Search

Introduction: This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baloxavir marboxil compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment from a US payer perspective using data from a real-world US administrative claims study. Given baloxavir's ability to rapidly stop viral shedding, the potential health economic implications of a baloxavir-induced population-level reduction in viral transmission was also explored. Methods: A decision tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for seasonal influenza (2018–2020) using a lifetime time horizon with 3.0% discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients aged ≥ 12 years could receive baloxavir, oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. Patient characteristics, complications, and costs were derived from the Merative™ MarketScan® Research Databases including US commercial claims and Medicare and Medicaid Supplemental databases. A scenario analysis explored the impact of reduced viral transmission with baloxavir. Results: In the base case analysis, baloxavir was cost-effective within a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/QALY compared with oseltamivir [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), $6813/QALY gained] or no antiviral treatment (ICER, $669/QALY gained). The net monetary benefit (NMB) of baloxavir was $1180 and $6208 compared with oseltamivir and no treatment, respectively. The NMB of baloxavir increased linearly with reductions in viral transmission, where a 5% transmission reduction yielded an NMB of $2592 versus oseltamivir and $7621 versus no treatment. Baloxavir became dominant (more effective and less costly, with ICERs < 0) starting with a 12.0% reduction in viral transmission versus oseltamivir and 6.0% versus no antiviral treatment. Conclusion: Baloxavir was cost-effective compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. The potential of baloxavir to reduce viral transmission offers a substantial economic benefit from a US payer perspective. Plain Language Summary: Baloxavir is a prescription medicine that reduces the duration of flu symptoms and reduces the likelihood of complications from the flu, including serious complications that may require hospitalization. Baloxavir may reduce the spread of the flu to healthy people by reducing the amount and duration of virus shedding from infected people. We designed a model to estimate the cost benefits of using baloxavir versus another flu treatment, known as oseltamivir, or no flu treatment at all. Using baloxavir led to more cost savings than oseltamivir or no treatment for people in the US who have commercial health insurance. Baloxavir was even more cost-effective in the scenario where it reduced the number of flu cases (transmission benefit). This could ultimately have a meaningful benefit across a large health insurance population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Subgroup analyses of the NAPOLI‐1 study identified that among patients who were irinotecan naïve prior to entering the clinical trial, a survival benefit was observed between the study arm and control arm. This treatment benefit was not observed among those previously exposed to irinotecan. This study sought to understand the impact of prior exposure to irinotecan on clinical outcomes among patients treated with liposomal irinotecan in the real‐world setting. Methods: This retrospective observational study utilized a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)‐derived deidentified database. Data for adult patients with mPDAC treated with liposomal irinotecan‐based regimens between January 2016 and October 2020 were analyzed. Patient characteristics, overall survival (OS), and progression‐free survival (PFS) were assessed. Cox proportional hazard methods were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). HRs were adjusted for demographics and relevant clinical covariates. Results: Six hundred and seventy‐five patients with mPDAC treated with a liposomal irinotecan‐based regimen were included. The unadjusted OS HR was 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1–1.6, p < 0.001) and unadjusted PFS was HR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.2–1.7, p < 0.001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the adjusted OS HR was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.8–1.3, p = 0.8836) and the adjusted PFS HR was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8–1.4, p = 0.5626). Conclusions: Prior irinotecan was not found to be a significant predictor of patient outcomes in those later treated with liposomal irinotecan. Thus, the results may inform the rationale for utilizing liposomal irinotecan combination therapy following prior irinotecan exposure in mPDAC, in particular where the prior irinotecan exposure was more distant in time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-related adverse events (AEs) can negatively impact the care of patients. The prevention and management of AEs often require