Assessment of second primary malignancies among treated and untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia using real-world data from the USA.

Aim: Improved management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has resulted in a growing population of CLL survivors; these patients have a higher risk of developing second primary malignancies (SPMs) versus the general population. This retrospective cohort study aims to assess the timing, frequency, incidence and types of SPMs in treated and untreated patients with CLL in the USA, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare database, which links a nationally representative cancer registry with Medicare claims data. Patients & methods: Patients aged ≥66 years with newly diagnosed CLL between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016, who were enrolled in Parts A and B of Medicare for ≥12 months pre-diagnosis of CLL were selected from the database. Patients were assessed for ≥36 months until the end of continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B and D, a switch to a health maintenance organization, death, or end of the study period (December 2019). Results: Of 3053 patients included in the analyses, 620 (20.3%) were treated and 2433 (79.7%) were untreated within 36 months of diagnosis. Overall, 638 (20.9%) patients developed a SPM, 26.8% of patients in the treated cohort and 19.4% of patients in the untreated cohort. The most common SPMs for both cohorts were squamous cell carcinoma and acute myeloid leukemia. Among the 166 treated patients who developed a SPM, a greater proportion developed their first SPM after treatment initiation versus those who developed their first SPM prior to treatment initiation (p < 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of patients who received targeted therapy developed a SPM (p < 0.05) versus patients treated with anti-CD20 + chemotherapy. Conclusion: Findings indicate that treatment type and timing can affect SPM development in patients with CLL. Combined with previous findings, this can help inform best practices in monitoring for SPM in patients with CLL.

Comparison of health care costs and resource utilization for commonly used proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-based triplet regimens for the management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Economic differences among currently available proteasome inhibitors (PI)-based lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-backbone triplet regimens-ixazomib (I), bortezomib (V), and carfilzomib (K) plus Rd-remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the United States treated with IRd, VRd, and KRd. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus adjudicated claims US data (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) included adult patients with all available data who initiated IRd, VRd, or KRd in second line of therapy or later (LOT2+) on or after September 1, 2015. The index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT (multiple LOTs per patient were included) and the baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up and reported per patient per month (PPPM; 2020 US Dollars). For MM-related costs only, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. HCRU/costs were compared between treatment groups using generalized linear models (GLMs). Cost variables were compared using 2-part models and GLM with log transformation and γ distribution. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for imbalance of baseline confounders across treatment groups. RESULTS: The study included 511 patients contributing 542 LOTs (IRd: n = 153; VRd: n = 262; KRd: n = 127). Before IPTW, mean observed time spent on therapy was 8.5, 9.3, and 7.3 months for the IRd, VRd, and KRd cohorts, respectively. During follow-up and after IPTW, IRd and VRd were associated with significantly fewer OP visits vs KRd. Post-IPTW comparisons of MM-related costs for IRd vs KRd yielded lower OP costs for IRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,428; P < 0.001), contributing to lower total medical costs (-$3,813; P < 0.001) and total health care cost savings with IRd vs KRd (-$5,813; P = 0.001). MM-related OP costs were lower for VRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,543; P < 0.001) than KRd, reducing its total MM-related medical costs (-$3,997; P = 0.002), leading to total MM-related health care cost savings with VRd vs KRd (-$12,357; P < 0.001). All-cause cost comparisons yielded similar results (total health care cost savings for IRd and VRd vs KRd: -$6,371 and -$13,629, respectively; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the US insurance-payer perspective, patients treated with IRd and VRd had significant medical cost savings vs KRd due to lower OP costs when excluding treatment administration costs. The differential economic impacts of PI-Rd regimens in this study may help to inform treatment decisions for patients with MM. DISCLOSURES: This study and article were supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Dr Sanchez has no conflicts to declare. Dr Chari has the following relationships: Research Support/Principal Investigator: Amgen, Array Biopharma, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Klein, Janssen, Millenium/Takeda, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Oncoceutics, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Consultant: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm; Scientific Advisory Board: Amgen, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics. Drs Cherepanov, Huang, Dabora, and Noga are current employees of Takeda, while Drs Stull and Young are ex-employees of Takeda; Drs Cherepanov and Huang also own stocks in Takeda. Dr DerSarkissian, Ms Cheng, Ms Zhang, Mr Banatwala, and Dr Duh are employees of Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), a consulting firm that received funding from Takeda to conduct this study. Ms Pi was an employee of AG at the time of the study. Dr Ailawadhi has the following relationships to declare: Research Support and Consulting for BMS, GSK, and Janssen; Research Support from AbbVie, Arch Oncology, Cellectar, Medimmune, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor; Consulting for Beigene, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

