer in the U.S. in 2017, with a diagnosis rate of 129.1 cases per 100,000 women per year.1 Around 13% of women will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point throughout their lifetime; the median age of diagnosis is 62.1 While breast cancer diagnoses are not only found in women, the data around male breast cancer cases are much more limited due to the significantly smaller diagnosis rate among men.

Stacy Inman, Pharm.D. Senior Clinical Project Manager Magellan Method

Stage IV, or metastatic, breast cancer (MBC) occurs when the breast cancer has spread to another part of the body.2 An estimated 30% of those diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer will develop MBC.2 In breast cancer, metastases in the bones, brain, liver, and lungs are most common.3 In recent years, the rate of central nervous system (CNS) metastasis has more than doubled, from 10% to 22%; liver metastasis has increased by 46%, lung metastasis has remained stable, and bone metastasis has decreased by 32%.4 There are four main female breast cancer subtypes: HR+/HER2- (luminal A), HR-/HER2- (triple negative), HR+/HER2+ (luminal B), and HR-/HER2+ (HER2-enriched).5 Up to 14% of patients diagnosed with early breast cancer have HER2+ breast cancer, which tends to grow and spread faster than other breast cancers and is more likely to recur than HER2- breast cancer.5-8 HER2+ breast cancer is more likely to respond to treatment that targets the HER2 protein.6 In an analysis of more than 7,500 cases of MBC from the SEER database, 26% of those cases were HER2+.9 Up to 50% of patients with HER2+ MBC develop brain metastases, putting this population at a higher risk than patients with breast cancer overall.10-13 Among those with HER2+ MBC who develop brain metastases, more than 50% will be diagnosed by the second line of therapy.14 In a study of patients with

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 19

HER2+ METASTATIC BREAST CANCER | Continued

We do it all!

Learn more on every aspect of our comprehensive oncology solution.

HER2+ MBC, nearly 40% developed brain metastases, and the median time from initial MBC diagnosis to the first CNS event was just over 10.8 months.14 HER2+ MBC patients have a 1.5-times-higher three-year cumulative risk for developing brain metastases when compared with HER2- patients.8, 15-17 HER2+ MBC patients with brain metastases have a median survival time of two to three years.

Improvements and advances in breast cancer treatment have extended survival in patients; however, extended survival in turn results in additional time for brain metastases to develop, and there remains poor prognosis for patients with brain metastases.18 Treatment for patients who have HER2+ MBC with brain metastases is more challenging due to their reduced responsiveness to systemic therapies.19, 20

Impact of HER2+ MBC Brain Metastases Patient Outcomes, Treatment Challenges MBC disease progression greatly impacts health-related quality of life, based on patient-reported measures, including physical, functional, and emotional well-being; depression; anxiety; and global quality of life.21 Specifically, overall breast cancer related quality of life was significantly lower among HER MBC patients with brain metastases13; CNS metastasis is often associated with seizures,

20 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

altered mental status, headaches, visual impairment, dizziness, ataxia, nausea, and vomiting — substantially impacting physical and emotional functioning.22-24 Among patients with HER2+ MBC, low adherence or nonadherence to treatment is associated with poor quality of life and increased risk of mortality.25 Around one-third of patients with MBC reported difficulties with medication and adherence, and in a study of MBC patients, the number of nonadherent behaviors was significantly associated with a decrease in functional well-being.25 The most common patient-reported reasons for nonadherence were forgetfulness and intolerance of side effects.25 There are several treatment challenges associated specifically with HER2+ MBC patients who have developed brain metastases. These patients are typically excluded from clinical trials due to poor functional status and increased risk of toxicity.26 Brain metastases often occur in MBC patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy, due to the properties of some agents that do not cross the blood-brain barrier.8 Thus, treatment plans may be complex, involving continued systemic therapies for HER2+ MBC in addition to CNS-directed treatments targeting the brain metastases.8 The standard of care for patients with HER2+ MBC with brain metastases includes CNSdirected treatment options such as surgical resection, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT).27 These locally targeted treatments can be associated with short- and

re uires e ective anage ent to i rove outcomes; coordinated care is essential to address the poor prognosis resulting from disease progression in this patient population.

long-term toxicities, including cognitive defects.28, 29 A combination of systemic therapies with SRS has been shown to result in high rates of clinically significant radionecrosis in HER MBC patients.28 Current guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend screening for brain metastases on the basis of suspicious CNS symptoms, including any neurologic symptoms such as new-onset headaches, unexplained nausea or vomiting, or a change in motorsensory function.27, 30 However, 43% of patients with MBC and brain metastases are asymptomatic, creating a challenge in diagnosing CNS progression.

costs for patients with CNS metastasis were four times higher than for patients without CNS metastases ($41,192 vs. $10,802, respectively).33 Additionally, patients with CNS metastases experienced more outpatient, emergency room, and inpatient visits.

Managed Care Impact HER MBC requires effective management to improve outcomes; coordinated care is essential to address the poor prognoses resulting from disease progression in this patient population. There is a high unmet need stemming from the unique challenges these patients face, particularly tied to the occurrence of brain metastases and associated treatment obstacles. Due to the higher risk of poor outcomes and mortality among HER2+ MBC patients, proper and close management is key to improving outcomes and quality of life. Proper care coordination, addressing nonadherent behaviors, and appropriate screenings can both ease the cost burden for payers and lead to increased health-related quality of life in MBC patients. Ensuring that HER2+ MBC patients with brain metastases receive the proper treatment targeting CNS metastasis is also critical to improving outcomes, as traditional therapies for breast cancer will not penetrate the blood-brain barrier and will leave the CNS metastasis unaddressed.

References 1.

“Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer.” National Cancer Institute, 2020, https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html.

2.

“Metastatic Breast Cancer.” BreastCancer.org, 9 Feb. 2021, https:// www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/types/recur_metast.

3.

Berman, Abigail, et al. “Incidence and patterns of distant metastases for patients with early-stage breast cancer after breast conservation treatment.” Clinical Breast Cancer, Apr. 2013, https://pubmed.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/23218473/.

4.

van den Hurk, Corina, et al. “Unfavourable pattern of metastases in M0 breast cancer patients during 1978-2008: a population-based analysis of the Munich Cancer Registry.” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Aug. 2011, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21311969/.

5.

“Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer Subtypes.” National Cancer Institute, 2020, https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breastsubtypes.html.

6.

“Breast Cancer HER2 Status.” American Cancer Society, 2019, https:// www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/understanding-a-breastcancer-diagnosis/breast-cancer-her2-status.html.

7.

Kennecke, Hagen, et al. “Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes.” Journal of Clinical Oncology, July 2010, https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20498394/.

Economic Burden When compared to early-stage breast cancer, MBC has a substantially higher economic burden, as it is associated with higher shortterm and medium-term direct costs.31 Annual direct healthcare costs for patients with MBC with disease progression are 1.6 times higher than for those whose disease has not progressed; patients with progressive MBC have cost nearly $50,000 more than those without progression in the past year.32 Major cost drivers for HER MBC were outpatient visits and HER2-directed therapy drug costs.31 For MBC patients with brain metastases, healthcare resource use and costs are even higher. The median total cost for MBC patients with CNS metastasis was more than double the cost for those without ($112,402 vs. $50,835, respectively).33 Median outpatient

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 21

HER2+ METASTATIC BREAST CANCER | Continued

References 8.

Musolino, Antonino, et al. “Multifactorial central nervous system recurrence susceptibility in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: epidemiological and clinical data from a population-based cancer registry study.” Cancer, May 2011, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/21509760/.

9.

Gong, Yue, et al. “Impact of molecular subtypes on metastatic breast cancer patients: a SEER population-based study.” Scientific Reports, Mar. 2017, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28345619/.

10. Pestalozzi, B.C., et al. “Is risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse related to adjuvant taxane treatments in node positive breast cancer? Results of the CNS substudy in the intergroup Phase III BIG 02-98 Trial.” Annals of Oncology, Nov. 2008, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/18562328/.

11. Olson, Erin, et al. “Clinical outcomes and treatment practice patterns of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the posttrastuzumab era.” Breast, Aug. 2013, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/23352568/.

12. Bendell, Johanna, et al. “Central nervous system metastases in women who receive trastuzumab-based therapy for metastatic breast carcinoma.” Cancer, June 2003, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/12784331/.

13. Hurvitz, Sara, et al. “Central Nervous System Metastasis in Patients with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Patient Characteristics, Treatment, and Survival from SystHERs.” Clinical Cancer Research, Apr. 2019, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30593513/.

14. Brufsky, Adam, et al. “Central Nervous System Metastases in Patients with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Incidence, Treatment, and Survival in Patients from registHER.” Clinical Cancer Research, 011, https clincancerres.aacrjournals.org content 1 14 4 4.

15. Azim, Hamdy, et al. “Predicting Brain Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients: Stage Versus Biology.” Clinical Breast Cancer, Apr. 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28888580/.

16. Hung, Man Hsin, et al. Effect of Age and Biological Subtype on the Risk and Timing of Brain Metastasis in Breast Cancer Patients.”

PLOS One, 4 Feb. 014, https journals.plos.org plosone article id 10.1 1 journal.pone.00 .

17. Genre, Ludivine, et al. “External validation of a published nomogram for prediction of brain metastasis in patients with extra-cerebral metastatic breast cancer and risk regression analysis.” European Journal of Cancer, Feb. 2017, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/abs/pii/S0959804916325230.

18. Mounsey, Louisa, et al. “Changing Natural History of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Metastatic to the Brain in the Era of New Targeted Therapies.” Clinical Breast Cancer, Feb. 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/28867445/.

19. Frisk, G., et al. “Incidence and time trends of brain metastases admissions among breast cancer patients in Sweden.” British Journal of Cancer, 22 May 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3364124/.

20. Lin, Nancy, et al. “Brain metastases: the HER2 paradigm.” Clinical Cancer Research, Mar. 2007, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/17363517/.

22 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

21. Marschner, Norbert, et al. “Association of Disease Progression with Health-Related Quality of Life Among Adults with Breast, Lung, Pancreatic and Colorectal Cancer.” JAMA Network Open, Mar. 2020, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32154886/.

