Rural-urban and racial differences in cesarean deliveries before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Carolina.

PROBLEM: Unnecessary cesarean delivery increases the risk of complications for birthing people and infants. BACKGROUND: Examining the intersectionality of rural and racial disparities in low-risk cesarean delivery is necessary to improve equity in quality obstetrics care. AIM: To evaluate rural and racial/ethnic differences in Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex (NTSV) and primary cesarean delivery rates before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Carolina. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used birth certificates linked to all-payer hospital discharge data for South Carolina childbirths from 2018 to 2021. Multilevel logistic regressions examined differences in cesarean outcomes by rural/urban hospital location and race/ethnicity of birthing people during pre-pandemic (January 2018-February 2020) and peri-pandemic periods (March 2020-December 2021), adjusting for maternal, infant, and hospital characteristics among two low-risk pregnancy cohorts: 1) Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex (NTSV, n = 65,974) and 2) those without prior cesarean (primary, n = 167,928). FINDINGS: Black vs. White disparities remained for NTSV cesarean in adjusted models (urban pre-pandemic aOR = 1.34, 95 %CI 1.23-1.46) but were not significantly different for primary cesarean, apart from rural settings peri-pandemic (aOR = 0.87, 95 %CI 0.79-0.96). Hispanic individuals had higher adjusted odds of NTSV cesarean only for rural settings pre-pandemic (aOR = 1.28, 95 %CI 1.05-1.56), but this disparity was not significant during the pandemic (aOR = 1.13, 95 %CI 0.93-1.37). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Observed rural and racial/ethnic disparities in cesarean delivery outcomes were present before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Strategies effective in reducing racial disparities in primary cesarean may be useful in also reducing Black vs. White NTSV cesarean disparities.

Analysis of Residential Segregation and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Severe Maternal Morbidity Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Persistent racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity (SMM) in the US remain a public health concern. Structural racism leaves women of color in a disadvantaged situation especially during COVID-19, leading to disproportionate pandemic afflictions among racial and ethnic minority women. Objective: To examine racial and ethnic disparities in SMM rates before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether the disparities varied with level of Black residential segregation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A statewide population-based retrospective cohort study used birth certificates linked to all-payer childbirth claims data in South Carolina. Participants included women who gave birth between January 2018 and June 2021. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to February 2022. Exposures: Exposures were (1) period when women gave birth, either before the pandemic (January 2018 to February 2020) or during the pandemic (March 2020 to June 2021) and (2) Black-White residential segregation (isolation index), categorizing US Census tracts in a county as low (<40%), medium (40%-59%), and high (≥60%). Main Outcomes and Measures: SMM was identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multilevel logistic regressions with an interrupted approach were used, adjusting for maternal-level and facility-level factors, accounting for residential county-level random effects. Results: Of 166 791 women, 95 098 (57.0%) lived in low-segregated counties (mean [SD] age, 28.1 [5.7] years; 5126 [5.4%] Hispanic; 20 523 [21.6%] non-Hispanic Black; 62 690 [65.9%] White), and 23 521 (14.1%) women (mean [SD] age, 28.1 [5.8] years; 782 [3.3%] Hispanic; 12 880 [54.8%] non-Hispanic Black; 7988 [34.0%] White) lived in high-segregated areas. Prepandemic SMM rates were decreasing, followed by monthly increasing trends after March 2020. On average, living in high-segregated communities was associated with higher odds of SMM (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.06-2.34). Black women regardless of residential segregation had higher odds of SMM than White women (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.11-1.96 for low-segregation; 2.12; 95% CI, 1.38-3.26 for high-segregation). Hispanic women living in low-segregated communities had lower odds of SMM (aOR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.90) but those living in high-segregated communities had nearly twice the odds of SMM (aOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.07-4.17) as their White counterparts. Conclusions and Relevance: Living in high-segregated Black communities in South Carolina was associated with racial and ethnic SMM disparities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Black vs White disparities persisted with no signs of widening gaps, whereas Hispanic vs White disparities were exacerbated. Policy reforms on reducing residential segregation or combating the corresponding structural racism are warranted to help improve maternal health.

Efficacy of avapritinib versus best available therapy in the treatment of advanced systemic mastocytosis.