The digital divide: Racial disparities in adoption and utilization of health information technology among patients with lymphoid cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Health information technology (HIT) has the potential to improve healthcare delivery and engagement. Studying racial-ethnic disparities in HIT engagement will help understand and overcome challenges to healthcare utilization. METHODS: We undertook a patient-reported survey among patients with lymphoid malignancies at two campuses of Mayo Clinic, Florida to explore HIT-related disparities. Variables between Whites and non-Whites, and non-Whites from the two campuses were compared. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 1004 respondents, with 71% whites, 27% non-Whites (race-ethnicity not reported by 2%). Non-Whites included 30% responders at the main campus and 64% at an inner-city campus. Whites were significantly older and had higher education, while non-Whites had lesser access to a computer. Only 51% of non-Whites were registered to use electronic medical records (EMR) as compared to 72% Whites (p < 0.001) and significantly lesser number of non-Whites even knew that EMR existed (81% vs. 92%, p < 0.001). Encouragingly, a higher number of non-Whites wanted to engage in EMR. Non-Whites from the main campus were older, more educated and had more access to a computer as compared to those from the inner-city campus. Similar disparate factors were noted among minorities from the two campuses, suggesting impact of socioeconomic backgrounds on EMR usage among non-Whites. Linguistic barriers were more striking among inner-city campus non-Whites. CONCLUSIONS: Non-Whites continue to struggle with suboptimal utilization of the healthcare system and barriers related to integration in HIT, including disparities representing socioeconomic differences. Efforts need to be made at several levels to help racial-ethnic minorities overcome awareness, access, and linguistic barriers to HIT utilization.

Global disparities in patients with multiple myeloma: a rapid evidence assessment.

There are disparities in outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We evaluated the influence of sociodemographic factors on global disparities in outcomes for patients with MM. This rapid evidence assessment (PROSPERO, CRD42021248461) followed PRISMA-P guidelines and used the PICOS framework. PubMed and Embase® were searched for articles in English from 2011 to 2021. The title, abstract, and full text of articles were screened according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. The sociodemographic factors assessed were age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. Outcomes were diagnosis, access to treatment, and patient outcomes. Of 84 articles included, 48 were US-based. Worldwide, increasing age and low socioeconomic status were associated with worse patient outcomes. In the US, men typically had worse outcomes than women, although women had poorer access to treatment, as did Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients. No consistent disparities due to sex were seen outside the US, and for most factors and outcomes, no consistent disparities could be identified globally. Too few studies examined disparities in diagnosis to draw firm conclusions. This first systematic analysis of health disparities in patients with MM identified specific populations affected, highlighting a need for additional research focused on assessing patterns, trends, and underlying drivers of disparities in MM.

Multiple Myeloma: Current Clinical Landscape and Compounding Costs.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The treatment landscape of multiple myeloma (MM) has evolved resulting in MM becoming a chronic condition. The costs of MM therapies are substantial and compound as patients remain on long-term maintenance therapies and progress through multiple lines of high-cost therapies. MM predominantly impacts the elderly population insured by Medicare; here, we analyze how these costs impact patients and the Medicare trust fund. RECENT FINDINGS: With the recent passing of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), we postulate how costs may be impacted and debate future policy initiatives that may result in sustainability. The IRA will impact drug pricing and likely reduce the costs of some treatments used in MM; there is still a lot of room for policy reform to reduce financial toxicity to patients and prevent depletion of the Medicare trust fund.