22. Cacho-Díaz, Bernardo, et al. “Diagnosis of brain metastases in breast cancer patients resulting from neurological symptoms.” Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgy, Oct. 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/30086430/.

23. Oltean, Daniela, et al. “Brain metastases secondary to metastatic breast cancer: symptoms, prognosis and evolution.” Tumori Journal, 2009, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20210232/.

24. Bachelot, Thomas, et al. “Lapatinib plus capecitabine in patients with previously untreated brain metastases from HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (LANDSCAPE): a single-group phase 2 study.” The Lancet Oncology, Jan. 2013, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/23122784/.

25. daCosta DiBonaventura, Marco, et al. “Patient preferences and treatment adherence among women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.” American Health & Drug Benefits, Oct. 2014, https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25525495/.

26. “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility: Brain Metastases.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 13 Mar. 2019, https://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/search-fda-guidance-documents/cancer-clinical-trialeligibility-criteria-brain-metastases.

27. Ramakrishna, Naren, et al. “Recommendations on Disease Management for Patients With Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update.” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Sept.

2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29939840/.

28. Brown, Paul, et al. Effect of Radiosurgery Alone vs Radiosurgery With Whole Brain Radiation Therapy on Cognitive Function in Patients With 1 to 3 Brain Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA, July 2016, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27458945/.

29. Brosnan, Evelyn, et al. “Understanding patterns of brain metastasis in breast cancer and designing rational therapeutic strategies.” Annals of Translational Medicine, May 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/29911111/.

30. “NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Breast Cancer v.6.2020.” National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2020, https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32259783/.

31. Sussell, Jesse, et al. “HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Healthcare Costs in the TargetedTherapy Age.” Advances in Therapy, Apr. 2020, https://pubmed.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/32172510/.

32. Reyes, Carolina, et al. “Cost of Disease Progression in Patients with Metastatic Breast, Lung, and Colorectal Cancer.” Oncologist, Sept.

2019, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30796156/.

33. Pulgar, S., et al. “Economic burden of central nervous system metastases in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer.” Abstract for Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, 0 0, https www.jmcp.org doi pdf 10.1 jmcp. 0 0. .4 a.s1.

WHEN HER2+ MBC PROGRESSES

PURSUE UNPRECEDENTED TUKYSA + trastuzumab + capecitabine vs placebo + trastuzumab + capecitabine1

Reduced risk of disease progression or death by 46% Median PFS: 7.8 months (95% CI: 7.5-9.6) vs 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.2-7.1); HR = 0.54 (95% CI: 0.42-0.71); P <0.00001

Extended median OS by 4.5 months Median OS: 21.9 months (95% CI: 18.3-31.0) vs 17.4 months (95% CI: 13.6-19.9); HR = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.50-0.87); P = 0.0048 The trial studied patients who had received prior trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and T-DM1 in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or metastatic setting.1

TUKYSAhcp.com Indication TUKYSA is indicated in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for treatment of adult patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who have received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

Select Safety Information Warnings and Precautions

• Diarrhea: TUKYSA can cause severe diarrhea including dehydration, hypotension, acute kidney injury, and death. In HER2CLIMB, 81% of patients who received TUKYSA experienced diarrhea, including 12% with Grade 3 and 0.5% with Grade 4. Both patients who developed Grade 4 diarrhea subsequently died, with diarrhea as a contributor to death.

Median time to onset of the first episode of diarrhea was 12 days and the median time to resolution was 8 days.

Diarrhea led to TUKYSA dose reductions in 6% of patients and TUKYSA discontinuation in 1% of patients. Prophylactic use of antidiarrheal treatment was not required on HER2CLIMB. If diarrhea occurs, administer antidiarrheal treatment as clinically indicated. Perform diagnostic tests as clinically indicated to exclude other causes of diarrhea. Based on the severity of the diarrhea, interrupt dose, then dose reduce or permanently discontinue TUKYSA.

CI = confidence interval; HER = human epidermal growth factor receptor; HR = hazard ratio; MBC = metastatic breast cancer; OS = overall survival; PFS = progression-free survival; T-DM1 = ado-trastuzumab emtansine.

Please see full Important Safety Information on the following pages.

RAISING THE STANDARD FOR SURVIVAL In combination with trastuzumab + capecitabine

TUKYSA extended overall survival*1 100

Patients Alive (%)

80

21.9 months

(95% CI: 18.3-31.0)

60 MEDIAN

40

17.4 months

SECONDARY ENDPOINT HR = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.50-0.87) P = 0.0048

20

TUKYSA arm

(95% CI: 13.6-19.9)

Control arm

NUMBER OF EVENTS TUKYSA arm: 130/410 Control arm: 85/202

IN MEDIAN OS

0 0

3

6

MONTH IMPROVEMENT

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

34 7

20 5

10 2

4 1

0 0

Months Since Randomization NUMBER AT RISK TUKYSA arm Control arm

410 202

388 191

322 160

245 119

178 77

123 48

80 32

51 19

The most common adverse reactions in patients who received TUKYSA (≥20%) were diarrhea, PPE, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash1

Important Safety Information Warnings and Precautions • Diarrhea: TUKYSA can cause severe diarrhea including dehydration, hypotension, acute kidney injury, and death.

In HER2CLIMB, 81% of patients who received TUKYSA experienced diarrhea, including 12% with Grade 3 and 0.5% with Grade 4. Both patients who developed Grade 4 diarrhea subsequently died, with diarrhea as a contributor to death.

Median time to onset of the first episode of diarrhea was 12 days and the median time to resolution was 8 days.

Diarrhea led to TUKYSA dose reductions in 6% of patients and TUKYSA discontinuation in 1% of patients. Prophylactic use of antidiarrheal treatment was not required on HER2CLIMB. If diarrhea occurs, administer antidiarrheal treatment as clinically indicated. Perform diagnostic tests as clinically indicated to exclude other causes of diarrhea. Based on the severity of the diarrhea, interrupt dose, then dose reduce or permanently discontinue TUKYSA. • Hepatotoxicity: TUKYSA can cause severe hepatotoxicity.

In HER2CLIMB, 8% of patients who received TUKYSA had an ALT increase >5 × ULN, 6% had an AST increase >5 × and 1. had a iliru in increase rade .

Hepatotoxicity led to TUKYSA dose reductions in 8% of patients and TUKYSA discontinuation in 1.5% of patients.

Monitor ALT, AST, and bilirubin prior to starting TUKYSA, every 3 weeks during treatment, and as clinically indicated.

Based on the severity of hepatotoxicity, interrupt dose, then dose reduce or permanently discontinue TUKYSA.

• Embryo-Fetal Toxicity: TUKYSA can cause fetal harm.

Advise pregnant women and females of reproductive potential of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential, and male patients with female partners of reproductive potential, to use effective contraception during TUKYSA treatment and for at least 1 week after the last dose.

Adverse Reactions Serious adverse reactions occurred in 26% of patients who received ; those occurring in 2 of patients were diarrhea (4%), vomiting (2.5%), nausea (2%), abdominal pain (2%), and seizure (2%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 2% of patients who received TUKYSA including sudden death, sepsis, dehydration, and cardiogenic shock.

Adverse reactions led to treatment discontinuation in 6% of patients who received TUKYSA; those occurring in 1 of patients were hepatoto icity 1. and diarrhea 1 .

Adverse reactions led to dose reduction in 21% of patients who received ; those occurring in 2 of patients were hepatotoxicity (8%) and diarrhea (6%).

The most common adverse reactions in patients who received 2 were diarrhea palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash.

TUKYSAhcp.com In combination with trastuzumab + capecitabine

TUKYSA reduced the risk of disease progression or death PRIMARY ENDPOINT*

EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS*†

PFS

PFS AT 12 MONTHS reduction in the risk of disease progression or death1

~3x as many patients were progression-free2 TUKYSA ARM

• HR = 0.54 (95% CI: 0.42-0.71); P <0.00001 • Median PFS: 7.8 months (95% CI: 7.5-9.6) in the TUKYSA arm vs 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.2-7.1) in the control arm

CONTROL ARM VS

(33.1%; 95% CI: 26.6-39.7)

(12.3%; 95% CI: 6.0-20.9)

*Study design: HER2CLIMB was a randomized (2:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 612 patients with HER2+ MBC who received TUKYSA + trastuzumab + capecitabine (TUKYSA arm; n = 410) or placebo + trastuzumab + capecitabine (control arm; n = 202). Primary endpoint was PFS (time from randomization to documented disease progression or death from any cause in the first 8 randomized patients. econdary endpoints assessed in all randomized patients included OS (time from randomization to death from any cause). PFS was evaluated in accordance with RECIST criteria, version 1.1, by means of BICR.1 †This exploratory analysis is descriptive only. These are estimates and not exact numbers. HER2CLIMB was not powered to assess a statistical difference between treatment groups at this time point.

ICR = lind independent central review; CI = confidence interval; HER = human epidermal growth factor receptor; HR = hazard ratio; MBC = metastatic breast cancer; OS = overall survival; PFS = progression-free survival; PPE = palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia; RECIST = Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

Lab Abnormalities In HER2C IM rade la oratory a normalities reported in of patients who received TUKYSA were decreased phosphate, increased ALT, decreased potassium, and increased AST. he mean increase in serum creatinine was 2 within the first 21 days of treatment with TUKYSA. The serum creatinine increases persisted throughout treatment and were reversible upon treatment completion. Consider alternative markers of renal function if persistent elevations in serum creatinine are observed.

Drug Interactions • Strong CYP3A/Moderate CYP2C8 Inducers: Concomitant use may decrease TUKYSA activity. Avoid concomitant use of TUKYSA. • Strong or Moderate CYP2C8 Inhibitors: Concomitant use of TUKYSA with a strong CYP2C8 inhibitor may increase the risk of TUKYSA toxicity; avoid concomitant use. Increase monitoring for TUKYSA toxicity with moderate CYP2C8 inhibitors.

