Search

Neil Bhattacharyya,1 Jared Silver,2 Michael Bogart,2 Kalé Kponee-Shovein,3 Wendy Y Cheng,3 Mu Cheng,3 Hoi Ching Cheung,3 Mei Sheng Duh,3 Beth Hahn2 1Mass Eye & Ear and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 2GSK, Durham, NC, USA; 3Analysis Group, Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: Neil Bhattacharyya, Mass Eye & Ear and Harvard Medical School, 243 Charles St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA, Tel +1 617-936-6118, Fax +1 617-936-6170, Email neiloy@bhattacharyya.orgPurpose: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is associated with high healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and economic cost; however, heterogeneity of clinical burden among patients with differing clinical characteristics has not been fully elucidated. Here, an unsupervised machine learning approach supported by clinical validation identified distinct clusters of patients with CRSwNP and compared healthcare burden.Patients and Methods: This retrospective analysis identified adult patients with ≥ 2 claims for CRSwNP and date of first diagnosis (index date) between January 2015 and June 2019 from a healthcare database. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database 6-months pre- and 12-months post-index. Patients were assigned to clusters using latent class analysis. All-cause and nasal polyp (NP)-related HRU and costs were compared between clusters.Results: Among 12,807 patients, 5 clusters were identified: cluster 1: no surgery/low comorbidity/low medication use (n = 4076); cluster 2: no surgery/low comorbidity/high medication use (n = 2201); cluster 3: no surgery/high comorbidity/high medication use (n = 2093); cluster 4: surgery/low comorbidity/moderate medication use (n = 3168); cluster 5: surgery/high comorbidity/high medication use (n = 1269). All-cause HRU was similar across clusters. NP-related HRU was highest in the surgical clusters (clusters 4 and 5). All-cause costs were similar in clusters 1– 3 ($15,833–$17,461) and highest in clusters 4 ($31,083) and 5 ($31,103), dri

Wendy Y Cheng,1 Sujata P Sarda,2 Nikita Mody-Patel,2 Sangeeta Krishnan,2 Mihran Yenikomshian,1 Colin Kunzweiler,1 Jensen Duy Vu,1 Hoi Ching Cheung,1 Mei Sheng Duh1 1Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA; 2Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Waltham, MA, USACorrespondence: Wendy Y Cheng, Analysis Group, Inc., 111 Huntington Ave, 14th Floor, Boston, MA, 02199, USA, Tel +1 617 425 8219, Fax +1 617 425 8000, Email Wendy.Cheng@analysisgroup.comPurpose: Current pharmacologic management of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) consists of C5 inhibitors, eculizumab and ravulizumab; however, because patients experience incomplete symptom control, off-label doses may be utilized. We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of provider-based claims data to assess the real-world eculizumab dosing patterns in PNH patients.Patients and Methods: Patients were ≥ 12 years, received ≥ 2 eculizumab infusions between January 1, 2015 and September 30, 2019, and had ≥ 3 months of continuous clinical activity prior to index. The index date was the first claim for eculizumab. Patients with ≥ 1 diagnosis of another indication for eculizumab were excluded. Treatment patterns including the proportion with high, label-recommended, and low dosages during induction (first 28 days) and maintenance (beginning day 29) phases were described. The proportion and time-to-first dose escalation, defined as an increase in dose or frequency of infusion, were assessed among a subset of patients (ie, escalation analysis cohort).Results: A total of 707 patients were examined. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) starting dose was 862mg (412mg) and was higher than label-recommended 600mg for 64% of the patients. Mean (SD) dose per infusion was 859mg (391mg) during the induction phase; average dose was higher than label-recommended 600mg for 68%. Mean (SD) dose per infusion during the maintenance phase was 1005mg (335mg); average dose was higher than label-recommended 900mg for 43%. Dose escalation

Jay S Pepose,1,2 Sujata P Sarda,3 Wendy Y Cheng,4 Nora McCormick,4 Hoi Ching Cheung,4 Priyanka Bobbili,4 Corey Joseph,3 Mei Sheng Duh4 1Pepose Vision Institute, Chesterfield, MO, USA; 2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA; 3Shire, A Takeda Company, Lexington, MA, USA; 4Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: Sujata P SardaTakeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, 55 Hayden Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421, USATel +1 781 266-3440Email sujata.sarda@takeda.comPurpose: To assess the direct and indirect costs of infectious conjunctivitis and quantify medical costs due to conjunctivitis transmission in families.Methods: In this retrospective claims analysis from the OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc. database (1998– 2016), beneficiaries with or without at least one diagnosis of infectious conjunctivitis were identified. Direct and indirect costs (in 2016 US$) during the 60 days post conjunctivitis diagnosis (or imputed date for controls) were compared using cost differences in linear regressions. For transmission cost analysis, the total cost of each conjunctivitis episode was the sum of the primary episode (seed patient) and the secondary episode (infected family members) costs. A generalized estimating equation model adjusted for seed patient characteristics was used to assess the impact of number and rate of transmissions on episode cost.Results: Health care resource utilization and direct costs were significantly higher for patients with conjunctivitis (n=1,002,188) versus controls (n=4,877,210): 1.67 all-cause visits per person per month (PPPM) versus 0.79 visits PPPM, respectively; total mean direct cost of $396.04 PPPM versus $289.63 PPPM, respectively. The cost of medically related absenteeism was $105.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], $104.18–$106.75) higher for patients with conjunctivitis than for controls. Episode cost, without transmission due to seed patient, was