Assessing Patient-Reported Financial Hardship in Patients With Cancer in Routine Clinical Care.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship (FH) in cancer care is a growing challenge for patients, their caregivers, and health care providers with impact on morbidity and mortality. In this study, we report on a standardized approach to describe the prevalence and predictors for FH as part of routine clinical workflow. We also report on the association of FH with survival in our cancer patient population. METHODS: This study includes patients who completed a FH screen at least once between 2018 and 2020. Demographics, disease state, and mortality data were extracted from the medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine association of sociodemographic and disease variables with FH. By using propensity score weighting to account for differences in demographic and clinical factors between patients with and without FH, we then fit Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between FH and survival. RESULTS: The study cohort included 31,154 patients. FH was reported by 14% (n = 4,250) of the patients. A significantly higher likelihood of having FH (P < .001 for all) was reported by racial/ethnic minority patients; those who were unemployed/disabled, single, or divorced; patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods; and those who were self-pay or had government insurance. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Patients who endorsed FH had a lower survival (hazard ratio for mortality 1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study identified key groups more likely to report FH in a relatively affluent population at a large cancer center and showed an adverse association between FH and survival. Further research is needed to develop clinical care pathways for patients at high risk for worse financial and clinical outcomes.

Insurance-based disparities impact survival outcomes in Waldenström macroglobulinemia within the United States.

Considerable healthcare resource utilization and financial burden have been associated with the treatment of WM; however, the impact of health insurance status on outcomes has not been previously reported. We conducted a National Cancer Database analysis of newly diagnosed cases of active WM between 2004 and 2017 to evaluate the impact of insurance status on outcomes. For patients <65 years old (n = 1249, male sex: 62.4%, median age: 58 years), significant insurance-based survival differences were observed on multivariable analysis; patients who were uninsured [n = 63; HR 3.11 (95%CI, 1.77-5.45), p < 0.001], on Medicaid [n = 87; HR 1.88 (95% CI, 1.01-3.48), p = 0.045], or on Medicare [n = 122; HR 2.78 (95%CI, 1.76-4.38), p < 0.001], had inferior survival compared to patients with private insurance (n = 977; reference). In patients ≥65 years, no insurance-based survival differences were found (p = 0.10). Overall, significant insurance-based outcome disparities exist in WM. Further work is desperately needed to systematically uncover and address these disparities.

Assessment of fixed-duration therapies for treatment-naïve Waldenström macroglobulinemia.

Comparative data guiding initial therapy for Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an infrequently encountered non-Hodgkin lymphoma, are sparse. We evaluated three commonly used rituximab-based frontline regimens: rituximab-bendamustine (R-Benda); dexamethasone, rituximab, cyclophosphamide (DRC); and bortezomib, dexamethasone, rituximab (BDR) in 220 treatment-naïve patients with WM, seen at Mayo Clinic between November 1, 2000 and October 31, 2019. The median follow-up was 4.5 (95%CI: 4-5) years. The R-Benda cohort (n = 83) demonstrated superior overall response rate (ORR: 98%), in comparison to DRC (n = 92, ORR: 78%) or BDR (n = 45, ORR: 84%) cohorts, p = 0.003. Similarly, longer progression-free survival (PFS) was evident with R-Benda use [median 5.2 vs. 4.3 (DRC) and 1.8 years (BDR), p < 0.001]. The time-to-next therapy (TTNT) favored R-Benda [median, not-reached, 4.4 (DRC) and 2.6 years (BDR), p < 0.001). These endpoints were comparable between the DRC and BDR cohorts. Overall survival (OS) was similar across the three cohorts, p = 0.77. In a subset analysis of 142 patients genotyped for MYD88L265P mutation, the ORR, PFS and TTNT were unaffected by the patients' MYD88 signature within each cohort. In conclusion, ORR, PFS and TTNT with R-Benda are superior compared to DRC or BDR in treatment-naïve patients with active WM. The patient outcomes with any one of these three regimens are unaffected by the MYD88L265P mutation status.

Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Services at US Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: It is standard of care and an accreditation requirement to screen for and address distress and psychosocial needs in patients with cancer. This study assessed the availability of mental health (MH) and chemical dependency (CD) services at US cancer centers. METHODS: The 2017-2018 American Hospital Association (AHA) survey, Area Health Resource File, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare databases were used to assess availability of services and associations with hospital-level and health services area (HSA)-level characteristics. RESULTS: Of 1,144 cancer centers surveyed, 85.4% offered MH services and 45.5% offered CD services; only 44.1% provided both. Factors associated with increased adjusted odds of offering MH services were teaching status (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18-2.62), being a member of a hospital system (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.07), and having more beds (OR, 1.04 per 10-bed increase; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05). Higher population estimate (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99), higher percentage uninsured (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95), and higher Mental Health Professional Shortage Area level in the HSA (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00) were associated with decreased odds of offering MH services. Government-run (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.30-6.22) and nonprofit centers (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.78-6.79) showed increased odds of offering CD services compared with for-profit centers. Those that were members of hospital systems (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14-2.29) and had more beds (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) also showed increased odds of offering these services. A higher percentage of uninsured patients in the HSA (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97) was associated with decreased odds of offering CD services. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' ability to pay, membership in a hospital system, and organization size may be drivers of decisions to co-locate services within cancer centers. Larger organizations may be better able to financially support offering these services despite poor reimbursement rates. Innovations in specialty payment models highlight opportunities to drive transformation in delivering MH and CD services for high-need patients with cancer.

Association of Race, Socioeconomic Factors, and Treatment Characteristics With Overall Survival in Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: It has been established that disparities in race and socioeconomic status are associated with outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer. However, it remains unknown whether this extends to stage I, II, or III small cell lung cancer (SCLC), or limited-stage SCLC (L-SCLC). Objective: To investigate the associations of race, socioeconomic factors, and treatment characteristics with survival among patients with L-SCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Demographic information for patients with L-SCLC diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 was obtained from the National Cancer Database. The follow-up end point is death or last follow-up (date of last contact). Patients were divided into 5 mutually exclusive cohorts by race. Data analysis was performed in October 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate univariable and multivariable models. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess the associations of race and socioeconomic factors with risk-adjusted outcomes. Overall survival between groups was depicted by Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: Of 72 409 patients analyzed (median [range] age, 67.0 [23.0-90.0] years), 40 289 (55.6%) were women. The distribution of disease stage was 10 619 patients (14.7%) with stage I disease, 7689 patients (10.6%) with stage II disease, and 54 101 patients (74.7%) with stage III disease. The median (range) duration of follow-up was 8.2 (2.4-15.8) months. Compared with White patients, the hazard of death decreased to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.95; P < .001) for African American patients and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91; P < .001) for Asian patients. The difference in median survival among different racial groups was significant only among those with stage III SCLC. Other factors associated with better survival were female sex, high income, high education, private insurance, diagnostic confirmation by positive cytological analysis, increase in number of sampled regional lymph nodes, and earlier stage at diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis highlights disparities in race and socioeconomic factors associated with outcomes of L-SCLC. Racial minorities, including African American and Asian patients, have better survival than White patients for L-SCLC after adjustment for sociodemographic factors.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Timeliness to Treatment for Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To examine the impact of ACA and the association of socioeconomic factors on delay in initial treatment for multiple myeloma (MM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with MM between 2004-2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Time-to-initial treatment (TTI) was defined as the number of days from diagnosis to initial therapy. Patients were classified into quartiles and those belonging to the fourth quartile for TTI constituted the delayed treatment group. Study period was divided into pre-ACA and post-ACA using 2010 as the cut-off. RESULTS: A total of 65,723 patients met the eligibility criteria. Median TTI was 13 (IQR=5-27) days. Racial-ethnic minorities were associated with delayed-TTI. Delayed treatment was more likely for Hispanics pre-ACA but not post-ACA, while non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB) were more likely to have delayed treatment both, pre- and post-ACA. CONCLUSION: While ACA has been shown to help mitigate healthcare disparities in certain cancer diagnoses, the study suggests that the effect is still limited among MM patients.