additional medications. This study evaluated the percentages of patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) undergoing second-line therapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens that experienced AEs during treatment and received medication to manage those AEs. We conducted a retrospective observational analysis utilizing the Flatiron Health database of adult patients with mPDAC who started second-line therapy between January 2016 and August 2020. The occurrence of diarrhea, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, neuropathy, and hematologic AEs including G3/G4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia was assessed. The use of concomitant medications including atropine and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was assessed. Of the 825 eligible patients, 29.0% (n = 239) received FOLFIRINOX, 24.0% (n = 198) received FOLFOX, 6.8% (n = 56) received FOLFIRI, and 40.2% (n = 332) received liposomal irinotecan-based regimens. FOLFIRI and FOLFIRINOX regimens were associated with the highest rates of anemia (16.1% and 15.5%), neutropenia (19.6% and 22.6%), and thrombocytopenia (14.3% and 9.6%). The liposomal irinotecan and FOLFOX regimens were associated with lower rates of anemia (11.8% and 12.1%), neutropenia (12.4% and 14.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.4% and 8.1%). G-CSF use was observed among 63.6%, 34.9%, 33.9%, and 44.9% of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Diarrhea was observed among 12.5%, 4.5%, 12.5%, and 10.2% of patients who were treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 14.9%, 12.6%, 10.5%, and 13.1% of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Atropine use was higher in patients treated with FOLFIRINOX and FOLFIRI (90.8% and 94.6%, respectively) than in patients treated with liposomal irinotecan-based regimens (75.6%). In patients with mPDAC who received second-line therapy, those who received liposomal irinotecan-based regimens had the lowest rates of anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia compared to FOLFIRI, FOLFIRINOX, and FOLFOX, while requiring a similar or lower level of medication to treat and manage those adverse events. Patients treated with FOLFIRI received the highest dose of pegfilgrastim to manage neutropenia. The results of this real-world analysis are consistent with prior evaluations of patients with mPDAC and highlight the importance of managing adverse events and associated cost implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: We explored patient front‐line treatment preferences in newly diagnosed stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). The CONNECT patient survey, administered online from 30 December 2020 to 1 March 2021, examined preferences overall and by age at diagnosis in 182 adult patients diagnosed with stage III/IV cHL within the past 10 years in the United States. At diagnosis, patients' median age was 36 years; 66% of patients were younger (aged 16–41 years) and 34% older (aged 42–85 years). When asked about initial treatment goals, 74% of patients ranked cure as their first or second goal (86% younger vs. 52% older patients; p < 0.001). At diagnosis, 72% of patients preferred aggressive treatment, and 85% were willing to accept more short‐term risks in exchange for a better‐working therapy long term. For long‐term risks, younger versus older patients were significantly more concerned about second cancers (p < 0.001) and fertility issues (p = 0.007), whereas older patients were more concerned about lung damage (p = 0.028) and infections (p < 0.001). Most patients (94%) reported having a caregiver at some point, but 99% of these patients retained some control of treatment decisions. Collectively, these survey results highlight patient treatment preferences and differences in treatment goals and long‐term side effect concerns based on patient age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Real‐world practice patterns, treatment sequencing, and outcomes in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer remain unclear. Previous research indicates that the likelihood of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving or continuing cancer‐directed therapy is low—a phenomenon called nihilism. This retrospective, descriptive analysis examined clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Methods: Treatment patterns were examined using electronic health records from the Flatiron Health database covering the period from January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2019. Real‐world overall survival [rwOS]) was compared for a subgroup of patients receiving treatment and a matched subgroup not receiving treatment. Results: Of 7666 patients, 5687 (74.2%) received at least one line of systemic therapy. A greater proportion of patients receiving treatment than not receiving treatment had an initial diagnosis of stage IV disease (68.8% vs 61.2%, respectively). Among patients receiving an initial therapy, fewer