Search

We assessed the real-world effectiveness of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors as first-line treatments in postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer, focusing on younger (<45 years) and older (>78 years) populations not considered in clinical trials. We analyzed nationwide claims data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service between November 2016 and February 2021. In this retrospective cohort study, patients using CDK4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors were selected and grouped by age as follows: 45–78 years (trial-enrolled), <45 years (younger), and >78 years (older). We estimated the median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meier method. We conducted Cox regression analysis using a sub-distribution hazard model to evaluate risk factors (age, history of prior systemic treatment, presence of metastasis, comorbidity index, and type of provider) and estimated hazard ratios (HR). Among the 2,830 patients who received CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line therapy, we identified 358 (12.65%) younger and 148 (5.23%) older underrepresented patients. The younger patient group (50.84%) had the highest rate of prior systemic therapy, followed by the trial-enrolled (25.39%) and older patient groups (8.11%). The median rwPFS was shorter in the older group (19.30 months) than those in the younger and the trial-enrolled age groups (30.33 and 34.53 months, respectively; p =.002). The HR of older age for death was 1.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.24–2.03). For rwPFS, the HR of prior systemic therapy was 1.19 (95% CI = 1.04–1.37). The younger age group, which was underrepresented in the trial, did not show a significant difference in risk compared with the enrolled age group. However, the older age group, which was also underrepresented in the trial, faces a risk of mortality but not progression. Patients who fall outside the specified age groups for the clinical trial can still expect the same level of effectiveness in terms of progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to determine the incidence of and identify the factors associated with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), psychiatric conditions, hospitalization, and cost in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who were treated using second-line strategies after an inadequate response to initial antidepressants (AD). Using South Korean National Health Insurance claims data (1 January 2013 to 30 June 2018), we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis in newly treated patients with MDD who subsequently switched or added AD, or added atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) as a second-line treatment. We assessed the incidence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), psychiatric conditions, and hospitalization for the first 2 years and costs in the third year. Odds ratios (ORs) or relative ratios were estimated using logistic and linear regression models to identify the risk factors for clinical and economic outcomes. In 15,887 patients, the TRD was 16.81% during the 24-month follow-up period (14.14% in switching AD, 19.65% in adding AD, and 19.91% in adding AAP; p < 0.0001). When adding AD or AAP, the OR of TRD was 1.43 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30–1.56) and 1.42 (95% CI: 1.23–1.65), respectively, compared to switching AD. However, these factors were not associated with the incidence of psychiatric conditions. Adding AAP increased hospitalization (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.11–1.41), the number of inpatient days by 2.57-fold (95% CI: 1.75–3.76), and cost by 1.20-fold (95% CI: 1.02–1.40), compared to switching AD; adding AD did not show a significant association with these outcomes. In patients with MDD with inadequate responses to initial AD, TRD still occurred after subsequent treatments according to clinical guidelines. Since the effectiveness of second treatment strategies can differ in reality, further analysis of the clinical and economic evidence regarding second treatment strategies, such as adding AD or AAP, is needed using real-world data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We aimed to assess treatment persistence of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and non-TNF inhibitors in two groups of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients: biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) initiators and switchers.Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized a national health insurance claims database. Patients aged ≥18 years initiating/switching bDMARD between 1 December 2013 and 31 December 2014, the index period, were followed for 12 months. Initiators who began treatment with a bDMARD during the index period were defined as having no bDMARD prescriptions for the previous year. Switchers who changed treatment from the previous bDMARD to the index bDMARD were defined as having different bDMARDs during the index period. Treatment persistence rates during the follow-up period were measured, and factors associated with non-persistence were assessed with the Cox proportional hazard model.Results: Of 2684 patients, treatment persistence rates were the highest for abatacept in initiators (69.3%) and tocilizumab in switchers (77.0%), while adalimumab showed the lowest persistence rates for both initiators and switchers (48.2%, 28.8%), followed by etanercept (51.3%, 41.0%). Adalimumab and etanercept were significantly more likely to show non-persistence (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.96; HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.14-1.76) compared to infliximab for initiators, while tocilizumab was significantly more likely to show persistence (HR 0.411, 95% CI 0.206-0.819) in switchers.Conclusions: Non-TNF inhibitors showed higher persistence rates than TNF inhibitors in South Korean RA patients, and tocilizumab especially was associated with higher persistence in patients with inadequate response to TNF inhibitors. Good persistence with non-TNF inhibitors indicates the potential for long-term efficacy as first-line treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In order to look beyond the cost-effectiveness analysis, this study used a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which reflects societal values with regard to reimbursement decisions. This study aims to elicit societal preferences of the reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs from public and healthcare professionals.Methods: Eight criteria were defined based on a literature review and focus group sessions: disease severity, disease population size, pediatrics targets, unmet needs, innovation, clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, and budget impacts. Using quota sampling and purposive sampling, 300 participants from the Korean public and 30 healthcare professionals were selected for the survey. Preferences were elicited using an analytic hierarchy process.Results: Both groups rated clinical benefits the highest, followed by cost-effectiveness and disease severity, but differed with regard to disease population size and unmet needs. Innovation was the least preferred criteria.Conclusions: Clinical benefits and other social values should be reflected appropriately with cost-effectiveness in healthcare coverage. MCDA can be used to assess decision priorities for complicated health policy decisions, including reimbursement decisions. It is a promising method for making logical and transparent drug reimbursement decisions that consider a broad range of factors, which are perceived as important by relevant stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]