Timeliness of Initial Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Trends and Factors Affecting Patient Care.

Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has advanced significantly over the last 2 decades. In most patients, the disease course has been altered from early fatality to chronic morbidity with multiple lines of treatment. The MM treatment paradigm has shifted toward treating patients before end-organ damage occurs. Thus, timeliness of treatment initiation in this era might improve patient outcomes. This is the first report to our knowledge analyzing disparities and trends in treatment timeliness of patients with MM using the National Cancer Database. Multiple factors affected the timing of treatment initiation in MM and disparities were found. We noted that initiation of treatment was delayed in women (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.2) and blacks (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.28; reference, whites) and in patients diagnosed in more recent years (2012-2015; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.22; reference, 2004-2007). Patients were likely to start treatment earlier if they were age ≥ 80 years (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.9; reference, age < 60 years), were uninsured (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91; reference, private insurance), had Medicaid (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95; reference, private insurance), were treated in a comprehensive community cancer program (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.77; reference, community cancer program), lived in a location other than the US Northeast, or had a higher Charlson comorbidity score. Patient education and income levels did not affect time to treatment initiation. Particular aspects of these disparities could be explained by our current health care system and insurance rules, whereas others need to be investigated more deeply.

Cost Analysis of R-CHOP Versus Dose-Adjusted R-EPOCH in Treatment of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma with High-Risk Features.

Dose-adjusted rituximab, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin (DA.R-EPOCH) is used for upfront treatment of high-risk diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In this study, we compared the outcomes in patients with high-risk DLBCL who received frontline rituximab, cycophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (R-CHOP) or DA.R-EPOCH immunochemotherapy. Outcomes and treatment-related cost were analyzed. DLBCL with one of the following features were included in the study: MYC ± BCL2 or BCL6 rearrangement by FISH or MYC overexpression by immunohistochemistry, Ki67 index ≥ 80% or nongerminal center immunophenotype, tumor measuring ≥5 cm and NCCN- IPI score ≥4. A total of 80 patients were treated with R-CHOP (n = 52, 65%) or DA.R-EPOCH (n = 28, 35%), with a median follow-up of 11.2 months (range: 0.7-151.3 months). The hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival and overall survival were 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28%-2.29%, p = 0.67] and 0.86 (95% CI 0.26%-2.78%, p = 0.80), respectively for DA.R-EPOCH compared to R-CHOP. The total mean cost was USD106,940 ± USD39,351 and USD58,509 ± 24,588 for DA.R-EPOCH and R-CHOP respectively (p < 0.001). In our analysis, DA.R-EPOCH resulted comparable clinical outcomes and increased treatment-related expenses compared to R-CHOP in high-risk DLBCL.

Influence of Sociodemographic Factors on Treatment Decisions in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), survival has significantly improved. Despite such trends, it has been noted that patients frequently refuse treatment. Therefore, we explored the factors associated with treatment refusal in NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Utilizing the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), we identified all stage IV NSCLC cases from 2004 to 2014. Patients who received cancer treatment outside of the reporting facility were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine associations with treatment refusal. RESULTS: A total of 341,993 patients were identified; 5.4% of patients refused radiotherapy and 10.3% refused chemotherapy despite provider recommendations. The proportion of patients refusing radiotherapy and chemotherapy increased over time from 4.2% to 7.3% and 7.9% to 15%, respectively (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, men were less likely to refuse treatment compared to women (respectively, odds ratio = 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.84; P < .001; odds ratio = 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.85; P < .001, respectively). Factors associated with radiotherapy refusal included: Medicaid or Medicare as primary insurance, uninsured status, low household median income, and lower educational level. Regarding chemotherapy, uninsured patients, Medicaid patients, and patients with a high comorbidity index were more likely to refuse chemotherapy. Asians had lower rates of chemotherapy refusal relative to non-Hispanic whites. Non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, and Asians had increasing chemotherapy refusal rates over time, while non-Hispanic blacks had less pronounced trends over time. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic factors rather than race/ethnicity appear to influence the refusal of cancer treatment in patients with stage IV NSCLC. Assessing socioeconomic challenges should be an essential part of patient evaluation when discussing treatment options.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with multiple myeloma with and without skeletal-related events.