Advanced systemic mastocytosis (AdvSM) is a rare myeloid neoplasm associated with poor overall survival (OS). This study (NCT04695431) compared clinical outcomes between patients with AdvSM treated with avapritinib in the Phase 1 EXPLORER (NCT0256198) and Phase 2 PATHFINDER (NCT03580655) trials (N = 176) and patients treated with best available therapy (BAT; N = 141). A multi-center, observational, retrospective chart review study was conducted at six study sites (four European, two American) to collect data from patients with AdvSM who received BAT; these data were pooled with data from EXPLORER and PATHFINDER. Comparisons between outcomes of OS, duration of treatment (DOT), and maximum reduction in serum tryptase were conducted between the treatment cohorts, with adjustment for key covariates. The results indicated that the avapritinib cohort had significantly better survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.48 (0.29, 0.79); p = 0.004) and significantly longer DOT (HR: 0.36 (0.26, 0.51); p < 0.001) compared to the BAT cohort. Additionally, the mean difference in percentage maximum reduction in serum tryptase levels was 60.3% greater in the avapritinib cohort (95% CI: -72.8, -47.9; p < 0.001). With no randomized controlled trials comparing avapritinib to BAT, these data offer crucial insights into the improved efficacy of avapritinib for the treatment of AdvSM.

The budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a US health plan formulary for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and thyroid cancer with RET alterations.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80% to 85% of all lung cancers. Thyroid cancer, while generally not as lethal as lung cancer, has a large prevalent population and a rapidly increasing incidence in the United States. Pralsetinib is a highly potent, selective rearranged during transfection (RET) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer tumors. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a 1 million-member US health plan formulary for the treatment of patients with metastatic RET fusion-positive NSCLC, advanced or metastatic RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), or advanced or metastatic RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer (non-MTC). METHODS: A budget impact model with a 3-year time horizon was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the number of eligible RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients in a plan and quantify associated treatment costs (2020 USD). Comparators in the analyses included pralsetinib, selpercatinib, and cabozantinib, as well as indication-specific use of pembrolizumab, pemetrexed/carboplatin combination, vandetanib, lenvatinib, and sorafenib. Drug acquisition, molecular testing, treatment monitoring, and adverse event management costs were included to estimate total annual costs and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs in current (without pralsetinib) and potential future market scenarios, where pralsetinib is assumed to split the projected RET inhibitor market share with selpercatinib. The number of treated patients was based on age- and sex-adjusted incidence of disease, the proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced or metastatic disease, and projected RET testing rates. Treatment duration was based on progression-free survival or duration of response data from clinical trials. Medical resources were monetized using standardized sources such as Medicare reimbursement and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). RESULTS: The model estimated that there would be approximately 6 new treatment-eligible patients in a 1 million-member plan annually. Monthly WAC is $19,243 for pralsetinib and $20,600 for selpercatinib at the recommended starting dose. Adoption of pralsetinib, with corresponding increases in pralsetinib market share, would be slightly cost saving to a payer, decreasing the overall budget impact to the health plan by $49,985 in year 3 (-$0.0042 PMPM; -$0.0030, -$0.0006, and -$0.0005 for NSCLC, MTC, and thyroid cancer [non-MTC], respectively). In year 3, drug costs were the key driver of total costs (~80%-98%) and cost savings. All other medical resource categories were cost-neutral or nominally cost saving or additive in the budget impact analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying the budget impact associated with the adoption of new targeted precision therapies is an important consideration for payers. For eligible NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients, our analysis suggests that adoption of pralsetinib is expected to result in modest cost savings for US payers. DISCLOSURES: Support for this study was provided by Blueprint Medicines Corporation. This study was conducted by Veritas Health Economics Consulting, Inc., in collaboration with Blueprint Medicines, which was involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Duff is an employee of Veritas Health Economics Consulting, which received research funding from Blueprint Medicines to develop the budget impact model. Norregaard and Sullivan are employees of Blueprint Medicines. Bargiacchi and Brener were employees of Blueprint Medicines at the time of the research study. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Virtual Learning Event, April 2021.

Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan.

Importance: With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%. Exposures: The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact. Results: In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.