Incremental Healthcare Cost Implications of Retreatment Following Ureteroscopy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Upper Urinary Tract Stones: A Population-Based Study of Commercially-Insured US Adults.

Purpose: This study describes the incremental healthcare costs associated with retreatment among adults undergoing ureteroscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for upper urinary tract stones (UUTS). Patients and Methods: The IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Database was used to identify adults aged 18-64 years with UUTS treated with URS or PCNL between January 2010 and December 2019. Patients had 12 months of continuous insurance coverage before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the first (index) procedure. The primary outcome was total all-cause healthcare costs measured over the 365-day follow-up period, not inclusive of index costs. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the incremental costs associated with retreatment within 90 (early) or 91-365 days post-index (later) relative no retreatment. The models adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, stone(s) location, treatment setting, procedural characteristics (eg, 1-step vs 2-step PCNL) and index year. Results: Approximately 23% (27,402/119,800) of URS patients were retreated (82% had early retreatments). The adjusted mean total cost was $10,478 (95% CI: $10,281-$10,675) for patients with no retreatment, $25,476 (95% CI: $24,947-$26,004) for early retreatment ($14,998 incremental increase, p<0.01), and $32,868 [95% CI: $31,887-$33,850] for later retreatment ($22,391 incremental increase, p<0.01). Approximately 36% (1957/5516) of PCNL patients were retreated (78% had early retreatments). The adjusted mean total cost was $13,446 (95% CI: $12,659-$14,273) for patients with no retreatment, $37,036 [95% CI: $34,926-$39,145]) for early retreatment ($23,570 incremental increase, p<0.01), and $35,359 (95% CI: $32,234-$38,484) for later retreatment ($21,893 incremental increase, p<0.01). Conclusion: Retreatment during the first year following URS or PCNL was needed in 23% and 36% of patients, respectively, and was associated with an economic burden of up to $23,500 per patient. The high rate of retreatment and associated costs demonstrate there is an unmet need to improve mid- to long-term results in URS and PCNL.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Daratumumab, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Standard of Care in Patients with Difficult-to-Treat Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 APOLLO study demonstrated significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical responses with daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Pd) versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). On the basis of these results and those from the phase 1b EQUULEUS trial, D-Pd was approved in this patient population. In the absence of head-to-head data comparing D-Pd with further standard of care (SOC) therapies, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can provide important information to help optimize treatment selection. The objective of this study was to indirectly compare PFS improvement with D-Pd versus daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) and D-Pd versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with RRMM. METHODS: Patient-level data were from APOLLO, EQUULEUS, and CASTOR. Three methods of adjusting imbalances in baseline characteristics including stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW), cardinality matching (CM), and propensity score matching (PSM) were initially considered. CM offers mathematically guaranteed largest matched sample meeting pre-specified maximum standardized mean difference criteria for matching covariates. sIPTW and PSM were based on propensity scores derived from logistic regression. Feasibility assessment of the PSM method returned too low effective sample size to support a meaningful comparison. CM was chosen as the base case and sIPTW as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: After harmonized eligibility criteria were applied, 253, 104, and 122 patients from the D-Pd, D-Vd, and Vd cohorts, respectively, were included in the ITC analyses. Some imbalances in baseline characteristics were identified between D-Pd and D-Vd/Vd cohorts that remained after adjustment. PFS hazard ratios showed significant improvement for D-Pd over D-Vd and Vd for CM and sIPTW analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed consistent PFS benefit for D-Pd versus D-Vd and Vd regardless of the adjustment technique used. These findings support the use of D-Pd versus D-Vd or Vd in patients with difficult-to-treat RRMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03180736; NCT02136134, NCT01998971.

Outcomes associated with the use of a new powered circular stapler for left-sided colorectal reconstructions: a propensity score matching-adjusted indirect comparison with manual circular staplers.

BACKGROUND: This was a retrospective, matching-adjusted indirect comparison of clinical outcomes between patients from a single-arm trial of the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler (ECP) and those from a historical cohort of patients who underwent left-sided colorectal resection using conventional manual circular staplers, extracted from the Premier Healthcare Database. METHODS: Patients in the ECP trial cohort were propensity score matched to those in the historical cohort through nearest neighbor matching. Outcomes included 30-day readmission rates; length of stay (LOS) for the index admission; rates of anastomotic leak, pelvic abscess, ileus/small bowel obstruction, infection, bleeding, and stoma creation. RESULTS: The study included 168 patients in the ECP trial cohort and 4544 patients in the historical cohort; 165 ECP trial patients were matched to 1348 historical cohort patients. After matching, conversions were more prevalent in the historical cohort than the ECP trial cohort (4.2% ECP vs. 10.2% historical, p = 0.001). Relative to the historical cohort, the ECP trial cohort had statistically significant lower rates of 30-day inpatient readmission (6.1% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.019), anastomotic leak (1.8% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001), ileus/small bowel obstruction (4.8% vs. 14.7%, p < 0.001), infection (1.8% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.001), and bleeding (1.8% vs. 9.2%, p < 0.001) during the index admission or within 30 days thereafter. No statistically significant differences in rates of pelvic abscess, stoma creation, or LOS were found between the two cohorts. Three sensitivity analyses to address the difference in conversion rates yielded largely consistent results, with loss of statistical significance for inpatient admission in some cases. This study is limited by its potential for differences in unmeasurable factors between the ECP trial and historical cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the ECP trial cohort had lower incidence proportions of several surgical complications as compared with the historical cohort. Further controlled prospective clinical studies are needed to confirm the validity of this finding.