AIM: To compare healthcare resource use and costs between newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients with and without skeletal-related events (SREs). METHODS: Adults newly diagnosed with MM (1 January 2006 and 30 June 2017) with at least 12 months continuous health coverage prior to diagnosis were identified using the IBM MarketScan administrative claims. To control for baseline differences, NDMM patients with SREs were propensity score matched to NDMM patients without SREs. Outcomes included annual HRU and costs during follow-up along with number and type of SREs (SRE cohort only). Patients with SREs were stratified by number of SREs, and annual SRE-related costs were reported. Student's t test and Chi-squared test were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Before matching, the 6648 patients in the SRE cohort had more comorbidities, were more likely to have MM treatment, and had higher pre-index healthcare costs than the 7458 patients in the non-SRE cohort. After matching, cohorts of 3432 patients were well balanced on baseline characteristics. Patients with SREs (vs. without SREs) had significantly higher inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy HRU. Patients with SREs had significantly higher mean annual all-cause healthcare costs ($213,361 vs. $94,896, p < 0.001) with hospitalization being the leading driver of increased costs (38.7% of total). Among 6648 patients with SREs, the mean annual SRE-related healthcare costs were $39,603, $45,463, and $50,111 for patients with one, two, and three or more events, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: NDMM patients with SREs have more than twice the all-cause healthcare costs than matched patients without SREs. Costs increase with the number of SRE events.

Racial disparities in treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with multiple myeloma: a SEER-Medicare analysis.

The objective of the study was to assess racial disparities in the treatment and outcomes among white, African American, and Hispanic patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Patients with an MM diagnosis from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare (2007-2013) database were included. Continuous Medicare enrollment for 6 months before (baseline) and after MM diagnosis was required unless death occurred. Time from MM diagnosis to novel therapy initiation and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), overall survival (OS), and MM-specific survival (MSS) was evaluated. Unadjusted and multivariable regressions compared African Americans and Hispanics vs whites. Trends of novel therapy and ASCT use across MM diagnosis years were assessed using linear regression models. The study included 3504 whites, 858 African Americans, and 468 Hispanics. African Americans and Hispanics had a longer time from MM diagnosis to novel therapy initiation vs whites (median: 5.2 and 4.6 vs 2.7 months, respectively). All cohorts had an increasing trend of novel therapy initiation within 6 months of MM diagnosis, particularly whites (all P < .05). Median MSS was significantly longer for African Americans (5.4 years) than whites (4.5 years; P < .05), and was comparable for Hispanics and whites. Median OS was similar overall (2.6-2.8 years). ASCT rate within 1 year of MM diagnosis rose among whites and African Americans (P < .05), but not Hispanics, who were less likely to receive ASCT vs whites. Significant variations in novel therapy and ASCT use were observed among different racial/ethnic groups with MM. Although OS was similar, both African Americans and Hispanics may not be fully benefitting from the introduction of novel therapies, as they receive them later than whites.

