Search

Background: For patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing has been associated with a faster time to appropriate targeted therapy and more comprehensive testing relative to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. However, the impact on payer costs and clinical outcomes during patients' treatment journeys has not been fully characterized., Objective: To assess the costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR biomarker testing among patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC from a US payers' perspective., Methods: A Markov model assessed costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR testing from the start of testing up to 3 years after. Patients entered the model after receiving biomarker test results and then initiated first-line (1L) targeted or nontargeted therapy (immunotherapy and/or chemotherapy) depending on actionable mutation detection. A few patients with an actionable mutation were not detected by PCR and inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy. At each 1-month cycle, patients could remain on treatment with 1L, progress to second line or later (2L+), or die. Literature-based inputs included the rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), targeted and nontargeted therapy costs, total costs of testing, and medical costs of 1L, 2L+, and death. Per patient average PFS and OS as well as cumulative costs were reported for NGS and PCR testing., Results: In a modeled population of 100 patients (75% commercial and 25% Medicare), 45.9% of NGS and 40.0% of PCR patients tested positive for an actionable mutation. Relative to PCR, NGS was associated with $7,386 in savings per patient (NGS = $326,154; PCR = $333,540) at 1 year, driven by lower costs of testing, including estimated costs of delayed care and nontargeted therapy initiation before receiving test results (NGS = $8,866; PCR = $16,373). Treatment costs were similar (NGS = $305,644; PCR = $305,283). In the PCR cohort, the per patient costs of inappropriate 1L nontargeted therapy owing to undetected mutations were $6,455, $6,566, and $6,569 over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Relative to PCR testing, NGS was associated with $4,060 in savings at 2 years and $1,092 at 3 years. Patients who initiated 1L targeted therapy had an additional 5.4, 8.8, and 10.4 months of PFS and an additional 1.4, 3.6, and 5.3 months of OS over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, relative to those who inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy., Conclusions: In this Markov model, as early as year 1, and over 3 years following biomarker testing, patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC undergoing NGS testing are projected to have cost savings and longer PFS and OS relative to those tested with PCR.

Background: Although incidence and mortality of lung cancer have been decreasing, health disparities persist among historically marginalized Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations. A targeted literature review was performed to collate the evidence of health disparities among these historically marginalized patients with lung cancer in the U.S., Methods: Articles eligible for review included 1) indexed in PubMed®, 2) English language, 3) U.S. patients only, 4) real-world evidence studies, and 5) publications between January 1, 2018, and November 8, 2021., Results: Of 94 articles meeting selection criteria, 49 publications were selected, encompassing patient data predominantly between 2004 and 2016. Black patients were shown to develop lung cancer at an earlier age and were more likely to present with advanced-stage disease compared to White patients. Black patients were less likely to be eligible for/receive lung cancer screening, genetic testing for mutations, high-cost and systemic treatments, and surgical intervention compared to White patients. Disparities were also detected in survival, where Hispanic and Asian patients had lower mortality risks compared to White patients. Literature on survival outcomes between Black and White patients was inconclusive. Disparities related to sex, rurality, social support, socioeconomic status, education level, and insurance type were observed., Conclusions: Health disparities within the lung cancer population begin with initial screening and continue through survival outcomes, with reports persisting well into the latter portion of the past decade. These findings should serve as a call to action, raising awareness of persistent and ongoing inequities, particularly for marginalized populations., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Aims: To assess US payers' per-patient cost of testing associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) biomarker testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), including costs of testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment initiation., Methods: A decision tree model considered biomarker testing for genomic alterations using either NGS, sequential PCR testing, or hotspot panel PCR testing. Literature-based model inputs included time-to-test results, costs for testing/medical care, costs of delaying care, costs of immunotherapy [IO]/chemotherapy [CTX] initiation prior to receiving test results, and costs of suboptimal treatment initiation after test results (i.e. costs of first-line IO/CTX in patients with actionable mutations that were undetected by PCR that would have been identified with NGS). The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration, time to appropriate therapy initiation, and per-patient costs were estimated for NGS and PCR strategies combined., Results: In a modeled cohort of 1,000,000 members (25% Medicare, 75% commercial), an estimated 1,119 had mNSCLC and received testing. The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration was 45.9% for NGS and 40.0% for PCR testing. Mean per-patient costs were lowest for NGS ($8,866) compared to PCR ($18,246), with lower delayed care costs of $1,301 for NGS compared to $3,228 for PCR, and lower costs of IO/CTX initiation prior to receiving test results (NGS: $2,298; PCR:$5,991). Cost savings, reaching $10,496,220 at the 1,000,000-member plan level, were driven by more rapid treatment with appropriate therapy for patients tested with NGS (2.1 weeks) compared to PCR strategies (5.2 weeks)., Limitations: Model inputs/assumptions were based on published literature or expert opinion., Conclusions: NGS testing was associated with greater cost savings versus PCR, driven by more rapid results, shorter time to appropriate therapy initiation, and minimized use of inappropriate therapies while awaiting and after test results.