• CYP3A Substrates: Concomitant use may increase the toxicity associated with a CYP3A substrate. Avoid concomitant use of TUKYSA where minimal concentration changes may lead to serious or life-threatening toxicities. If concomitant use is unavoidable, decrease the CYP3A substrate dosage.

TUKYSA and its logo, and Seagen and are US registered trademarks of Seagen Inc. © 2021 Seagen Inc., Bothell, WA 98021 All rights reserved Printed in USA US-TUP-21-150-MT

• P-gp Substrates: Concomitant use may increase the toxicity associated with a P-gp substrate. Consider reducing the dosage of P-gp substrates where minimal concentration changes may lead to serious or life-threatening toxicity.

Use in Specific Populations • Lactation: Advise women not to breastfeed while taking TUKYSA and for at least 1 week after the last dose.

• Renal Impairment: Use of TUKYSA in combination with capecitabine and trastuzumab is not recommended in patients with severe renal impairment (CLcr < 30 mL/min), because capecitabine is contraindicated in patients with severe renal impairment.

• Hepatic Impairment: Reduce the dose of TUKYSA for patients with severe (Child-Pugh C) hepatic impairment.

Please see Brief Summary of Prescribing Information on adjacent pages.

References: 1. TUKYSA [Prescribing Information]. Bothell, WA: Seagen Inc. April 2020.

2.Murthy RK, Loi S, Okines A, et al. Supplemental appendix for: Tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:597-609.

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

TUKYSAÆ (tucatinib) tablets, for oral use Brief summary of Prescribing Information (PI). See full PI. Rx Only INDICATIONS AND USAGE TUKYSA is indicated in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for treatment of adult patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who have received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION Recommended Dosage The recommended dosage of TUKYSA is 300 mg taken orally twice daily in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Advise patients to swallow TUKYSA tablets whole and not to chew, crush, or split prior to swallowing. Advise patients not to ingest tablet if it is broken, cracked, or not otherwise intact.

Advise patients to take TUKYSA approximately 12 hours apart and at the same time each day with or without a meal. If the patient vomits or misses a dose of TUKYSA, instruct the patient to take the next dose at its usual scheduled time.

When given in combination with TUKYSA, the recommended dosage of capecitabine is 1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily taken within 30 minutes after a meal. TUKYSA and capecitabine can be taken at the same time. Refer to the Full Prescribing Information for trastuzumab and capecitabine for additional information.

Dosage Modi cations for Adverse Reactions The recommended TUKYSA dose reductions and dosage modi cations for adverse reactions are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Refer to the Full Prescribing Information for trastuzumab and capecitabine for information about dosage modi cations for these drugs.

Table 1: Recommended TUKYSA Dose Reductions for Adverse Reactions Dose Reduction Recommended TUKYSA Dosage First 250 mg orally twice daily Second 200 mg orally twice daily Third 150 mg orally twice daily Permanently discontinue TUKYSA in patients unable to tolerate 150 mg orally twice daily.

Table 2: Recommended TUKYSA Dosage Modi cations for Adverse Reactions Severity Diarrhea1 Grade 3 without anti-diarrheal treatment Grade 3 with anti-diarrheal treatment Grade 4 Hepatotoxicity1,2 Grade 2 bilirubin (>1.5 to 3 ◊ ULN)

TUKYSA Dosage Modi cation Initiate or intensify appropriate medical therapy.

Hold TUKYSA until recovery to Grade 1, then resume TUKYSA at the same dose level.

Initiate or intensify appropriate medical therapy.

Hold TUKYSA until recovery to Grade 1, then resume TUKYSA at the next lower dose level.

Permanently discontinue TUKYSA.

Hold TUKYSA until recovery to Grade 1, then resume TUKYSA at the same dose level.

Grade 3 ALT or AST (> 5 to 20 ◊ ULN) Hold TUKYSA until recovery to Grade 1, then OR Grade 3 bilirubin (> 3 to 10 ◊ ULN) resume TUKYSA at the next lower dose level.

Grade 4 ALT or AST (> 20 ◊ ULN) Permanently discontinue TUKYSA. OR Grade 4 bilirubin (> 10 ◊ ULN) ALT or AST > 3 ◊ ULN AND Permanently discontinue TUKYSA. Bilirubin > 2 ◊ ULN Other adverse reactions1 Grade 3 Hold TUKYSA until recovery to Grade 1, then resume TUKYSA at the next lower dose level.

Grade 4 Permanently discontinue TUKYSA. 1. Grades based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.03 2. Abbreviations: ULN = upper limit of normal; ALT = alanine aminotransferase; AST = aspartate aminotransferase

Dosage Modi cations for Severe Hepatic Impairment: For patients with severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh C), reduce the recommended dosage to 200 mg orally twice daily.

Dosage Modi cations for Concomitant Use with Strong CYP2C8 Inhibitors: Avoid concomitant use of strong CYP2C8 inhibitors with TUKYSA. If concomitant use with a strong CYP2C8 inhibitor cannot be avoided, reduce the recommended dosage to 100 mg orally twice daily. After discontinuation of the strong CYP2C8 inhibitor for 3 elimination half-lives, resume the TUKYSA dose that was taken prior to initiating the inhibitor.

CONTRAINDICATIONS None.

Diarrhea: TUKYSA can cause severe diarrhea including dehydration, hypotension, acute kidney injury, and death. In HER2CLIMB, 81% of patients who received TUKYSA experienced diarrhea, including 12% with Grade 3 diarrhea and 0.5% with Grade 4 diarrhea. Both patients who developed Grade 4 diarrhea subsequently died, with diarrhea as a contributor to death. The median time to onset of the rst episode of diarrhea was 12 days and the median time to resolution was 8 days. Diarrhea led to dose reductions of TUKYSA in 6% of patients and discontinuation of TUKYSA in 1% of patients. Prophylactic use of antidiarrheal treatment was not required on HER2CLIMB. If diarrhea occurs, administer antidiarrheal treatment as clinically indicated. Perform diagnostic tests as clinically indicated to exclude other causes of diarrhea. Based on the severity of the diarrhea, interrupt dose, then dose reduce or permanently discontinue TUKYSA. Hepatotoxicity: TUKYSA can cause severe hepatotoxicity. In HER2CLIMB, 8% of patients who received TUKYSA had an ALT increase > 5 ◊ ULN, 6% had an AST increase > 5 ◊ ULN, and 1.5% had a bilirubin increase > 3 ◊ ULN (Grade 3). Hepatotoxicity led to dose reduction of TUKYSA in 8% of patients and discontinuation of TUKYSA in 1.5% of patients.

Monitor ALT, AST, and bilirubin prior to starting TUKYSA, every 3 weeks during treatment, and as clinically indicated. Based on the severity of hepatotoxicity, interrupt dose, then dose reduce or permanently discontinue TUKYSA. Embryo-Fetal Toxicity: Based on ndings from animal studies and its mechanism of action, TUKYSA can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. In animal reproduction studies, administration of tucatinib to pregnant rats and rabbits during organogenesis caused embryo-fetal mortality, reduced fetal weight and fetal abnormalities at maternal exposures 1.3 times the human exposure (AUC) at the recommended dose.

Advise pregnant women and females of reproductive potential of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with TUKYSA and for at least 1 week after the last dose. Advise male patients with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with TUKYSA and for at least 1 week after the last dose. TUKYSA is used in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine. Refer to the Full Prescribing Information of trastuzumab and capecitabine for pregnancy and contraception information.

ADVERSE REACTIONS Clinical Trials Experience Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a drug cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another drug and may not re ect the rates observed in practice.

HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer (HER2CLIMB) The safety of TUKYSA in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine was evaluated in HER2CLIMB. Patients received either TUKYSA 300 mg twice daily plus trastuzumab and capecitabine (n=404) or placebo plus trastuzumab and capecitabine (n=197). The median duration of treatment was 5.8 months (range: 3 days, 2.9 years) for the TUKYSA arm.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 26% of patients who received TUKYSA. Serious adverse reactions in 2% of patients who received TUKYSA were diarrhea (4%), vomiting (2.5%), nausea (2%), abdominal pain (2%), and seizure (2%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 2% of patients who received TUKYSA including sudden death, sepsis, dehydration, and cardiogenic shock.

Adverse reactions leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients who received TUKYSA. Adverse reactions leading to treatment discontinuation of TUKYSA in 1% of patients were hepatotoxicity (1.5%) and diarrhea (1%). Adverse reactions leading to dose reduction occurred in 21% of patients who received TUKYSA. Adverse reactions leading to dose reduction of TUKYSA in 2% of patients were hepatotoxicity (8%) and diarrhea (6%).

The most common adverse reactions in patients who received TUKYSA ( 20%) were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash.