than half (38.2%; 2174/5687) received second‐line treatment, mostly because they died, and only 34.3% (745/2174) of those receiving second‐line treatment advanced to third‐line treatment. The rwOS for patients receiving at least one line of systemic therapy was 8.1 months versus 2.6 months for matched patients not receiving treatment (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.38‐0.45; 1470 patients per group). Conclusions: Systemic therapy provided significant clinical benefit for patients who were eligible and chose to receive it, particularly when treatment was consistent with guideline recommendations. The large proportion of patients initiating treatment suggests that nihilism with mPDAC is diminishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: As part of the CONNECT study, we evaluated the caregiver role in treatment decision-making when caring for patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the USA. Methods: The CONNECT caregiver survey was administered online December 2020–March 2021 to self-identified adult caregivers of cHL patients recruited from patient referrals and online panels. The caregiver’s role in treatment decision-making, health-related quality of life (HRQoL, PROMIS-Global), and work impacts (WPAI:CG) were assessed. Results: We surveyed 209 caregivers (58% women; median age 47 years; 54% employed; 53% spouse/partner); 69% of patients cared for were diagnosed with cHL in the past 1–2 years, with 48% having stage III/IV cHL and 29% in remission. More spouse/partner than other caregivers were involved in caregiving at symptom onset (61% vs 27%), whereas more other than spouse/partner caregivers began after first treatment (34% vs 5%). Cure, caregivers’ top treatment goal (49%), was rated higher by spouse/partner than other caregivers (56% vs 42%). More spouse/partner than other caregivers were involved in treatment option discussions with physicians (52% vs 28%), were involved in patients’ treatment decisions (54% vs 23%), and were aligned with patients’ treatment goals (93% vs 79%). While caregivers reported HRQoL similar to that of the general population, nearly 30% of employed caregivers reported work impairment. Conclusion: Cure was caregivers’ top treatment goal. Spouse/partner vs other caregivers were more involved, were involved earlier, and reported greater alignment with patient treatment goals and decision-making. Caregivers reported good HRQoL; however, caregiving impacted work productivity regardless of patient relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: As part of the CONNECT study, we evaluated the caregiver role in treatment decision-making when caring for patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the USA. Methods: The CONNECT caregiver survey was administered online December 2020–March 2021 to self-identified adult caregivers of cHL patients recruited from patient referrals and online panels. The caregiver's role in treatment decision-making, health-related quality of life (HRQoL, PROMIS-Global), and work impacts (WPAI:CG) were assessed. Results: We surveyed 209 caregivers (58% women; median age 47 years; 54% employed; 53% spouse/partner); 69% of patients cared for were diagnosed with cHL in the past 1–2 years, with 48% having stage III/IV cHL and 29% in remission. More spouse/partner than other caregivers were involved in caregiving at symptom onset (61% vs 27%), whereas more other than spouse/partner caregivers began after first treatment (34% vs 5%). Cure, caregivers' top treatment goal (49%), was rated higher by spouse/partner than other caregivers (56% vs 42%). More spouse/partner than other caregivers were involved in treatment option discussions with physicians (52% vs 28%), were involved in patients' treatment decisions (54% vs 23%), and were aligned with patients' treatment goals (93% vs 79%). While caregivers reported HRQoL similar to that of the general population, nearly 30% of employed caregivers reported work impairment. Conclusion: Cure was caregivers' top treatment goal. Spouse/partner vs other caregivers were more involved, were involved earlier, and reported greater alignment with patient treatment goals and decision-making. Caregivers reported good HRQoL; however, caregiving impacted work productivity regardless of patient relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cervical cancer (CC) disproportionately affects women based on socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic background. There is limited research in quantifying and visualizing whether substantial geographical disparities in the US exist with respect to CC burden, and especially with respect to recurrent or metastatic CC (r/mCC) disease burden. Identifying regions with higher r/mCC burden may help inform effective healthcare resource allocation and navigating patients to appropriate care. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the 2015–2020 MarketScan® Commercial and Supplemental Medicare claims data; r/mCC burden was estimated as the number of patients initiating r/mCC systemic therapy over CC-diagnosed patients for each of the 410 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) considered. We developed a public, web-based tool, the Cervical Cancer Geographical Disease Burden Analyzer (Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer, http://www.geo-analyzer.org), that allows users to visualize r/mCC burden across MSAs over multiple years. There was considerable variation in r/mCC burden across MSAs, with a range of 0–83.3%. Burden increased in Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA (r/mCC to CC ratio: 41% in 2018 to 50% in 2020), and Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA (33% in 2018 to 50% in 2020). On the other hand, while r/mCC burden remained high, it decreased in Grand Rapids, MI (55% in 2018 to 31% in 2020) and San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (40% in 2018 to 26% in 2020). There were regions with sparse or no data, suggesting a need for more representative data capture. The Cervical Geo-Analyzer is a tool to visualize areas with high need for CC interventions. It also builds the foundation for further work to understand local risk factors of disease burden, identify populations of interest, characterize health disparities of CC or r/mCC and inform targeted interventions. • There is variation in the geographic distribution of recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer burden. • The online, interactive Cervical Geo-Analyzer identifies regions with high disease burden and could inform interventions. • More studies are needed to clarify local risk factors for disease burden and local health disparities in cervical cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Cancer-of-unknown-primary-origin (CUP) is challenging to diagnose and treat, and little is known about its diagnostic work-up, treatment, and outcomes in routine healthcare. We examined data from elderly patients (at least 66 years old) diagnosed with CUP in real-world US clinical practice, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare-linked database. Only half of elderly patients with CUP received all three diagnostic work-up procedures (biopsy, immunohistochemistry, and imaging), as recommended by guidelines. Patients who received all three diagnostic work-up procedures were more likely to receive any type of anticancer treatment, and patients who did not receive full diagnostic work-up had shorter median overall survival, particularly with increasing age. Overall, these results suggest that further studies are needed to understand why many patients given a diagnosis of CUP do not receive complete diagnostic work-up or treatment. Further research into improving diagnostic work-up and treatment effectiveness in patients diagnosed with CUP is required. Knowledge of contemporary patterns of cancer-of-unknown-primary-origin (CUP) diagnostic work-up, treatment, and outcomes in routine healthcare is limited. Thus, we examined data from elderly patients diagnosed with CUP in real-world US clinical practice. From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare-linked database, we included patients ≥ 66 years old with CUP diagnosed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. We analyzed baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, methods of diagnostic work-up (biopsy, immunohistochemistry, imaging), treatment-related factors, and survival. CUP diagnosis was histologically confirmed in 2813/4562 patients (61.7%). Overall, 621/4562 (13.6%) patients received anticancer pharmacotherapy; among these, 97.3% had a histologically confirmed tumor and 83.1% received all three procedures. Among those with a histologically confirmed tumor, increasing age, increasing comorbidity score, not receiving all three diagnostic measures, and having a not-further specified histologic finding of only 'malignant neoplasm' were all negatively associated with receipt of anticancer pharmacotherapy. Median overall survival was 1.2 months for all patients. Median time between CUP diagnosis and treatment initiation was 41 days. Limited diagnostic work-up was common and most patients did not receive anticancer pharmacotherapy. The poor outcomes highlight a substantial unmet need for further research into improving diagnostic work-up and treatment effectiveness in CUP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current treatments for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) do not offer satisfactory clinical benefits, with most patients progressing beyond first-line (1L) treatment. With new treatments under investigation, understanding current treatment patterns, the impact of newly approved therapies, and total costs of care for r/mCC are important. A retrospective analysis of a US commercial insurance claims database to identify adult patients with r/mCC between 2015 and Q1–2020; defining 1L treatment as the first administration of systemic treatment without concomitant chemoradiation or surgery. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, duration of therapy, and total costs of care were evaluated for each line of therapy. 1323 women initiated 1L treatment for r/mCC (mean age, 56.1 years; mean follow-up, 16.5 months). One-third (n = 438) had evidence of second-line (2L) treatment; of these, 129 (29%) had evidence of third-line (3L) treatment. No regimen represented a majority among 2L+ treatments. The 2018 approval of pembrolizumab led to increased 2L immunotherapy use (0% in 2015, 37% in 2019/Q1–2020). However, only a small proportion of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period. Mean per-patient-per-month total costs of care during treatment were $47,387 (1L), $77,661 (2L), and $53,609 (3L), driven primarily by outpatient costs. No clear standard of care was observed in 2L+. Although immunotherapy is increasingly used in 2L+, only a small subset of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period, suggesting a need for more therapeutic options. Better understanding of disease biology and the introduction of new therapies may address these unmet needs. • There is no clear standard of care observed in 2L+ r/mCC. • Immunotherapy use in 2L increased from 0% in 2015 to 37% in Q1 2020. • However, only a small proportion stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period. • Average costs per patient per month across lines ranged from $47,000 to $77,000. • Therapeutic options with differentiated modalities are needed for 2L+ patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many real-world studies of patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) are restricted to single centers, limiting the generalizability of their insights. This study aimed to identify important population-based predictors for survival in patients diagnosed with mPDAC in a broader setting. Methods: Data between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2019 were extracted from the Flatiron Health EHR database. Treatment-specific predictive models were generated for patients treated with first-line gemcitabine+nabpaclitaxel (GNP), FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine monotherapy (gem-mono), and second-line liposomal irinotecan-based regimens. The holdout method was used for cross-validation. Age at diagnosis, sex, BMI, smoking status, and ECOG performance score were included in all models with additional demographic, clinical characteristics, and hematological function assessed for inclusion. Results: Of the 3625 patients, 43% received GNP, 26% received FOLFIRINOX, 7% received gem-mono, and 23% received other regimens; 40% (n = 1448) advanced to the second line. Among all first-line patients, the following were included in the final model: prior surgery, white blood cell (WBC) counts, serum albumin (SA), liver function tests (LFTs), serum bilirubin, serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9, and ascites. Models for patients receiving specific therapies differed from the overall model, GNP (ascites removed), FOLFIRINOX (stage at initial diagnosis added), and gem-mono (LFTs omitted). Alkaline phosphatase (ALP), SA, and WBC counts were important predictors of survival among patients treated with second-line liposomal irinotecan. Across all regimens, the strongest predictors of survival were ECOG score, SA, and ALP. Conclusions: In this real-world study of patients with mPDAC, important population prognostic factors of survival were identified in a large cohort of patients receiving systemic treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment options have evolved rapidly, but how new agents are incorporated into treatment decisions in current practice is not well understood. This study examined prescribing trends of physicians treating newly diagnosed MM and treatment outcomes in the United States. Electronic health record data from 6271 adult patients diagnosed with MM and receiving initial treatment between 1 January 2011 and 31 January 2020 were derived from the Flatiron Health electronic‐health record de‐identified database. The number/types of agents included in therapy regimens, time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Subgroups were analyzed by the International Staging System (ISS) disease stage at diagnosis, stem cell transplant eligibility and timing, and practice type. Exploratory prognostic models evaluated the association between baseline covariates and time‐to‐event outcomes. The proportion of patients receiving triplet therapies increased from 2011 (36%) to 2019 (72%) as those receiving initial monotherapy or doublet therapy decreased. Overall, the most prevalent triplet regimen consisted of an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), a proteasome inhibitor, and a steroid. From 2017 to 2019, median TTNT from front‐line to second‐line was longer in patients with ISS stage I versus stages II/III, and in those receiving IMiD‐containing doublet or triplet therapies versus other combinations. Overall median OS was 56 months and increased from 2011 to 2014, after which median OS was not yet reached. Age, ISS stage, and high‐risk status were prognostic for both OS and TTNT, while sex, practice type, and ECOG status were prognostic for OS only. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) metastasis is common in advanced melanoma patients. New treatment options have improved overall prognosis, but information is lacking for patients with CNS metastases. We investigated treatment patterns and survival outcomes in older melanoma patients with and without CNS metastases. Methods: A retrospective analysis of SEER‐Medicare, a population‐based linked database, was undertaken in patients aged > 65 years with advanced melanoma diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 and followed until 2013. Results: A total of 2522 patients were included. CNS metastases were present in 24.8% of patients at initial metastatic diagnosis; 16.5% developed CNS metastases during follow‐up. Chemotherapy was the most common treatment regardless of CNS metastases. Overall survival (OS) was better for patients without CNS metastases (median, 9.5 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8‐10.2) vs patients with CNS metastases (3.63 months; 95% CI, 3.4‐3.9). Among patients with CNS metastases, median OS for targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy was 6 (95% CI, 2.5‐9.6), 5.5 (95% CI, 3.8‐7.5), and 4.5 (95% CI, 3.8‐5.4) months, respectively, vs 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1‐2.7) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8‐2.7) months for local radiotherapy and no treatment, respectively. Stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated higher OS vs whole‐brain radiation therapy (median, 4.98 [95% CI, 3.5‐7.5] vs 2.4 [95% CI, 2.1‐2.7] months). Conclusion: Patients with CNS metastases from melanoma remain a population with high unmet medical need despite recent advances in treatment. Systemic treatments (eg, BRAF‐targeted therapy and immunotherapy) and stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated meaningful but modest improvements in OS. Further explorations of combinations of radiotherapy, BRAF‐targeted therapies, and immunotherapies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transfusion dependence (TD) among myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients negatively impacts survival and health-related quality of life. We evaluated cost patterns of MDS care during TD and transfusion independence (TI). MDS patients were identified from a US claims database (2008–2013). TD was defined as ≥2 consecutive 8-week periods with ≥1 claim during each, and no interim 56-day period without transfusion; TI as 8 subsequent transfusion-free weeks; and transfusion frequency as the mean interval between transfusions during the TD period. 13,741 patients were included; 19% were TD and 70% had a mean interval between transfusions of ≤28 days. During a 2-year period, TD patients incurred a mean total cost of $17,815/patient-month; 53% higher for those with ≤28 days ($19,498) vs. >28 days ($12,717) between transfusions. Among patients who achieved TI, mean total cost was $7874/patient-month. For TD-MDS patients, cost increases are proportional to transfusion frequency and achieving TI yields economic benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies have addressed the cost patterns of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) before and after first relapse. This US claims analysis evaluated, from a US health plan perspective, patterns of total direct costs of care from treatment initiation to progression for patients with MM treated with novel agents, using time to next therapy (TTNT) as a proxy measure for progression. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using a large US claims database, evaluating patients with claims for MM between 2006 and 2013. Patients with claims for stem cell transplant (SCT) were excluded. The analysis focused on patients receiving lenalidomide (LEN) or bortezomib (BORT) based treatment, for whom complete claim history was available through initiation of subsequent treatment. Average patient monthly direct costs were determined, including medical and pharmacy costs, and total cost patterns over quarterly time periods were calculated. Results: The study population comprised 2843 patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and 1361 with relapsed MM. Total monthly cost for patients with NDMM declined steadily, from $15,734 initially to $5082 at 18+ months after therapy. Upon initiation of second-line therapy, total monthly costs rose to $13,876 and declined to $6446 18 months later. Although NDMM cost levels for individual ordinal months were similar between the LEN and BORT groups, TTNT was longer for LEN-based treatments (37 months). The BORTtreated cohort had higher average monthly total costs for NDMM and for the common time period through 37 months after initiation of therapy ($7534 vs $10,763 for LEN and BORT, respectively). Key limitations of this study, in