Aims: This study described treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (a/mNSCLC) patients with different epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR) mutation types., Materials and Methods: This retrospective study leveraged NeoGenomics NeoNucleus linked with IQVIA PharMetrics Plus between 01 January 2016 to 30 April 2021 (study period). Patients with evidence of a/mNSCLC between 01 July 2016 to 31 March 2021 (selection window) with EGFR test results indicating exon 19 deletion (exon19del), exon 21 L858R (L858R), or exon 20 insertion (exon20i) mutations were included; date of first observed evidence of a/mNSCLC was the index date. Treatment patterns, all-cause HRU and costs during ≥1 month follow-up were reported for each cohort (exon19del, L858R, and exon20i)., Results: A total of 106 exon19del, 75 L858R, and 13 exon20i patients met the study criteria. The prevalence of hospitalization was highest in the exon20i cohort (76.9%), followed by L858R (62.7%) and exon19del (55.7%) cohorts. A higher proportion of patients had evidence of hospice/end-of-life care in the exon20i (30.8%) and L858R (29.3%) cohorts relative to the exon19del cohort (22.6%). The exon20i cohort had higher median total healthcare costs per patient per month ($27,069) relative to exon19del ($17,482) and L858R ($17,763). EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) were the most frequently observed treatment type for exon19del and L858R cohorts, while chemotherapy was the most observed treatment in exon20i cohort., Limitations: The sample size for the study cohorts was small, thus no statistical comparisons were conducted., Conclusions: This is one of the first real-world studies to describe HRU and costs among a/mNSCLC patients by specific EGFR mutation type. HRU and costs varied between EGFR mutation types and were highest among exon20i cohort, potentially reflecting higher disease burden and unmet need among patients with this mutation.

Background: An estimated 10-15% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases present with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm). While EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) such as osimertinib have become first-line (1L) standard of care for these patients, limited chemotherapy use still occurs in real-world practice. Studies of healthcare resource use (HRU) and cost of care provide a means by which the value of various treatment regimens, healthcare efficiency, and disease burden can be assessed. These studies are important for population health decision makers and health systems that prioritize value-based care to drive population health., Objective: The aim of this study was to descriptively assess HRU and costs among patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC initiating 1L therapy in the United States., Methods: IBM MarketScan Research Databases (January 1, 2017 to April 30, 2020) were used to identify adult patients with advanced NSCLC, based on a diagnosis for lung cancer (LC) and initiation of 1L therapy or diagnosis of metastases within 30 days of the first LC diagnosis. All patients had ≥ 12 months of continuous insurance eligibility prior to the first LC diagnosis and initiated (in 2018 or after) an EGFR-TKI during any line of therapy to proxy EGFRm status. Per-patient-per-month all-cause HRU and costs were described during 1L for patients initiating 1L osimertinib or chemotherapy., Results: A total of 213 patients with advanced EGFRm NSCLC were identified (mean age at 1L initiation: 60.9 years; 69.0% female). In 1L, 66.2% initiated osimertinib, 21.1% chemotherapy, and 12.7% another regimen. Mean 1L therapy duration was 8.8 months (osimertinib) and 7.6 months (chemotherapy), respectively. Among osimertinib recipients, 28% had an inpatient admission, 40% an emergency room (ER) visit, and 99% an outpatient visit. Among chemotherapy recipients, these proportions were 22%, 31%, and 100%. Mean monthly all-cause healthcare costs among osimertinib and chemotherapy patients were US$27,174 and US$23,343, respectively. Among osimertinib recipients, drug-related costs (including pharmacy and outpatient antineoplastic drug and administration costs) made up 61% (US$16,673) of total costs, inpatient costs 20% (US$5462), and other outpatient costs 16% (US$4432). In chemotherapy recipients, 59% (US$13,883) of total costs were drug-related, 5% (US$1166) were inpatient costs, and 33% (US$7734) other outpatient costs., Conclusions: Higher mean total cost of care was observed among patients receiving 1L TKI (osimertinib) than 1L chemotherapy in EGFRm advanced NSCLC. However, descriptive differences in type of spending and HRU were identified: higher inpatient costs and inpatient days for osimertinib versus higher