Table 3: Adverse Reactions ( 10%) in Patients Who Received TUKYSA and with a Difference Between Arms of 5% Compared to Placebo in HER2CLIMB (All Grades) Adverse Reaction

TUKYSA + Trastuzumab + Capecitabine (N = 404) Grade (%) All 3 4 Gastrointestinal disorders Diarrhea 81 12 0.5 Nausea 58 3.7 0 Vomiting 36 3 0 32 2.5 0 Stomatitis 1 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia 63 13 0 syndrome 20 0.7 0 Rash 2 Hepatobiliary disorders 42 9 0.2 Hepatotoxicity 3 Metabolism and nutrition disorders Decreased appetite 25 0.5 0

Placebo + Trastuzumab + Capecitabine (N = 197) Grade (%) All 3 4 53 44 25 21

9 3 3.6 0.5

0 0 0 0

53

9

0

15

0.5

0

24

3.6

0

20

0

0

Adverse Reaction

TUKYSA + Trastuzumab + Placebo + Trastuzumab + Capecitabine (N = 404) Capecitabine (N = 197) Grade (%) Grade (%) All 3 4 All 3 4 Blood and lymphatic system disorders 21 3.7 0 13 2.5 0 Anemia 4 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders Arthralgia 15 0.5 0 4.6 0.5 0 Investigations 14 0 0 1.5 0 0 Creatinine increased5 Weight decreased 13 1 0 6 0.5 0 Nervous System Disorders Peripheral 13 0.5 0 7 1 0 neuropathy 6 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders Epistaxis 12 0 0 5 0 0 1. Stomatitis includes stomatitis, oropharyngeal pain, oropharyngeal discomfort, mouth ulceration, oral pain, lip ulceration, glossodynia, tongue blistering, lip blister, oral dysesthesia, tongue ulceration, and aphthous ulcer 2. Rash includes rash maculo-papular, rash, dermatitis acneiform, erythema, rash macular, rash papular, rash pustular, rash pruritic, rash erythematous, skin exfoliation, urticaria, dermatitis allergic, palmar erythema, plantar erythema, skin toxicity, and dermatitis 3. Hepatotoxicity includes hyperbilirubinemia, blood bilirubin increased, bilirubin conjugated increased, alanine aminotransferase increased, transaminases increased, hepatotoxicity, aspartate aminotransferase increased, liver function test increased, liver injury, and hepatocellular injury 4. Anemia includes anemia, hemoglobin decreased, and normocytic anemia 5. Due to inhibition of renal tubular transport of creatinine without affecting glomerular function 6. Peripheral neuropathy includes peripheral sensory neuropathy, neuropathy peripheral, peripheral motor neuropathy, and peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy

Table 4: Laboratory Abnormalities ( 20%) Worsening from Baseline in Patients Who Received TUKYSA and with a Difference of 5% Compared to Placebo in HER2CLIMB TUKYSA + Trastuzumab + Capecitabine1 All Grades Grades 3 % % Hematology Decreased hemoglobin Chemistry Decreased phosphate Increased bilirubin Increased ALT Increased AST Decreased magnesium Decreased potassium 2 Increased creatinine 3 Decreased sodium 4 Increased alkaline phosphatase

Placebo + Trastuzumab + Capecitabine1 All Grades Grades 3 % %

59

3.3

51

1.5

57 47 46 43 40 36 33 28

8 1.5 8 6 0.8 6 0 2.5

45 30 27 25 25 31 6 23

7 3.1 0.5 1 0.5 5 0 2

26

0.5

17

0

1. The denominator used to calculate the rate varied from 351 to 400 in the TUKYSA arm and 173 to 197 in the control arm based on the number of patients with a baseline value and at least one post-treatment value. Grading was based on NCI-CTCAE v.4.03 for laboratory abnormalities, except for increased creatinine which only includes patients with a creatinine increase based on the upper limit of normal de nition for grade 1 events (NCI CTCAE v5.0).

2. Laboratory criteria for Grade 1 is identical to laboratory criteria for Grade 2.

3. Due to inhibition of renal tubular transport of creatinine without affecting glomerular function.

4. There is no de nition for Grade 2 in CTCAE v.4.03.

Increased Creatinine: The mean increase in serum creatinine was 32% within the rst 21 days of treatment with TUKYSA. The serum creatinine increases persisted throughout treatment and were reversible upon treatment completion. Consider alternative markers of renal function if persistent elevations in serum creatinine are observed.

DRUG INTERACTIONS Effects of Other Drugs on TUKYSA Strong CYP3A Inducers or Moderate CYP2C8 Inducers: Concomitant use of TUKYSA with a strong CYP3A or moderate CYP2C8 inducer decreased tucatinib plasma concentrations, which may reduce TUKYSA activity. Avoid concomitant use of TUKYSA with a strong CYP3A inducer or a moderate CYP2C8 inducer.

Strong or Moderate CYP2C8 Inhibitors: Concomitant use of TUKYSA with a strong CYP2C8 inhibitor increased tucatinib plasma concentrations, which may increase the risk of TUKYSA toxicity. Avoid concomitant use of TUKYSA with a strong CYP2C8 inhibitor.

Increase monitoring for TUKYSA toxicity with moderate CYP2C8 inhibitors.

Effects of TUKYSA on Other Drugs CYP3A Substrates: Concomitant use of TUKYSA with a CYP3A substrate increased the plasma concentrations of CYP3A substrate, which may increase the toxicity associated with a CYP3A substrate. Avoid concomitant use of TUKYSA with CYP3A substrates,

where minimal concentration changes may lead to serious or life-threatening toxicities.

If concomitant use is unavoidable, decrease the CYP3A substrate dosage in accordance with approved product labeling.

P-glycoprotein (P-gp) Substrates: Concomitant use of TUKYSA with a P-gp substrate increased the plasma concentrations of P-gp substrate, which may increase the toxicity associated with a P-gp substrate. Consider reducing the dosage of P-gp substrates, where minimal concentration changes may lead to serious or life-threatening toxicities.

USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS Pregnancy Risk Summary: TUKYSA is used in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Refer to the Full Prescribing Information of trastuzumab and capecitabine for pregnancy information. Based on ndings in animals and its mechanism of action, TUKYSA can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. There are no available human data on TUKYSA use in pregnant women to inform a drug-associated risk.

In animal reproduction studies, administration of tucatinib to pregnant rats and rabbits during organogenesis resulted in embryo-fetal mortality, reduced fetal weight and fetal abnormalities at maternal exposures 1.3 times the human exposure (AUC) at the recommended dose. Advise pregnant women and females of reproductive potential of the potential risk to the fetus.

Lactation Risk Summary: TUKYSA is used in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Refer to the Full Prescribing Information of trastuzumab and capecitabine for lactation information. There are no data on the presence of tucatinib or its metabolites in human or animal milk or its effects on the breastfed child or on milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in a breastfed child, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment with TUKYSA and for at least 1 week after the last dose.

Females and Males of Reproductive Potential TUKYSA can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. TUKYSA is used in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine. Refer to the Full Prescribing Information of trastuzumab and capecitabine for contraception and infertility information.

Pregnancy Testing: Verify the pregnancy status of females of reproductive potential prior to initiating treatment with TUKYSA. Contraception: Females: Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with TUKYSA and for at least 1 week after the last dose.

Males: Advise male patients with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with TUKYSA and for at least 1 week after the last dose.

Infertility: Based on ndings from animal studies, TUKYSA may impair male and female fertility.

Pediatric Use: The safety and effectiveness of TUKYSA in pediatric patients have not been established.

Geriatric Use: In HER2CLIMB, 82 patients who received TUKYSA were 65 years, of whom 8 patients were 75 years. The incidence of serious adverse reactions in those receiving TUKYSA was 34% in patients 65 years compared to 24% in patients < 65 years. The most frequent serious adverse reactions in patients who received TUKYSA and 65 years were diarrhea (9%), vomiting (6%), and nausea (5%). There were no observed overall differences in the effectiveness of TUKYSA in patients 65 years compared to younger patients. There were too few patients 75 years to assess differences in effectiveness or safety.

Renal Impairment: The use of TUKYSA in combination with capecitabine and trastuzumab is not recommended in patients with severe renal impairment (CLcr < 30 mL/min estimated by Cockcroft-Gault Equation), because capecitabine is contraindicated in patients with severe renal impairment. Refer to the Full Prescribing Information of capecitabine for additional information in severe renal impairment. No dose adjustment is recommended for patients with mild or moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CLcr] 30 to 89 mL/min).

Hepatic Impairment: Tucatinib exposure is increased in patients with severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh C). Reduce the dose of TUKYSA for patients with severe (ChildPugh C) hepatic impairment. No dose adjustment for TUKYSA is required for patients with mild (Child-Pugh A) or moderate (Child-Pugh B) hepatic impairment.

TUKYSA and its logo, and Seagen and are US registered trademarks of Seagen Inc. © 2021 Seagen Inc., Bothell, WA 98021 All rights reserved Printed in USA REF-5155(1) 4/20

HIV Update Treatment and Effective Management The pipeline for HIV includes methods for prophylaxis, such as potential vaccinations. With these added preventive measures, payers may prioritize strategic management of the overall HIV space.

In the U.S., an estimated 1. million people are living with human immunodeficiency virus HIV , with approximately ,400 new HIV infections occurring annually, per 01 data.1 In 01 , there were 1 , 0 deaths among those diagnosed with HIV in the U.S.1

Current Treatment Landscape Luke Merkel, Pharm.D., MBA Director of Pharmacy Services Avera Health

Per guidelines from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HHS , current recommended HIV treatment is antiretroviral therapy ART , which patients should begin as soon after diagnosis as possible to slow progression.2 There are seven classes of ART nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors NRTIs , non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors NNRTIs , protease inhibitors PIs , fusion inhibitors, CCR antagonists, post attachment inhibitors, and integrase strand transfer inhibitors INSTIs .

PrEP Pre exposure prophylaxis PrEP is an HIV prevention strategy recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There are currently two FDA approved HIV PrEP therapies for daily use emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate TRUVADA for PrEP® and emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide DESCOVY for PrEP® . Adherence to PrEP medication as prescribed can reduce the risk of contracting HIV via sexual contact and via drug injection by and 4 , respectively.

There are three phases to appropriate care using PrEP screening, PrEP initiation, and follow up. The initial screening should include an HIV risk assessment, PrEP education, and an initial clinical evaluation that includes assessment of indications for PrEP, a brief medical history, and appropriate lab work. PrEP initiation should occur within seven days of the screening and include a review of PrEP basics and a prescription of PrEP for 0 days or less. Follow up should be consistent and occur every three months, with an HIV blood test; a symptom review; concurrent prescription of PrEP; and assessment and counseling

28 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

for HIV risk behavior, adherence, and pregnancy intent. Testing for sexually transmitted infections and kidney function should be done every six months for follow up.

Genotypic Drug-Resistance Testing Drug resistance testing helps determine if an HIV patient has a form of the virus that has mutated and does not respond to ART.4 Specifically, genotypic drug resistance testing examines the genotype of a patient’s HIV to analyze for the presence of specific genetic mutations that are known to cause resistance to ART.4

Guideline Updates In April, HHS updated its guidelines for pediatric HIV treatment.

