Search

ObjectiveTo estimate the economic burden of systematic lupus erythematous (SLE), stratified by disease severity, in commercially- and Medicaid-insured US populations.MethodsAdults (≥18 years) with SLE treated with antimalarials, selected biologics, immunosuppressants, and systemic glucocorticoids (2010-2014) were identified within the commercial and Medicaid insurance IBM MarketScan® databases (index date = first SLE medication claim). Both cohorts were stratified into mild (receiving antimalarial or glucocorticoid monotherapy ≤5 mg/day) versus moderate/severe SLE (receiving glucocorticoids >5 mg/day, biologic, immunosuppressant, or combination therapy) during a 6-month exposure period. All-cause healthcare utilization and costs were evaluated during the 12 months following the exposure period.ResultsAmong 8231 commercially-insured patients, 32.6% had mild and 67.4% had moderate/severe SLE by our definition. Among 802 Medicaid-insured patients, 25.2% had mild and 74.8% had moderate/severe SLE. Adjusted mean total healthcare costs, excluding pharmacy, for moderate/severe SLE patients were higher than for mild SLE patients in the commercially-insured ($39,021 versus $23,519; p < 0.0001) and Medicaid-insured populations ($56,050 versus $44,932; p = 0.06). In both SLE severity populations total unadjusted costs were significantly higher among Medicaid-insured than commercially-insured patients.ConclusionCommercially-insured patients with treatment suggesting moderate/severe SLE incurred significantly higher adjusted mean healthcare costs, excluding pharmacy, compared with mild SLE patients. While not reaching statistical significance, moderate/severe Medicaid-insured patients had higher costs then mild SLE patients. Total unadjusted healthcare costs were significantly higher among Medicaid-insured than commercially-insured patients. These differential costs are important to consider and monitor when implementing interventions to improve health and reduce healthcare spending for SLE.

Problem: Ambiguity in communication of key study parameters limits the utility of real‐world evidence (RWE) studies in healthcare decision‐making. Clear communication about data provenance, design, analysis, and implementation is needed. This would facilitate reproducibility, replication in independent data, and assessment of potential sources of bias. What We Did: The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened a joint task force, including representation from key international stakeholders, to create a harmonized protocol template for RWE studies that evaluate a treatment effect and are intended to inform decision‐making. The template builds on existing efforts to improve transparency and incorporates recent insights regarding the level of detail needed to enable RWE study reproducibility. The overarching principle was to reach for sufficient clarity regarding data, design, analysis, and implementation to achieve 3 main goals. One, to help investigators thoroughly consider, then document their choices and rationale for key study parameters that define the causal question (e.g., target estimand), two, to facilitate decision‐making by enabling reviewers to readily assess potential for biases related to these choices, and three, to facilitate reproducibility. Strategies to Disseminate and Facilitate Use: Recognizing that the impact of this harmonized template relies on uptake, we have outlined a plan to introduce and pilot the template with key international stakeholders over the next 2 years. Conclusion: The HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility (HARPER) helps to create a shared understanding of intended scientific decisions through a common text, tabular and visual structure. The template provides a set of core recommendations for clear and reproducible RWE study protocols and is intended to be used as a backbone throughout the research process from developing a valid study protocol, to registration, through implementation and reporting on those implementation decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most data on overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are from controlled trials; therefore, in this population-based study, we retrospectively assessed treatment patterns, OS, and AEs in MCL patients initiating systemic treatment during 2013–2015 using the United States Medicare claims database. Among 1390 eligible patients (median age = 74 years), chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine/rituximab (BR) was the preferred choice in first-line (35.3%), followed by ibrutinib (33.5%), rituximab (9.1%), and rituximab/cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine (R-CHOP) (6.8%). Twenty-four-month OS was 73% for BR; 47%, ibrutinib; 72%, rituximab; and 71%, R-CHOP. For the four most commonly used regimens, neutropenia, anemia, hypertension, and infection were the most frequent AEs. Patients with ≥3 AEs had nearly four times higher monthly costs than those with 0–2 AEs in the first observed therapy line. Findings demonstrate a substantial increase in the economic burden as the number of AEs increased among the Medicare MCL patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The experience of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in community oncology practices, including reasons for treatment discontinuation, is sparse. This retrospective study sought to elucidate treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with MCL treated with ibrutinib in the community setting. Patients were identified from the US Oncology Network electronic medical records database, iKnowMedTM, between 1 November 2013 and 31 October 2016. Descriptive analysis was performed to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of the population. Kaplan–Meier estimates were performed to determine clinical outcomes. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors of survival. Of the 1914 patients identified with MCL, 159 were treated with ibrutinib. The median age was 71 years and the majority were male (76%) and Caucasian (89%). The overall discontinuation rate was 83·6%; the most common reasons were progression (35%) and toxicities (25·6%). The median overall survival and progression‐free survival was 25·82 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19·94, NR) and 19·55 months (95% CI 16·52, 24·28) respectively. In multivariate modelling, patient age was predictive of survival (hazard ratio 1·041, P = 0·0186). Ibrutinib was temporarily reduced in 16·4% (n = 26) and held in 30·2% (n = 48), primarily due to toxicity 66·7% (n = 32). Survival data showed similarities between community oncology practices and clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]