outpatient costs for chemotherapy. Findings suggest that significant unmet needs may remain for 1L treatment of EGFRm NSCLC, and despite significant advances in targeted care, further individualized therapies are needed to balance benefits, risks, and total cost of care. Furthermore, observed descriptive differences in inpatient admissions may have implications for quality of care and patient quality of life, for which additional research is warranted., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Approximately 15% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbor an epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm). Mutation testing (including EGFRm) is recommended for patients with advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) prior to initiating first-line therapy (L1) or after progression on targeted therapy. To elucidate current and future unmet needs, the present study characterized real-world EGFR testing patterns and treatment patterns in patients with aNSCLC., Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study evaluated newly diagnosed adult patients with aNSCLC (stage IIIB or higher) from the Flatiron Health database. Eligible patients received at least L1 during 2015-2020 (testing cohorts) or 2011-2020 (treatment cohorts). Eligible patients for the treatment cohorts had an EGFR mutation., Results: The testing cohort included 22,726 patients, 75.5% had at least one EGFR test and 15.2% of those tested were positive for EGFR mutation. From 2015 to 2020, the median time from sample collection to test results decreased substantially while the proportion of NGS EGFR tests and use of plasma samples increased. The treatment cohort included 3701 patients (95% common mutations [cEGFR], 5.0% exon 20 insertions [ex20ins]). Three or more lines of therapy (LOTs) were observed in approximately 30% of patients. For L1, most cEGFR patients received EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKI, 68.1%) or platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC, 24.8%); most ex20ins patients received PBC (66.1%) or EGFR-TKI (17.5%). The most common L2 was EGFR-TKI (54.1%) or PBC (22.8%) for cEGFR and immunotherapy (25.9%) or PBC (25.9%) for ex20ins. No predominant L3 was evident in either group., Conclusion: This real-world study, among the largest analyses of testing patterns for patients with aNSCLC, demonstrates a comprehensive view of treatment patterns for patients with EGFR mutations, including ex20ins. Despite recent improvement, increased use of EGFR testing, including advanced methods, is needed to optimize treatment pathways and outcomes. Additionally, the lack of a predominant therapy in later lines indicates a need for new therapies., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: To assess the total cost of testing associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from a Medicare and US commercial payer's perspective., Materials and Methods: A decision tree model considered testing for genomic alterations in EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, KRAS, MET, HER2, RET, NTRK1 among patients with newly diagnosed mNSCLC using (1) liquid or tissue biopsy NGS tests, (2) exclusionary mutation (KRAS) test followed by sequential PCR tests, (3) sequential PCR tests, or (4) hotspot panel PCR tests. The alteration test sequence followed clinical guideline recommendations. Inputs based on literature, expert opinion, or assumptions included prevalence of mNSCLC, proportion of patients using each testing strategy (50% NGS [90% tissue, 10% liquid], 10% exclusionary, 10% sequential, 30% hotspot), proportion testing positive for each genomic mutation, rebiopsy rates, and costs for testing and associated medical care. Time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation and total costs were calculated for NGS, each PCR testing strategy, and all PCR strategies combined., Results: Among a hypothetical plan of 1,000,000 members (75% commercial, 25% Medicare), 1,119 patients were estimated to have mNSCLC and be eligible for testing. Estimated mean time to appropriate targeted therapy was 2 weeks for NGS and 6 weeks for PCR (sequential: 9 weeks, exclusionary: 8 weeks, hotspot: 3 weeks). Mean per patient costs were $4,932 for NGS and $6,605 for PCR (exclusionary: $5,563, sequential: $6,263, hotspot: $7,066). Per patient costs were higher from a commercial perspective (NGS: $6,225; PCR: $8,430) relative to Medicare (NGS: $2,099; PCR: $2,646); nevertheless, NGS was the least costly testing strategy across plan types., Conclusion: NGS was associated with the fastest time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation and lowest total cost of testing compared to PCR testing strategies for newly diagnosed patients with mNSCLC.