Cost Offsets in the Treatment Journeys of Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Multiple new regimens are available for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this context, it is increasingly important to understand the differential costs of regimens used to treat RRMM. METHODS: A treatment journey for RRMM during a 12-month period of therapy was developed to reflect real-world clinical practice based on current treatment guidelines and input from hematologists/oncologists. The journey incorporated prescreening visits, laboratory tests, regimen-specific premedication, treatment-related costs, medical costs, and indirect costs. A cost model was constructed from the standard RRMM treatment pathway to compare overall, direct, and indirect costs across therapies over a 12-month period from initiation of second-line therapy and to determine cost offsets (incremental costs) associated with use of ixazomib-based therapy versus comparator regimens. According to the clinical input, the standard pathway was modified for patients with high unmet need to determine specific cost offsets in these subgroups. FINDINGS: Total costs ranged from $93,683 for bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone to $315,296 for daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone. Drug cost comprised the highest proportion (83%-98%) of total costs of second-line therapy across regimens, which were generally highest for regimens based on recently approved agents. Indirect costs were higher for regimens that required more frequent or longer durations of drug administration, and lower for all-oral regimens. Costs were reduced among frail patients because of the use of adjusted dosing, whereas indirect costs were increased for regimens that required a greater number of clinic visits among patients with barriers to physician access. IMPLICATIONS: Cost model analyses highlight the differential direct and indirect costs associated with multiple regimens for the treatment of RRMM, including many recent new regimens. The results indicate the lower treatment burden and indirect costs associated with administering all-oral regimens compared with regimens that require frequent and/or lengthy subcutaneous or intravenous infusions. Understanding comparative costs associated with the treatment journeys of different patients with RRMM may help inform payer and patient therapeutic choices.

Commentary: Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Research - Classifications, Challenges, and Future Directions.

The use of race and ethnicity in biomedical research has been a subject of debate for the past three decades. Initially the two major race categories were: White and Black, leaving other minorities uncounted or inappropriately misclassified. As the science of health disparities evolves, more sophisticated and detailed information has been added to large databases. Despite the addition of new racial classifications, including multi-racial denominations, the quality of the data is limited to the data collection process and other social misconceptions. Although race is viewed as an imposed or ascribed status, ethnicity is an achieved status, making it a more challenging variable to include in biomedical research. Ambiguity between race and ethnicity often exists, ultimately affecting the value of both variables. To better understand specific health outcomes or disparities of groups, it is necessary to collect subgroup-specific data. Cultural perceptions and practices, health experiences, and susceptibility to disease vary greatly among broad racial-ethnic groups and requires the collection of nuanced data to understand. Here, we provide an overview of the classification of race and ethnicity in the United States over time, the existing challenges in using race and ethnicity in biomedical research and future research directions.

Reframing the Value of Treatments for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

DISCLOSURES: Ailawadhi reports research support from Pharmacyclics and consulting relationships with Takeda, Amgen, and Celgene. Jakubowiak reports consulting and advisory board relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Karyopharm, SkylineDX, and Takeda. Panjabi, Campioni, and Majer are employees of and stockholders in Amgen.

Impact of psychiatric comorbidities on health care utilization and cost of care in multiple myeloma.

Approximately one third of cancer patients suffer from comorbid mood disorders that are associated with increased cost and poorer outcomes. The majority of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are treated with corticosteroids; as many as three fourths of those taking corticosteroids develop neuropsychiatric complications, likely increasing morbidity and cost of care. MM patients diagnosed between 1991 and 2010 and reported in the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database were characterized as MM-Only, MM+Psychiatric (any psychiatric condition, preexisting or post-MM), or MM+Depression (depression as the only psychiatric diagnosis, preexisting or post-MM). Differences in demographic characteristics, occurrence of clinical myeloma-defining events (MDEs), health care utilization (inpatient, outpatient, ambulatory claims), and cost of care during the first 6 months of MM diagnosis were analyzed. Psychiatric comorbidities were reported more frequently in females, and racial minorities had lower rates of psychiatric comorbidities. All clinical MDEs were more common in the MM+Psychiatric and MM+Depression groups; within them, the majority were more common in patients diagnosed with the psychiatric condition or depression after MM compared with it being a preexisting condition. Health care utilization in all treatment settings was higher in those with psychiatric comorbidities. Cost of care within the first 6 months after MM diagnosis was significantly higher in the MM+Psychiatric and MM+Depression groups. This increase in cost was more pronounced for patients from racial minorities diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, including depression. Psychiatric comorbidities significantly impact the clinical presentations, health care utilization, and cost among patients with MM. These findings need to be addressed for improved survivorship of MM patients.