Clinical Profile, Health Care Costs, and Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Severely Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Background Many patients with heart failure (HF) have severely reduced ejection fraction but do not meet threshold for consideration of advanced therapies (ie, stage D HF). The clinical profile and health care costs associated with these patients in US practice is not well described. Methods and Results We examined patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction ≤40% from 2014 to 2019 in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry, who did not receive advanced HF therapies or have end-stage kidney disease. Patients with severely reduced EF defined as EF ≤30% were compared with those with EF 31% to 40% in terms of clinical profile and guideline-directed medical therapy. Among Medicare beneficiaries, postdischarge outcomes and health care expenditure were compared. Among 113 348 patients with EF ≤40%, 69% (78 589) had an EF ≤30%. Patients with severely reduced EF ≤30% tended to be younger and were more likely to be Black. Patients with EF ≤30% also tended to have fewer comorbidities and were more likely to be prescribed guideline-directed medical therapy ("triple therapy" 28.3% versus 18.2%, P<0.001). At 12-months postdischarge, patients with EF ≤30% had significantly higher risk of death (HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.08-1.18]) and HF hospitalization (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.09-1.19]), with similar risk of all-cause hospitalizations. Health care expenditures were numerically higher for patients with EF ≤30% (median US$22 648 versus $21 392, P=0.11). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in US clinical practice, most patients have severely reduced EF ≤30%. Despite younger age and modestly higher use of guideline-directed medical therapy at discharge, patients with severely reduced EF face heightened postdischarge risk of death and HF hospitalization.

Avoidable Acute Care Use Associated with Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy or Oxaliplatin.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation. RESULTS: Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) relative to aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a trial-based analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess, from a United States (US) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis using a single dose of netupitant and palonosetron in a fixed combination (NEPA) versus aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN), each in combination with dexamethasone, in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: We analyzed patient-level outcomes over a 5-day post-HEC period from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial of NEPA (n = 412) versus APR + GRAN (n = 416). Costs and CINV-related utilities were assigned to each subject using published sources. Parameter uncertainty was addressed via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: Compared to APR + GRAN, NEPA resulted in a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs) (4.04 vs 3.95; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.25) and a significant total per-patient cost reduction of $309 ($943 vs $1252; 95% CI $4-$626), due principally to $258 in lower medical costs of CINV-related events ($409 vs $668; 95% CI -$46 to $572) and $45 in lower study drug costs ($531 vs $577). In the PSA, NEPA resulted in lower costs and higher QALD in 86.5% of cases and cost ≤ $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in 97.8% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This first-ever economic analysis using patient-level data from a phase 3 trial comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) antiemetic regimens suggests that NEPA is highly cost-effective (and in fact cost-saving) versus an aprepitant-based regimen in post-HEC CINV prevention. Actual savings may be higher, as we focused only on the first chemotherapy cycle and omitted the impact of CINV-related chemotherapy discontinuation.

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70-80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT3) and neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact. Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT3 RA + NK1 RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care. Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.

Patterns of treatment and costs associated with transfusion burden in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

Transfusion dependence (TD) among myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients negatively impacts survival and health-related quality of life. We evaluated cost patterns of MDS care during TD and transfusion independence (TI). MDS patients were identified from a US claims database (2008-2013). TD was defined as ≥2 consecutive 8-week periods with ≥1 claim during each, and no interim 56-day period without transfusion; TI as 8 subsequent transfusion-free weeks; and transfusion frequency as the mean interval between transfusions during the TD period. 13,741 patients were included; 19% were TD and 70% had a mean interval between transfusions of ≤28 days. During a 2-year period, TD patients incurred a mean total cost of $17,815/patient-month; 53% higher for those with ≤28 days ($19,498) vs. >28 days ($12,717) between transfusions. Among patients who achieved TI, mean total cost was $7874/patient-month. For TD-MDS patients, cost increases are proportional to transfusion frequency and achieving TI yields economic benefits.