Purpose: Although biologics are effective in managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), many patients experience at least one biologic switch during treatment. A switch in biologic treatment can occur for medical or nonmedical reasons. Changes to treatment regimens, even in patients previously stable on therapy, can have clinical and cost implications. This study examined health care resource use and costs incurred with switching from an anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) medication in a population of patients with RA., Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients with RA identified in Truven Commercial Claims and Encounters database (January 1, 2009, to December 13, 2013) was conducted. Patients were required to show evidence of new initiation of treatment with a biologic medication (index date) and continuous eligibility from 6 months before to 12 months after index. Patients were segmented into a continuous biologic group and a biologic switch group, the latter being further divided into switch from anti-TNF to anti-TNF (A-A subgroup) and switch from anti-TNF to a treatment with other mechanism of action (A-O subgroup). Means (SD) and medians of resource use and cost outcomes were calculated over the 12-month postindex period; multivariate models controlling for demographics, biologic switch, and preindex health, resource use, and costs were constructed., Findings: The total sample comprised 18,070 patients, with 16,643 qualifying for the continuous group and 1427 qualifying for the overall switch group. The overall switch group was more likely to utilize physician office, emergency department, and pharmacy services compared to the continuous group. Consequently, the overall switch group incurred greater total health care costs compared to the continuous group ($41,482 vs $36,557 per patient per annum; p < 0.05). Within the switch group, the A-O subgroup had significantly greater outpatient, medical, and total health care expenditures compared to those in the A-A subgroup. Regression analyses revealed that increased baseline utilization and costs, worse health, and older age were associated with increased utilization and costs over the follow-up period. Switching of biologics was associated with an approximate increase of US $4000 per patient per annum in total health care costs., Implications: These findings suggest that switching biologic agents in patients with RA may be accompanied by increased total health care costs. Efforts to optimize patient response to initial biologic therapy and to reduce unnecessary switching, such as for nonmedical reasons, may help to mitigate these costs., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Compared with warfarin, the new target-specific oral anticoagulant agents may have advantages, such as shorter hospital length of stay, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The objective of the present study was to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on the number of hospitalization days and other health care resource utilization in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users., Methods: Data from health care claims dated from May 2011 to December 2012 from the Humana database were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on treatment with rivaroxaban or warfarin, with ≥2 diagnoses of AF (ICD-9-CM code 427.31), and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin recipients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban recipients. The end of the observation period was defined as the end of data availability, the end of insurance coverage, death, the date of a switch to another anticoagulant agent, or day 14 of treatment nonpersistence. The total number of hospitalization days and other health care resource utilization parameters (numbers of hospitalizations, emergency department [ED] visits, and outpatient visits) were evaluated using the method by Lin et al., Findings: Matches for all rivaroxaban recipients were found, and the characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. The mean age of both cohorts was 74 years; 46% were female. The estimated mean total numbers of hospitalization days were significantly less in rivaroxaban users compared with those in warfarin users (all-cause, 2.71 vs 3.87 days [P = 0.032]; AF-related, 2.11 vs 3.02 days [P = 0.014]). The numbers of outpatient visits were also significantly less (all-cause, 25.26 vs 35.79 visits [P < 0.001]; AF-related, 5.48 vs 9.06 visits [P < 0.001]). Rivaroxaban users had a lesser estimated mean number of all-cause hospitalizations compared with warfarin users (0.55 vs 0.73; P = 0.084), and a significantly lesser estimated mean number of AF-related hospitalizations (0.40 vs 0.57; P = 0.022). The difference in the estimated mean numbers of all-cause ED visits was not statistically significant between the rivaroxaban and warfarin users., Implications: In this study conducted in clinical practice, the estimated mean numbers of hospitalization days, outpatient visits, and AF-related hospitalizations associated with rivaroxaban were significantly less than were those associated with warfarin in these patients with NVAF. The corresponding estimated difference in all-cause ED visits was not statistically significant., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: New target-specific oral anticoagulants may have benefits, such as shorter hospital length of stay, compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users., Methods: Health care claims from the Humana database from 5/2011 to 12/2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥2 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses (The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 427.31) and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients. Patients were observed up to end of data, end of insurance coverage, death, a switch to another anticoagulant, or treatment nonpersistence. Health care costs [hospitalization, emergency room (ER), outpatient, and pharmacy costs] were evaluated using Lin's method., Results: Matches were found for all rivaroxaban patients, and characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. Estimated mean all-cause and AF-related hospitalization costs were significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin patients (all-cause: $5411 vs. $7427, P = 0.047; AF-related: $2872 vs. $4147, P = 0.020). Corresponding estimated mean all-cause outpatient visit costs were also significantly lower, but estimated mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher for rivaroxaban patients ($5316 vs. $2620, P < 0.001). Although estimated mean costs of ER visits were higher for rivaroxaban users compared to those of warfarin users, differences were not statistically significant. Including anticoagulant costs, mean overall total all-cause costs were comparable for rivaroxaban versus warfarin users due to cost offset from a reduction in the number and length of hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits ($17,590 vs. $18,676, P = 0.542)., Conclusion: Despite higher anticoagulant cost, mean overall total all-cause and AF-related cost remains comparable for patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin due to the cost offset from reduced health care resource utilization.