addition to the lack of mortality and staging information available from claims data, include the definition of TTNT based on change in treatment or a defined gap in therapy prior to retreatment, which may differ from actual time of progression in some patients. Conclusions: For patients with NDMM receiving either LEN- or BORT-based treatment without SCT, followed until TTNT, total direct monthly costs (drug+medical) declined steadily over time. Monthly costs returned to near initial levels when patients began second-line therapy and then followed a similar pattern of decline. Due to the longer TTNT for patients initiated on LEN and the associated longer period of below-average costs, patients initiated with LEN-based treatments had mean monthly total costs4$3200 lower than total costs for patients initiated on BORT during the first 3 years after starting treatment, cumulating to nearly $120,000 in lower costs for patients initiated on LEN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that often leads to severe disability. Patients with highly active NMOSD have approximately a 10-times higher hospital inpatient admission rate compared with patients without NMOSD. Accurate assessments of the impact of NMOSD treatments on the burdens of illness require quantitative metrics of these burdens, including costs of care. This study evaluated claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases between 2014 and 2018. Patients were included based on inpatient or outpatient claims meeting criteria defined for NMOSD. Non-NMOSD controls were matched 5:1 to patients with NMOSD. Total costs of healthcare services in consumer price index–adjusted 2019 US dollars during the 1-year postindex follow-up period were calculated for patients and controls. Patients with NMOSD required more healthcare services and incurred significantly greater costs for inpatient hospitalizations (annual mean [SD] cost: $29,054 [$144,872] vs controls $1521 [$10,759]), outpatient services ($24,881 [$35,463] vs $4761 [$26,447]), and emergency department (ED) visits ($2400 [$7771] vs $408 [$2579]). Almost 12% of patients with NMOSD were further burdened with plasma exchange or intravenous immunoglobulin G treatments, costing an annual median (interquartile range) of $1684 ($566–$3817) and $24,353 ($5425–$42,975), respectively. Compared with controls, patients with NMOSD had significantly higher costs associated with hospitalizations, ED visits, and prescriptions. These results highlight the considerable economic burden of NMOSD, which may be favorably impacted by disease-modifying therapies that are regulatory-approved to be safe and effective. • Healthcare costs are part of the overall disease burden in NMOSD • Patients incurred significant healthcare costs from managing and treating NMOSD • Patients incurred significant costs from certain acute treatments for NMOSD • NMOSD healthcare cost burdens are important in evaluating the impact of therapies [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is associated with various comorbidities, including non-autoimmune and autoimmune conditions. The burden and cost of illness for NMOSD are unclear, particularly in the context of comorbidities. Claims data from IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases between 2014 and 2018 were analyzed. Patients with NMOSD were specified as having inpatient or outpatient claims for NMOSD diagnosis or specific NMOSD symptoms claims and no subsequent claims for multiple sclerosis (MS) or use of MS disease-modifying therapy (DMT). Continuous enrollment ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 1 year after the first claim (index date) was required for study inclusion. Total costs stratified by comorbidities within 12 months post-index date were calculated per patient and compared 1:5 with matched non-NMOSD controls. A total of 162 patients with NMOSD and 810 non-NMOSD controls were evaluated. A significantly higher proportion of NMOSD patients had comorbidities than non-NMOSD controls (66.7% vs 41.5%; P < 0.001). Concomitant autoimmune disease occurred in 19.1% vs 4.9% (P < 0.001) of patients with NMOSD vs non-NMOSD controls. NMOSD patients incurred significantly higher total median (interquartile range) healthcare costs per patient ($68,386.48 [$23,373.54–$160,862.70]) than matched non-NMOSD controls with autoimmune disease ($17,215.13 [$6715.48–$31,441.93]; P < 0.001) or patients with NMOSD without autoimmune comorbidity ($23,905.42 [$8632.82–$67,251.54]; P = 0.022). Similarly, patients with NMOSD and non-autoimmune comorbidities incurred higher median healthcare costs than matched controls. Patients with NMOSD experience significant disease burden and cost that are amplified by comorbidities. Effective therapies are needed, particularly for patients with concomitant autoimmune disease. • This study examined the comorbidity burden and cost of illness of NMOSD patients. • More patients with NMOSD had a comorbidity compared with matched non-NMOSD controls. • NMOSD patients with