A retrospective study of direct cost to patients associated with the use of oral oncology medications for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: To examine direct cost to patients associated with oral oncolytics for the management of multiple myeloma (MM) both before and after financial assistance, and assess the effect on adherence. METHODS: In this retrospective study, pharmacy claims were analyzed for those patients with a diagnosis of MM who received thalidomide, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide from a large specialty pharmacy in the US between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. Average direct cost to patients, per prescription, was analyzed both before and after financial assistance. Adherence was assessed through an analysis of medication possession ratio (MPR) for those patients who filled a prescription ≥2 times throughout the 3-year time period. RESULTS: A total of 77,821 prescriptions for thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide were filled by 6731 unique patients between January 1, 2011, and, December 31, 2013. The average direct cost to patients, per prescription, for any of these three agents was $227.23 prior to financial assistance and $80.11 after financial assistance, representing an average patient savings of $147.14 per prescription. Prior to financial assistance, the average direct cost to patients was ≤$50 for 57.6% of all prescriptions. After financial assistance, 86.2% of patients had a direct cost of ≤$50 per prescription. Adherence, as assessed by MPR, did not vary significantly based on direct cost to the patient. LIMITATIONS: This study included patients receiving therapy from a single specialty pharmacy for a single indication. There may be patients included in the analysis who received prescriptions from other pharmacies prior to or after the prescriptions available for analysis. Most of the prescriptions included in the analysis were for lenalidomide. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study demonstrated that the specialty pharmacy helped patients significantly reduce their direct cost expenditures by securing funding and co-pay assistance.

Patterns of total cost and economic consequences of progression for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have addressed the cost patterns of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) before and after first relapse. This US claims analysis evaluated, from a US health plan perspective, patterns of total direct costs of care from treatment initiation to progression for patients with MM treated with novel agents, using time to next therapy (TTNT) as a proxy measure for progression. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using a large US claims database, evaluating patients with claims for MM between 2006 and 2013. Patients with claims for stem cell transplant (SCT) were excluded. The analysis focused on patients receiving lenalidomide (LEN) or bortezomib (BORT) based treatment, for whom complete claim history was available through initiation of subsequent treatment. Average patient monthly direct costs were determined, including medical and pharmacy costs, and total cost patterns over quarterly time periods were calculated. RESULTS: The study population comprised 2843 patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and 1361 with relapsed MM. Total monthly cost for patients with NDMM declined steadily, from $15,734 initially to $5082 at 18+ months after therapy. Upon initiation of second-line therapy, total monthly costs rose to $13,876 and declined to $6446 18 months later. Although NDMM cost levels for individual ordinal months were similar between the LEN and BORT groups, TTNT was longer for LEN-based treatments (37 months). The BORT-treated cohort had higher average monthly total costs for NDMM and for the common time period through 37 months after initiation of therapy ($7534 vs $10,763 for LEN and BORT, respectively). Key limitations of this study, in addition to the lack of mortality and staging information available from claims data, include the definition of TTNT based on change in treatment or a defined gap in therapy prior to retreatment, which may differ from actual time of progression in some patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with NDMM receiving either LEN- or BORT-based treatment without SCT, followed until TTNT, total direct monthly costs (drug + medical) declined steadily over time. Monthly costs returned to near initial levels when patients began second-line therapy and then followed a similar pattern of decline. Due to the longer TTNT for patients initiated on LEN and the associated longer period of below-average costs, patients initiated with LEN-based treatments had mean monthly total costs >$3200 lower than total costs for patients initiated on BORT during the first 3 years after starting treatment, cumulating to nearly $120,000 in lower costs for patients initiated on LEN.

Total cost comparison in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: Advances in survival in multiple myeloma have focused payer attention on the cost of care. An assessment was conducted to compare the costs of two recent treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM), from the perspective of a US payer. METHODS: An economic model estimated the total costs of care for two guideline-recommended therapies in rrMM patients: bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX). To evaluate total treatment costs, the costs associated with drug treatment, medical resource utilization, and adverse event (AE) management were determined for each regimen over a common 1-year period. Medical costs and grade 3/4 AE costs were based on rates from published literature, package inserts, and fee schedules (US dollars). To evaluate cost per outcome, assessments determined the monthly costs without disease progression based on pivotal clinical trials (APEX [BORT] and MM-009/MM-010 [LEN/DEX]). Univariate sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios were also conducted. RESULTS: Drug costs for the treatments were very similar, differing by under $10 per day. Medical and AE management costs for BORT were higher by more than $40 per day. Treatment with BORT had annual excess total costs of >$17,000 compared with LEN/DEX. A cost advantage for LEN/DEX was maintained across a variety of sensitivity analyses. Total cost per month without progression was 11% lower with LEN/DEX. LIMITATIONS: This analysis relied on separate studies having similar comparators, populations, and end-points. Actual treatment patterns and costs pre- and post-relapse may vary from the base scenario and sensitivities modeled. The 12-month time frame captures the preponderance of costs for a relapse line of therapy, yet may not reflect the entirety of costs. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether, or how, a difference in the lifetime costs of the two regimens would vary from the 1-year cost difference. CONCLUSION: While rrMM treatment with BORT and LEN/DEX had comparable drug costs, total treatment costs for BORT were higher due to ongoing direct medical and AE management costs. Total costs per outcome (a month without disease progression) were lower for LEN/DEX.