Updates included discussion of and guidance for the use of telehealth and telemedicine in pediatric HIV care; an expansion of preferred regimen designation of dolutegravir TIVICAY plus two NRTIs to be recommended for anyone age 4 weeks or older, provided they weigh at least kg; the addition of bictegravir, as part of bictegravir emtricitabine tenofovir alafenamide BIKTARVY® , in patients at least years old and weighing at least kg; and a distinction that NRTI backbone of abacavir iagen alongside either emtricitabine EMTRIVA or lamivudine Epivir is classified as

preferred for children at least 1 month old, despite FDA approval for the drugs specifying an age of at least years old.

HHS guidelines for the treatment of HIV in adults and adolescents were most recently updated in 01 and adjusted recommendations for first line regimens. The update added dolutegravir lamivudine DOVATO to the list of recommended initial regimens alongside bictegravir emtricitabine tenofovir alafenamide BIKTARVY® for a treatment option in acutely or recently infected people for whom genotypic drug resistance testing had not yet been completed.

Adherence and Single-Tablet Regimen vs. MultipleTablet Regimen Adherence is critical for patients to maintain viral suppression; less effective viral suppression is associated with poor treatment adherence. , The adherence thresholds vary between different classes of ART. However, improved outcomes, including viral suppression and, in some cases, reduced risk of resistance mutations, are associated with higher adherence levels.

The introduction of single tablet regimen STR options has increased adherence for HIV patients and resulted in decreased

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 29

HIV UPDATE | Continued

Table 1. HIV Pipeline15 Drug

Manufacturer

Route of Administration

Mechanism of Action

Indication

Status

abacavir sulfate TRIUMEQ

ViiV Healthcare

oral

integrase inhibitor; nucleoside analogue reverse

HIV 1 infection

phase three

cabotegravir GSK1 44

ViiV Healthcare; GlaxoSmithKline

intramuscular

INSTI

prophylaxis

phase three

islatravir MK 1

Merck

oral

nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation

prophylaxis; HIV 1 infection

phase three

lenacapavir GS 0

Gilead Sciences

oral; SQ

TBD

HIV 1 infection

phase three

leronlimab PRO 140

CytoDyn

SQ

entry inhibitor

HIV 1 infection

phase three

UB 4 1

United BioPharma

IV

viral attachment blocker

HIV 1 infection

phase three

cenicriviroc TBR

Tobira Therapeutics; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company

oral

entry inhibitor

HIV 1 infection

phase two

Remune

Immune Response BioPharma

IM

HIV vaccine

prophylaxis

phase two CRL 11 01

pharmacy costs and hospitalizations when compared to existing multiple tablet regimens MTR . , 10 In an analysis of patients initiating ART, patients on STR were more than twice as likely to be adherent when compared to MTR patients. Persistence was more common among STR patients, as MTR patients were 1 more likely to discontinue treatment.

In a pilot HIV care management program facilitated by Magellan Method, Medicaid patients prescribed at least one HIV medication, with the exception of PrEP, were included in an outreach program aimed to assess the impact of the program on ART adherence and the proportion of patients who are virologically suppressed.11 Prior to the contact period, more than half of the participating patients had a proportion of days covered PDC of less than 0 .11 Overall, patients on STR had higher adherence than patients on MTR; prior to contact, 44 of STR patients had a PDC of less than 0 compared to of MTR patients. Six months after enrollment in the program, there was an increase in PDC to about overall, compared to 0 pre contact period.11 This data shows an opportunity for patient engagement in addressing patient adherence in the HIV patient population. Improved adherence can lead to

30 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

sustained viral suppression, better outcomes, and improved cost management.

Newly Approved Therapies Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine (CABENUVA) and Cabotegravir (VOCABRIA)12 In January, the FDA approved cabotegravir extended release injectable suspension and rilpivirine extended release injectable suspension CABENUVA, ViiV Healthcare , co packed for intramuscular use, for HIV 1 infected adults. It is the first FDA approved injectable complete regimen indicated for HIV that is administered once monthly. The two drug co packaged products include cabotegravir, an HIV 1 INSTI, and rilpivirine, an HIV 1 NNRTI. It is indicated as a complete regimen to replace current antiretroviral regimen in those who are virologically suppressed on a stable antiretroviral regimen with no treatment failure and no known or suspected resistance to either drug.

Focused measures to increase treatment adherence in HIV patients can lead to lower costs overall, including pharmacy and hospitalizations.

receiving the placebo, and after day , all participants received fostemsavir along with other antiretroviral drugs. Fifty three percent of participants achieved viral suppression after 4 weeks of fostemsavir plus other antiretroviral drugs. Finally, after weeks, 0 of participants continued to have viral suppression. The most common side effect was nausea; however, more severe adverse events included elevations in liver enzymes among participants also infected with hepatitis B or C virus and changes in the immune system.

Payer Implications The FDA also approved cabotegravir 0 mg tablets VOCABRIA indicated to be taken in combination with oral rilpivirine for one month prior to starting treatment with the two-drug extendedrelease injectable to ensure the medications are well tolerated before switching.

Two phase three randomized, multicenter, active controlled, parallel arm, open label, non inferiority trials evaluated the efficacy of CABENUVA. In the FLAIR trial, HIV infected, ART na ve subjects received dolutegravir INSTI containing regimen for 0 weeks, and subjects who were virologically suppressed were randomized to receive either a cabotegravir plus rilpivirine regimen or remain on the current ART regimen.

Research shows that with the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act ACA came an increase in the identification of undiagnosed HIV infections and use of HIV prevention services; an estimated 1 . increase in HIV diagnoses was associated with Medicaid expansion, according to data from the University of Illinois.1 This shift, along with accompanied appropriate treatment and use of preventive services, was linked directly to the improved access to care through Medicaid, as diagnoses were most common in populations likely affected by Medicaid expansion, including low income individuals engaged in injection drug use from rural counties with high uninsured rates prior to the ACA.1

In February, HHS determined CABENUVA injections can be used to optimize treatment in patients with HIV who are currently on oral ART with documented viral suppression for at least three months and who have no baseline resistance to either medication, prior virologic failures, or active hepatitis B virus; are not pregnant or planning to become pregnant; and are not receiving medications with significant interactions.1 In patients who may be drawn to monthly injection over daily pills, CABENUVA may become the preference.

Research shows that with the Fostemsavir (Rukobia) expansion of Medicaid under In July 0 0, the FDA approved fostemsavir Rukobia, ViiV ACA came an increase in the Healthcare , indicated for adults living with HIV who have tried multiple HIV medications and whose infection cannot be success- identification o undiagnosed fully treated with other therapies due to resistance, intolerance, or safety considerations. A trial of 1 heavily treatment experienced HIV infections and use of adult participants with high virus levels was conducted with HIV-prevention services; an participants in the main trial arm and an additional participants receiving fostemsavir in a different arm of the trial. Participants in estimated 13.9% increase in the main trial arm received either fostemsavir or a placebo twice daily for eight days in addition to the previously failing antiretro- HIV diagnoses was associated viral regimen. On day , participants receiving fostemsavir had a significantly greater decrease in virus levels compared to those with Medicaid expansion.

14

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 31

HIV UPDATE | Continued

MRx PIPELINE

Our latest quarterly report on anticipated specialty and traditional drugs in the pipeline

A VIEW INTO UPCOMING SPECIALTY & TRADITIONAL DRUGS JANUARY 2021

magellanrx.com/pipeline

The data suggests access to health insurance and proper care improved HIV testing rates and use of preventive care, leading to higher rates of individuals living with HIV.1 Access to care and proper management for patients with HIV are critical in improving outcomes.

With several generics entering the market or on the horizon, there is potential for cost management in this category. Combination therapies have created the opportunity for combining several generic therapies where brand only therapies were previously utilized. Strong policy will be key in driving generic utilization in this space. Additionally, by prioritizing the HIV population, payers can better manage this space. Focused measures to increase treatment adherence in HIV patients can lead to lower costs overall, including pharmacy and hospitalizations.11

32 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

The pipeline for HIV includes methods for prophylaxis, such as potential vaccinations. With these added preventive measures, payers may prioritize strategic management of the overall HIV space, including identifying appropriate populations and ensuring access to prophylactic therapies. Proper preventive care, coupled with effective management of populations with HIV, could lead to improved long term outcomes and cost management.

With an expanding pipeline, payers may strategize to achieve cost savings by incentivizing and steering patients toward lower cost generic alternatives.

References 1.

U.S. Statistics. HIV.gov, 1 Mar. 0 1, https www.hiv.gov hiv basics overview data and trends statistics.

2.

HIV Treatment Overview. HIV.gov, Mar. 01 , https www.hiv. gov hiv basics staying in hiv care hiv treatment hiv treatment overview.

.

Pre exposure Prophylaxis PrEP Care System. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 10 Sept. 0 0, www.cdc.gov hiv effective interventions prevent prep index.html.

4.

HIV Drug Resistance Testing. Stanford Health Care, https stanfordhealthcare.org medical conditions sexual and reproductive health hiv aids treatments hiv drug resistance testing.html.

.

Helfand, Myles. What’s New in U.S. HIV Clinical Treatment Guidelines. TheBodyPro, 0 Apr. 0 1, https www.thebodypro. com article whats new in the us hiv clinical guidelines.

10. Langness, Jacob, et al. Comparison of adherence rates for antiretroviral, blood pressure, or mental health medications for HIV positive patients at an academic medical center outpatient pharmacy. Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy, 014, https pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 0 0 4.

11. Kangethe, Anne, et al. Analysis of a Pilot HIV Care Management Program. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, 0 1, https www1. magellanrx.com documents 0 1 0 analysis of a pilot hiv care management program.pdf .

12.

FDA Approves Cabenuva and Vocabria for the Treatment of HIV 1 Infection. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jan. 0 1, www. fda.gov drugs human immunodeficiency virus hiv fda approves cabenuva and vocabria treatment hiv 1 infection.

1 .

HHS Adults and Adolescents Antiretroviral Guidelines Panel Recommendation for the Long Acting Injectable Antiretroviral Regimen of Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine. Clinical Info, 4 Feb. 0 1, https clinicalinfo.hiv.gov en guidelines adult and adolescent arv hhs adults and adolescents antiretroviral guidelines panel.