autoimmune disease (AID) had higher COI vs those with no AID. • Effective therapies are needed for patients with NMOSD and autoimmune diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is no current standard of care for patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection or for those who cannot receive or decline cisplatin-based perioperative chemotherapy. Understanding current, real-world treatment patterns may help inform decisions from clinical, research, and population health management perspectives. We examined real-world treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and prognostic factors among Medicare beneficiaries with high-risk MIUC who did not receive adjuvant treatment after surgical resection.Methods: We identified patients with high-risk MIUC in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database who underwent surgical resection (radical cystectomy and/or radical nephroureterectomy). Eligible patients had indicators of high-risk MIUC and surgical resection between 2001 and 2013. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including comorbidities, American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) stage, tumor stage/grade and nodal status, and distribution of neoadjuvant treatment by the year of surgical resection were evaluated. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed for the full cohort and by subgroups using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate patient demographics and clinical characteristics associated with OS and DFS.Results: A total of 665 patients were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 75.5 years; most were men (61%) and had AJCC stage IIIA disease (69%). Neoadjuvant treatment increased over the entire study period, both overall (from 12% to 46%) and cisplatin based (from 5% to 38%). Median OS for the entire cohort was 23.1 months (95% confidence interval: 18, 27); median DFS was 13.5 months (95% confidence interval: 11.3, 16.8). AJCC stage IIIB/IVA was the most significant predictor of poor prognosis for both OS and DFS, followed by non-white race and comorbidity burden.Conclusion: The prognosis for high-risk patients with MIUC remains poor, with significant risk of mortality within 2 years of radical cystectomy despite increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment. Unmet treatment needs persist for this difficult-to-treat patient population despite the increasing use of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), tyrosine kinase (TK) and mechanistic target of rapamycin kinase (mTOR) inhibitors are common first-line (1 L) treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Despite treatment availability, the 5-year survival rate in patients diagnosed at the metastatic stage is only ≈ 10%. To gain contemporary insights into RCC treatment trends that may inform clinical, scientific and payer considerations, treatment patterns and adverse events (AEs) associated with 1 L therapy were examined in a retrospective, longitudinal, population-based, observational study of patients with mRCC.Methods: US administrative claims data (Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Databases) were used to assess trends in 1 L treatment initiation in mRCC (2006-2015) and characterize patterns of individual 1 L treatments, baseline characteristics, comorbidities and treatment-related AEs from 2011 through 2015. Outcomes were evaluated by drug class and route of administration.Results: Ten-year trend analysis (n = 4270) showed that TK/VEGF-directed therapy rapidly became more common than mTOR-directed therapy, and oral treatments were favored over intravenous (IV) treatments. Overall, 1992 eligible patients initiated 1 L treatment for mRCC from 2011 through 2015: 1752 (88%) received TK/VEGF-directed agents and 233 (12%) received mTOR-directed agents; 1674 (84%) received oral treatments, and 318 (16%) received IV treatments. The most common 1 L treatment was sunitinib (n = 849), followed by pazopanib (n = 631), temsirolimus (n = 157) and bevacizumab (n = 154). Patient characteristics and comorbidities, including age, diabetes and congestive heart failure, were independent predictors of 1 L mRCC treatment choice. The three most common potentially 1 L treatment-related AEs were nausea/vomiting (128.2 per 100 patient-years [PY]), hypertension (69 per 100 PY) and renal insufficiency (44.6 per 100 PY). A wide variety of agents were used as second-line (2 L) therapy. Substantial latency of onset was observed for several potentially treatment-related toxicities in patients treated with TK/VEGF- or mTOR-directed agents.Conclusions: In the US, 1 L TK/VEGF inhibitor uptake in recent years appears largely in line with national approvals and guidelines, with varied 2 L agent use. Although retrospective evaluation of claims data cannot assess underlying causality, insights from these real-world RCC treatment and AE patterns will be useful in informing medical and payer decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]