FDA Approves New HIV Treatment for Patients with Limited Treatment Options. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, July 0 0, https www.fda.gov news events press announcements fda approves-new-hiv-treatment-patients-limited-treatment-options.

.

Schaecher, Kenneth. The Importance of Treatment Adherence in HIV. American Journal of Managed Care, Sept. 01 , https www. ajmc.com view a4 sep1 schaecher s 1.

.

Hines, Dionne, et al. Treatment Adherence and Persistence Among HIV 1 Patients Newly Starting Treatment. Patient Preference and Adherence, Nov. 01 , https www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc articles PMC 44 0 .

14.

.

Cohen, Calvin, et al. Association between daily antiretroviral pill burden and treatment adherence, hospitalization risk, and other healthcare utilisation and costs in a US Medicaid population with HIV. BMJ Open, 01 , https bmjopen.bmj.com content e00 0 .

1 . IPD Analytics.

.

1 . Nelson, Hannah. Medicaid Expansion Helped Detect Undiagnosed HIV Infections. Health Payer Intelligence, Jan. 0 1, https healthpayerintelligence.com news medicaid expansion helped detect undiagnosed hiv infections.

Sax, Paul, et al. Adherence to antiretroviral treatment and correlation with risk of hospitalization among commercially insured HIV patients in the United States. PloS One, 01 , https pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov 4040 .

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 33

Kite, a Gilead Company, is dedicated to achieving one of the most ambitious goals of the 21st century: curing cancer. This mission is at the heart of everything we do from early research to product development.

W W W.K ITEPHARMA.C OM

P R O U D

T O

S U P P ORT

THE

MAGELLAN

RX

REPORT

CAR-T Update: Expanding Landscape and Payer Impact With several CAR T therapies in the pipeline, the oncology space will require strategizing and effective management moving forward.

The oncology management landscape is ever-evolving. The approval and pipeline of innovative new therapies coupled with the way the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has changed care delivery will create new challenges for payers to navigate in managing members with cancer moving forward.

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy represents an exciting recent advancement in oncology treatment. CAR-T therapy is a type of immunotherapy that works by modifying a patient’s T-cells to attack cancer cells.1 Currently, it is used in the treatment of certain blood cancers; it is also being investigated for efficacy in treating several other types of cancer, with a robust pipeline on the horizon.1, 2 Mona Chitre, Pharm.D., CGP ie ar ac cer Clinical Analytics, Strategy and Innovation Excellus BlueCross BlueShield

Recent Approvals Idecabtagene Vicleucel (ABECMA®)3 In March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA approved the first CAR T therapy for the treatment of multiple myeloma in adult patients. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ABECMA®, Celgene is specifically indicated for adult patients with multiple myeloma who have not responded to, or whose disease has returned after, at least four prior lines of therapy. Idecabtagene vicleucel is a B cell maturation antigen BCMA directed genetically modified autologous CAR T therapy. In a study of 127 patients with relapsed myeloma and refractory myeloma who had received at

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 35

CAR-

DA E | Continued

Brexucabtagene Autoleucel (TECARTUS®)5 Brexucabtagene autoleucel (TECARTUS®, Kite Pharma) received FDA approval in July 2020 for the treatment of adult patients diagnosed with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who have not responded to or who have relapsed following other treatments. This is the first approved CAR T therapy for the treatment of MCL. A trial of 60 adults with refractory or relapsed MCL showed a complete response rate of 62% after treatment with brexucabtagene autoleucel, with an objective response rate of 87%. The most common associated side effects include serious infections, low blood cell counts, and a weakened immune system; more serious potential side effects include CRS and neurologic toxicities.

Currently, CAR-T is used in the treatment of certain blood cancers; it is also being investigated or e cac in treating several other types of least three prior antimyeloma lines of therapy, 72% of patients partially or completely responded to treatment with idecabtagene cancer, with a robust pipeline vicleucel. Overall, 28% showed complete response, and 65% of that group remained in complete response for at least 12 months. on the horizon.

Severe associated adverse reactions include cytokine release syndrome (CRS), hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenias; more common side effects include infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system.

Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (BREYANZI®)4

ICER De er

The FDA approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (BREYANZI®, Juno Therapeutics) in February for the treatment of adult patients with certain types of large B-cell lymphoma who have not responded to or have relapsed after at least two other types of systemic treatment. Lisocabtagene maraleucel is the third CAR-T therapy approved for certain types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including diffuse large B cell lymphoma DLBCL . In a trial of more than 0 adult patients with refractory or relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, patients treated with lisocabtagene maraleucel showed a complete response rate of 4 . Severe associated side effects include CRS and neurologic toxicities; other side effects include hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, low blood cell counts, and a weakened immune system.

In April, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) released an evidence report that assessed the comparative clinical effectiveness and value of idecabtagene vicleucel and ciltacabtagene autoleucel, which is currently under FDA review. The report noted that both therapies appear to deliver relatively sizeable gains in both progression-free survival and overall survival for triple class refractory multiple myeloma patients exposed to three or more prior lines of treatment, with higher rates of response and longer survival than treatment with current therapies,” concluding there is “high certainty that both therapies provide at least a small net health benefit compared to usual care, with the possibility of substantial benefit. However, ICER noted that idecabtagene vicleucel would require a 4 discount off the currently an-

36 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

n

n7

e 1 CAR

e ne6

Drug

Manufacturer

Route of Administration

Mechanism of Action

Status

ciltacabtagene autoleucel (JNJ4528)

Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Legend Biotech

IV

multiple myeloma

pending

axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA)

Kite Pharma; Gilead Sciences

IV

marginal zone lymphoma; diffuse large B cell lymphoma

pending; phase three

CEA CAR-T

Sorrento Therapeutics

injectable

pancreatic cancer

phase three

tabelecleucel (ATA129)

Atara Biotherapeutics

IV

post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease

phase three

ATA230

Atara Biotherapeutics

IV

cytomegalovirus infection

phase two

AUTO1

Autolus Therapeutics

IV

acute lymphocytic leukemia

phase two

Descartes-08

Cartesian Therapeutics

injectable

multiple myeloma; myasthenia gravis

phase two

Descartes-11

Cartesian Therapeutics

injectable

multiple myeloma

phase two

With several CAR-T therapies in the pipeline, the oncology space will require strategizing and e ective anage ent moving forward. nounced wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $419,500 in order to fall in the recommended health benefit price benchmark range.

n

e C re I

c

ns

In September 2020, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CMS finalized its proposal to establish a Medicare Severity

Diagnosis Related Group for CAR-T services, with a national, unadjusted payment amount for this new group of $239,929.8 Notably, this amount is less than the recommended amount from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) as well as the sales price of CAR-T, which is $373,000.8 With the exciting opportunity and innovation offered by CAR T therapies come high costs. Determining the appropriate patients for these therapies will be key in properly managing the space.9 While CAR-T is an exciting option, payers need to assess the full treatment landscape and properly identify for which patients CAR-T is appropriate; deference to providers in these instances is important, but proper policy will also be key.9 With currently available CAR T therapies, organizations will typically coordinate payment by using customized agreements on a per patient basis, making the billing and reimbursement for these therapies complicated and burdensome.10 However, as more CAR-T options become available, payers are approving and allowing access to these therapies expeditiously.10 Still, it will take payers time to negotiate and customize these per patient agreements in order to optimize management in the space.10

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 37

CAR-

DA E | Continued

With several CAR-T therapies in the pipeline, the oncology space will require strategizing and effective management moving forward. Crafting policy that appropriately identifies populations and ensures access to new innovative therapies, whether on a patient-by-patient basis or through broader management, will be critical to payers’ ability to effectively manage the cost burden of CAR-T therapies as these options become increasingly available.

Stay ahead of trend: CAR-T management strategies

2020 ELEVENTH EDITION

magellanrx.com/trendreport

References 1.

“CAR-T cell therapy.” National Cancer Institute, https://www.cancer. gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/car-t-cell-therapy.

2.

Huang, Ruihao, et al. “Recent advances in CAR-T cell engineering.”

Journal of Hematology & Oncology, 2 July 2020, https://jhoonline. biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13045-020-00910-5.

3.

“FDA Approves First Cell-Based Gene Therapy for Adult Patients with Multiple Myeloma.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 27 Mar. 2021, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/ fda approves first cell based gene therapy adult patients multiple myeloma.

4.

“FDA Approves New Treatment For Adults With Relapsed Or Refractory Large-B-Cell Lymphoma.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5 Feb. 2021, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pressannouncements/fda-approves-new-treatment-adults-relapsed-orrefractory-large-b-cell-lymphoma.

5.

“FDA Approves First Cell-Based Gene Therapy For Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory MCL.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 24 July 2020, www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fdaapproves first cell based gene therapy adult patients relapsed or refractory-mcl.

38 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

6.

IPD Analytics. “CAR-T Therapy Pipeline.”

7.

“ICER Publishes Evidence Report on Therapies for Multiple Myeloma.”

Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 5 Apr. 2021, https://icer. org/news-insights/press-releases/icer-publishes-evidence-report-ontherapies-for-multiple-myeloma/.

8.

Medicare Reimbursement Update for CAR T Finalized. American Society of Clinical Oncology, 4 Sept. 2020, https://www.asco.org/ practice-policy/policy-issues-statements/asco-in-action/medicarereimbursement-update-car-t.

9.

Minemyer, Paige. “Optum: How payers can prepare now for wave of CAR-T therapies.” Fierce Healthcare, 22 Sept. 2020, https://www. fiercehealthcare.com payer optum how payers can prepare now for-wave-car-t-therapies.

10. Cryts, Aine. “CAR T-cell Therapy: How Payers are Responding to Huge Price Tags.” Managed Healthcare Executive, 5 Nov. 2018, https://www. managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/car-t-cell-therapy-howpayers-are-responding-huge-price-tags.

Magellan Method

AT MAGELLAN METHOD, we are uniquely qualified to solve complex healthcare challenges. As a subsidiary of Magellan Health, a Fortune 500 company, we have access to a wide range of resources and expertise from across our PBM, Medicare, and behavioral health divisions.

We leverage up-to-date healthcare data to implement solutions that transform how care is delivered. Our team of analytic experts partners with you to develop a customized solution that delivers results.

How can we put our Method to work for you?

Payer & Provider Insights Implementation Within Health Plan Network

Solutions Development

Key Opinion Leader Support

Analytics & Publications

Contact us at MagellanMethod@magellanhealth.com to learn more.

VIEW OUR RESEARCH at magellanrx.com/read to see our insights in action!

COVID-19 and Oncology Care: Long-Term Implications Decreased Screenings and Delayed Diagnoses

Lindsay C. Speicher, J.D. Project Manager Magellan Method

Since the beginning of the COVID 1 pandemic, oncology diagnosis and care have been significantly impacted.1, 2 Hospital outpatient evaluation and management visits, new patient visits, established patient visits, and billing for physician-administered oncology products have been similarly lower.1, 2 The current global health crisis has undoubtedly delayed diagnosis and treatment, which can lead to major challenges downstream, potentially increasing cancer morbidity and mortality rates. A physician survey showed a shift away from prescribing immune checkpoint inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and corticosteroids during the COVID-19 pandemic.3 In April 2020, when COVID-19 cases were surging in the U.S., breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer screenings were massively reduced by 85%, 75%, 74%, and 56%, respectively.1, 2 Data indicates a significant decline in newly identified patients with common types of cancer; this could lead to a potential increase in cancer deaths of nearly 34,000.4 Delays in cancer diagnoses, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy as well as a trend in treatment strategies toward less-intensive approaches could increase cancer mortality by 10,000 deaths from breast and colorectal cancers in the next decade.1-2, 4

Changing Oncology Care Overall, the healthcare system has relied on alternate delivery models to mitigate the impact of reduced in-person care. There has been an emphasis on using telehealth and home care to continue providing care effectively and safely during the pandemic.

40 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

Oncology care has been increasingly delivered in the home setting as a response to the ongoing pandemic.

Telehealth Telehealth visits increased 135% from March to April 2020 and have been a preferred method of care delivery for many during the pandemic.5 The types of in-person visits that can be appropriately delivered via telehealth must be identified for this modality to be successful. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published a report on care during the pandemic, identifying visits for positive COVID-19 infections, nonurgent highrisk patient populations, and symptom management as eligible for telehealth visits.5 ASCO recommended optimizing the use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that providers should receive additional training and education specifically regarding telehealth and its appropriate use.6 A study evaluating the use of telehealth among patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic showed most participating patients were satisfied with and are becoming increasingly comfortable with telehealth video visits; a majority of physicians were satisfied and likely to use it in the future.7 Telehealth is not without challenges; healthcare providers have cited several concerns, including inadequate patient interactions and acquisition of medical data, increased potential for missing significant clinical findings, decreased quality of care, and potential medical liability.7 Additionally, challenges surrounding the equitable delivery of telehealth must be addressed as this modality is used moving forward. Vulnerable older, lower-income, and un- or underinsured communities may not have equal access to the technology necessary to receive this type of care.7

Trend Toward Home Care Oncology care has been increasingly delivered in the home setting as a response to the ongoing pandemic.8 Delaying care to reduce risk of exposure would also increase probability of death.

Thus, there was a critical need to identify ways to avoid risk of exposure while continuing to provide care.8

Prior to the pandemic, in an effort to demonstrate safe oncology care delivery at home, Penn Medicine launched its Cancer Care at Home program, which was accelerated in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.9 Over a period in late March and April 2020, home infusion referrals for patients with cancer increased 700%.9 Additionally, other health systems had been working to move patients from infusion centers to home care prior to the pandemic to improve patient convenience and free up space.10 As the COVID-19 outbreak and pandemic increased the need, home care became more used where appropriate, which helped decrease exposure for already vulnerable and at-risk patients.10 There are significant concerns relating to home care and infusions, however. Oncologists have expressed concerns over safety issues such as urgent reactions and the potential for the spread of COVID-19 in the home setting.20 Notably, ASCO reported that it does not support the routine use of home infusion for oncology treatment, citing concerns for “increased waste and the loss of valuable patient toxicity assessment during an infusion visit in the clinic.”6

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 41

COVID-19 AND ONCOLOGY CARE | Continued

Managed Care Implications Payer management strategies will likely adjust to address the increase in use of telehealth and a shift toward home care. Moving forward, there will potentially be a shift away from delivering care in person where possible. Certain factors informing the decision to deliver care in the home setting will include capacity at sites of care, clinical considerations, drug pricing, labor and building costs, and insurer coverage and benefit design.9 Payers may strategize how to effectively include home care and telehealth options in the management of patients with cancer while ensuring patients continue receiving appropriate care. The oncology space will require strategizing and effective management in order to address the growing need stemming from a period of delayed diagnoses and care. Revisiting benefit design for patients with cancer to increase access to different modalities of care delivery, including telehealth and home care, can improve outcomes and help provide patients a level and setting of care that promotes additional comfort.

42 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

Certain factors informing the decision to deliver care in the home setting will include capacity at sites of care, clinical considerations, drug pricing, labor and building costs, and insurer coverage and benefit design.

References 6.

Bennett, Christina. COVID 1 Inspires Recommendations to Improve Cancer Care and Research.” Cancer Therapy Advisor, 21 Dec. 2020, https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/home/cancertopics/general-oncology/asco-covid19-coronavirus-cancer-careimprovements-guidelines/.

7.

“Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Pharmacy Times, 18 Dec. 2020, https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/cancer-careduring-the-covid-19-pandemic.

Darcourt, Jorge, et al. “Analysis of the Implementation of Telehealth Visits for Care of Patients with Cancer in Houston During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” JCO Oncology Practice, 7 Oct. 2020, https:// ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/OP.20.00572.

8.

Kaufman, Harvey, et al. “Changes in the Number of US Patients With Newly Identified Cancer Before and During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.” JAMA Network Open, 2020, https:// jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768946.

Chakraborty, Mainak, et al. “Caring for cancer patients in the Covid pandemic: choosing between the devil and deep sea.”

World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 22 Aug. 2020, https://wjso. biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12957-020-02002-7.

9.

Laughlin, Amy, et al. “Accelerating the Delivery of Cancer Care at Home During the Covid-19 Pandemic.” NEJM Catalyst, 7 July 2020, https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/cat.20.0258.

1.

Patt, Debra, et al. “Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Care: How the Pandemic Is Delaying Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment for American Seniors.” JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, 30 Nov. 2020, https:// ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/CCI.20.00134.

2.

McNulty, Rose. “Cancer Care Delays in COVID-19 Could Lead to Higher Morbidity and Mortality.” American Journal of Managed Care, 22 Oct. 2020, https://www.ajmc.com/view/cancer-care-delays-incovid-19-could-lead-to-higher-morbidity-mortality.

3.

4.

5.

Nguyen, Ryan, et al. “Telehealth Is Here to Stay: Opportunities and Challenges for Cancer Care.” OncologyLive, 29 Oct. 2020, https:// www.onclive.com/view/telehealth-is-here-to-stay-opportunitiesand-challenges-for-cancer-care.

10. “At-Home Cancer Care, Infusions Widespread Amid Pandemic.”

Clinical Oncology News, 14 Dec. 2020, https://www.clinicaloncology. com/Community-Oncology/Article/12-20/At-Home-Cancer-CareInfusions-Widespread-Amid-Pandemic-/61420.

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 43

By all of us working together, we can help end the HIV epidemic.

This is what inspires us to discover scientific advancements, with a goal of helping those affected by HIV live longer, healthier lives.

But it will take more than just medicine.

It takes all of us in the community doing our part to clear up the facts, correct misunderstandings, and erase the stigma that stands in the way of getting tested, knowing our status, and getting the care we need.

Working hand in hand, we can put HIV and its impact in the past.

So that someday HIV is no more.

GileadHIV.com @gileadhivus @GileadHIVUS

WHAT WE LIVE FOR, GILEAD, and the GILEAD Logo are trademarks of Gilead Sciences, Inc. © 2021 Gilead Sciences, Inc. All rights reserved. UNBC8308 06/21

PI PE LI N E D RU G LIST

PIPELINE DRUG LIST

Name

Manufacturer

Clinical Use

Dosage Form

Approval Status

Expected FDA Approval

coagulation factor VIIa (recombinant)-jncw (SEVENFACT®)

Hema Pharmaceuticals

hemophilia A and B (prevention of bleeding related to surgery or invasive procedure)

IV

sBLA

mid-2021

15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine

Merck

invasive pneumococcal disease

IM

BLA; breakthrough therapy; priority review

07/16/2021

narsoplimab

Omeros

HSCT-associated thrombotic microangiopathy

IV

BLA; breakthrough therapy; orphan drug; priority review

07/16/2021

odevixibat

Albireo Pharma

progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasisrelated pruritus

oral

NDA; fast-track; orphan drug; priority review; rare pediatric disease

07/20/2021

retifanlimab

Incyte

anal cancer (squamous cell, locally advanced/ metastatic, failed on/ intolerant to platinumbased chemotherapy)

IV

BLA; orphan drug; priority review

07/23/2021

sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid

Iterum Therapeutics

uncomplicated UTI (quinolone-resistant)

oral

NDA; fast-track; priority review; QIDP

07/23/2021

tenapanor (IBSRELA®)

Ardelyx

hyperphosphatemia

oral

sNDA

07/29/2021

selexipag (UPTRAVI®)

Janssen Pharmaceuticals

PAH (as temporary alternative to oral formulation)

IV

sNDA; orphan drug

07/30/2021

levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine device (Mirena®)

Bayer

contraception duration up to 6 years

IU

sNDA

July 2021

abrocitinib

Pfizer

atopic dermatitis (moderate-severe)

oral

NDA; breakthrough therapy; priority review

July-August 2021

baricitinib (Olumiant®)

Eli Lilly and Company

atopic dermatitis (moderate-severe)

oral

sNDA

July-August 2021

mepolizumab (NUCALA)

GlaxoSmithKline

nasal polyposis

SQ

sBLA

July-August 2021

tofacitinib (Xeljanz®/Xeljanz XR®)

Pfizer

ankylosing spondylitis

oral

sNDA

July-August 2021

upadacitinib (RINVOQ™)

AbbVie

atopic dermatitis (moderate-severe, ages >12 years)

oral

sNDA; breakthrough therapy

July-August 2021

tick-borne encephalitis vaccine

Pfizer

tick-borne encephalitis

IM

BLA; priority review; rare pediatric disease

August 2021

treosulfan

Medac

allogeneic-HSCT conditioning

IV; oral

NDA; orphan drug

August 2021

tretinoin/benzoyl peroxide

Sol-Gel

acne vulgaris

topical

505(b)(2) NDA

08/01/2021

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 45

PI PE LI N E D RU G LIST

PIPELINE DRUG LIST CONT.

Name

Manufacturer

Clinical Use

Dosage Form

Approval Status

Expected FDA Approval

topiramate oral solution

Azurity Pharmaceuticals

partial seizures

oral

505(b)(2) NDA

08/06/2021

sodium oxybate (XYWAV™)

Jazz Pharmaceuticals

idiopathic hypersomnia

oral

sNDA; fast-track; orphan drug; priority review

08/12/2021

Amgen

NSCLC (KRAS G12 mutation, locally advanced/metastatic, >1 prior systemic therapy)

oral

sNDA: breakthrough therapy; fast-track; orphan drug; priority review; RTOR

08/16/2021

enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (PADCEV™)

Astellas Pharma

bladder cancer (locally advanced/metastatic, after PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy, cisplatin ineligible)

IV

sBLA; priority review; Project Orbis; RTOR

08/17/2021

avalglucosidase alfa

Sanofi

Pompe disease

IV

BLA; breakthrough therapy; fast-track; orphan drug; priority review

08/18/2021

oportuzumab monatox

Sesen Bio

bladder cancer (BCG-unresponsive, nonmuscle-invasive)

intravesical

BLA; fast-track; priority review

08/18/2021

dextromethorphan/bupropion

Axsome Therapeutics

MDD

oral

505(b)(2) NDA; breakthrough therapy; fasttrack; priority review

08/20/2021

difelikefalin

Cara Therapeutics

pruritus (hemodialysisrelated)

IV

NDA; breakthrough therapy; priority review

08/23/2021

lenvatinib (LENVIMA®)

Eisai

RCC first line, in combination with pembrolizumab)

oral

sNDA; breakthrough therapy; priority review

08/25/2021

pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®)

Merck

RCC first line, in combination with lenvatinib)

IV

sBLA; breakthrough therapy; priority review

08/25/2021

rivaroxaban (XARELTO®)

Janssen Pharmaceuticals

peripheral arterial disease (post-recent lower-extremity revascularization)

oral

sNDA

08/26/2021

belumosudil

Kadmon

GVHD (chronic)

oral

NDA; breakthrough therapy; orphan drug; priority review; Project Orbis; RTOR

08/30/2021

adalimumab (biosimilar to HUMIRA®)

Alvotech

RA; AS; PsO; PsA; JIA; CD; UC

SQ

BLA

September 2021

ivosidenib (TIBSOVO®)

Les Laboratoires Servier

biliary tract cancer (previously treated, IDH1 mutated)

oral

sNDA; fast track; orphan drug; priority review

09/01/2021

paliperidone palmitate 6-month injectable

Janssen Pharmaceuticals

schizophrenia

IM

NDA

09/02/2021

Lenvatinib (LENVIMA®)

Eisai

endometrial carcinoma (advanced, in combination with pembrolizumab)

oral

sNDA; breakthrough therapy; priority review

09/03/2021

sotorasib (LUMAKRAS™)

46 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

PI PE LI N E D RU G LIST

PIPELINE DRUG LIST CONT.

Name

Manufacturer

Clinical Use

Dosage Form

Approval Status

Expected FDA Approval

nivolumab (OPDIVO®)

Bristol Myers Squibb

bladder cancer (adjuvant, high-risk muscle-invasive)

IV

sBLA; breakthrough therapy; priority review

09/03/2021

pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®)

Merck

endometrial carcinoma (advanced, in combination with lenvatinib)

IV

sBLA; breakthrough therapy; priority review

09/03/2021

dihydroergotamine mesylate

Impel NeuroPharma

migraine

intranasal

505(b)(2) NDA

09/06/2021

pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®)

Merck

squamous cell carcinoma (locally advanced)

IV

sBLA

09/09/2021

daratumumab hyaluronidase fihj (Darzalex Faspro™)

Janssen Pharmaceuticals

multiple myeloma (relapsed/refractory, in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone)

SQ

sBLA

09/10/2021

belzutifan

Merck

RCC

oral

NDA; breakthrough therapy; orphan drug; priority review

09/15/2021

budesonide (long-acting)

Calliditas Therapeutics

IgA nephropathy (Berger’s disease)

oral

505(b)(2) NDA; seeking accelerated approval; orphan drug; priority review

09/15/2021

risperidone long-acting in situ microparticle

Rovi

schizophrenia

IM

505(b)(2) NDA

09/24/2021

udenafil

Dong-A Socio Holdings

single-ventricle heart defects (post-Fontan operation)

oral

NDA; orphan drug

09/29/2021

reltecimod

Atox Bio

NSTI-related organ dysfunction/failure (ages >12 years)

IV

NDA; seeking accelerated approval; fast-track; orphan drug

09/30/2021

ranibizumab (biosimilar Lucentis®)

Biogen/Samsung

wet AMD

intravitreal

BLA

SeptemberOctober 2021

maralixibat

Mirum Pharmaceuticals

Alagille syndrome

oral

NDA; breakthrough therapy; orphan drug; priority review; rare pediatric disease

10/01/2021

RVT-802 (cultured human thymus tissue)

Enzyvant

DiGeorge syndrome (congenital athymia)

-

BLA; breakthrough therapy; orphan drug; RMAT

10/08/2021

tisotumab vedotin

Seagen

cervical cancer (recurrent, metastatic)

IV

BLA; seeking accelerated approval; priority review

10/08/2021

sodium oxybate

Avadel Pharmaceuticals

narcolepsy-related excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy

oral

505(b)(2) NDA; orphan drug

10/15/2021

varenicline

Oyster Point Pharma

dry-eye syndrome

intranasal

505(b)(2) NDA

10/18/2021

Visit us online at magellanrx.com/mrxreport | 47

PI PE LI N E D RU G LIST

PIPELINE DRUG LIST CONT.

Name

Manufacturer

Clinical Use

Dosage Form

Approval Status

Expected FDA Approval

zanubrutinib (BRUKINSA®)

BeiGene

Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia

oral

sNDA; fast-track; orphan drug; priority review

10/18/2021

dupilumab (DUPIXENT®)

Sanofi

asthma (moderatesevere, adjunct, ages 6-11 years)

SQ

sBLA

10/21/2021

mobocertinib

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company

NSCLC

oral

NDA; breakthrough therapy; orphan drug; priority review

10/26/2021

phenylephrine/tropicamide

Eyenovia

pharmacologic mydriasis

ophthalmic

505(b)(2) NDA

10/29/2021

testosterone undecanoate

Marius Pharmaceuticals

hypogonadism

oral

505(b)(2) NDA

10/29/2021

andexanet alfa (Andexxa®)

Alexion Pharmaceuticals

acute intracranial hemorrhage while taking an oral Factor Xa inhibitor, including edoxaban and enoxaparin

IV

sBLA; breakthrough therapy; orphan drug

October 2021

dexamethasone insert (DEXTENZA®)

Ocular Therapeutix

allergic conjunctivitis

intraocular

sNDA

October 2021

somatrogon

Pfizer OPKO Health

growth hormone deficiency pediatrics

SQ

BLA; orphan drug

October 2021

tacrolimus (PROGRAF®)

Astellas Pharma

lung transplant rejection prevention

IV; oral

sNDA

October 2021

SH-111

Shorla Pharma

T-cell leukemia (adult)

N/A

NDA; priority review

OctoberNovember 2021

abemaciclib (Verzenio®)

Eli Lilly and Company

breast cancer (highrisk HR+, HER2-, early disease)

oral

sNDA

OctoberDecember 2021

Janssen Pharmaceuticals

NSCLC (EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy)

IV

BLA; breakthrough therapy

OctoberDecember 2021

amivantamab

AMD = age-related macular degeneration; ANCA = antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; AS = ankylosing spondylitis; BCG = Bacillus Calmette-Guerin; BLA = biologics license application; CD = Crohn’s disease; GVHD = graft versus host disease; HSCT = hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; IDH1 = isocitrate dehydrogenase 1; IgA = immunoglobulin A; IM = intramuscular; IU = intrauterine; IV = intravenous; JIA = juvenile idiopathic arthritis; MDD = major depressive disorder; NDA = new drug application; NSCLC = non-small cell lung cancer; NSTI = necrotizing soft-tissue infections; PAH = pulmonary arterial hypertension; PsA = psoriatic arthritis; PsO = psoriasis; RA = rheumatoid arthritis; RCC = renal cell carcinoma; sBLA = supplemental biologics license application; sNDA = supplemental new drug application; SQ = subcutaneous; T1DM = Type 1 diabetes mellitus; UC = ulcerative colitis; UTI = urinary tract infection This information is up to date as of July 9, 2021.

48 | Magellan Rx Report | Summer 2021

Advancing the Limits.

Targeting ALS. Actor portrayal.

We are taking on the challenges of complex and debilitating conditions and are committed to meeting the needs of people suffering from serious and often life-threatening illnesses.

Today, MTPC group companies are focused on driving scienti c discovery in many areas, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

The corporate symbol of Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America is a registered trademark of Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation.

For US audiences only.

Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, Inc. 525 Washington Boulevard, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 © 2021 Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, Inc. All rights reserved.

CP-RC-US-1493 03/21