Outcomes Following Initiation of Triple Therapy with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy Among Medicare Advantage with Part D Beneficiaries and Those Commercially Enrolled for Health Care Insurance in the United States.

Purpose: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been shown to benefit from triple therapy commonly delivered by multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT); however, the complexity of MITT regimens may decrease patient adherence. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), a once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT), became available in the United States (US) in 2017, but real-world data comparing outcomes for SITT versus MITT are currently limited. This study compared outcomes among patients with COPD initiating MITT versus SITT with FF/UMEC/VI who were either Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) beneficiaries or commercial enrollees in the US. Methods: Retrospective study using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database for patients with COPD who initiated FF/UMEC/VI or MITT between September 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019 (index date: first pharmacy claim for FF/UMEC/VI cohort; earliest day of ≥30 consecutive days-long period of overlap in the day's supply of all triple therapy components for MITT cohort). COPD exacerbations, adherence to triple therapy, and all-cause and COPD-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared between FF/UMEC/VI and MITT initiators. Results: In total, 4659 FF/UMEC/VI initiators and 9845 MITT initiators for the MAPD population, and 821 FF/UMEC/VI initiators and 1893 MITT initiators for the commercial population were included in the study. MAPD beneficiaries initiating FF/UMEC/VI had a significantly lower annual rate of severe exacerbations compared to MITT initiators (0.26 vs 0.29; p=0.014). They also had a significantly higher mean adherence (proportion of days covered) (0.51 vs 0.37; p<0.001) and significantly lower all-cause and COPD-related inpatient stays compared to MITT initiators ([32.02% vs 34.27%; p=0.017], [16.09% vs 17.72%; p=0.037]). Trends were similar among the commercial population, but the results were not statistically significant. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI initiators had significantly fewer severe exacerbations, higher triple therapy adherence, and lower HCRU costs compared to MITT initiators for MAPD beneficiaries.

COPD Exacerbations, Costs, and Health Care Resource Utilization Before and After Initiation of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Routine Care in the USA.

Purpose: To examine the impact of initiating fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in a single device on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, COPD exacerbation-related costs, and all-cause and COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with COPD. Methods: Retrospective database analysis of patients with COPD aged ≥40 years who initiated FF/UMEC/VI between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018 (index date: first pharmacy claim for FF/UMEC/VI), following evidence of multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) (≥30 consecutive days) in the year prior to index. COPD exacerbations, COPD exacerbation-related costs, and all-cause and COPD-related HCRU and costs were compared between the baseline period (12 months prior to and including index) and follow-up period (12 months following index). Results: Data from 912 patients (mean [SD] age: 71.2 [8.1], 51.2% female) were included in the analyses. Among the overall cohort, mean count of total COPD exacerbations (moderate or severe) per patient was statistically significantly lower in the follow-up period compared to baseline (1.2 vs 1.4, p=0.001). The proportion of patients with ≥1 COPD exacerbation (moderate or severe) was also statistically significantly lower in the follow-up period compared to baseline (56.4% vs 62.4%, p=0.001). All-cause and COPD-related HCRU were similar during follow-up compared to baseline, although the proportion of patients with COPD-related ambulatory visits was lower during follow-up (p<0.001). COPD-related office visit costs, emergency room visit costs, and pharmacy costs were statistically significantly lower during follow-up compared to baseline (p<0.001; p=0.019; p<0.001, respectively). Conclusion: In a real-world setting, patients on MITT who subsequently initiated FF/UMEC/VI in a single device had significant reductions in the rate of COPD exacerbations (moderate or severe). Switching to FF/UMEC/VI also resulted in improvements in some HCRU and cost outcomes. These data support the use of FF/UMEC/VI among patients at high risk of exacerbation to reduce future risk and improve outcomes.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Associated with Disease Progression in Ovarian Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian cancer (OC) is one of the leading causes of cancer mortality among women in the United States. With the approval of first-line maintenance therapies, patients with OC experienced prolonged first-line progression-free survival. While the literature addresses some costs associated with OC, further research is needed on the costs of progression that are potentially deferred or prevented by early maintenance. The objective of this study was to capture the health care resource utilization and costs of patients with advanced OC who never received poly(ADP ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive retrospective analysis of treatment patterns and the consequences of progression through several lines of therapy (LOTs) in patients with OC, using claims from commercial and Medicare Advantage health plan members in the United States from the Optum Research Database between January 1, 2010, and April 30, 2019. Patients were required to have an index OC diagnosis (≥ 2 non-diagnostic claims). We examined up to 4 LOTs and the time between treatments. RESULTS: A total of 5498 women met the eligibility criteria. As the number of LOTs increased, the median duration of each line decreased from 137 days in LOT1 to 94 days in LOT4, and the time between lines also decreased from 245 to 0 days. Ambulatory care visits were a major driver of health care resource utilization, with a median of about 6 monthly visits during active treatment. The mean total monthly health care costs for patients with at least 2 LOTs were US$8588 (SD: $8533) before LOT2 and increased to $15,358 (SD: $21,460) during or after LOT2. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonging progression-free survival after first-line treatment in patients with OC may provide the opportunity to delay or prevent later treatment, the financial toxicity felt by patients, and the economic burden to the health care system associated with progression.

Ovarian cancer is a complex disease in which > 70% of patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, and one of the leading causes of cancer mortality among women in the United States. A variety of maintenance therapy options, including bevacizumab, PARP inhibitors, and PARP plus bevacizumab combination therapies, have demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival. By delaying disease progression after completion of first-line therapy, a simultaneous decrease in post-progression health care costs may be seen. The objective of this study was to capture the health care resource utilization and costs of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who did not receive a PARP inhibitor at any time in their treatmentIn patients never receiving a PARP inhibitor, this study documented substantial health care resource usage and costs associated with progression beyond the first line of treatment (surgery and/or chemotherapy) in ovarian cancer. These were largely driven by the number of ambulatory care visits. When these visits are combined with emergency department visits and inpatient stays, high costs are incurred by both patients and third-party payersProlonging progression-free survival after first-line treatment in patients with ovarian cancer may delay or prevent the need for later treatment, the financial burden felt by patients, and the economic burden to the health care system associated with subsequent disease progressions.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs of Steroid-Associated Complications in Patients With Graft-Versus-Host Disease.

Acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD/cGVHD) are serious conditions occurring after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Steroids are the most common first-line therapy; however, they are frequently associated with numerous morbid complications. To describe the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs of steroid-related complications in patients receiving systemic steroids for GVHD. This retrospective study used medical and pharmacy claims from the Optum Research database. Eligible patients were diagnosed with GVHD (aGVHD, cGVHD, or both) after HCT and were treated with systemic steroids between July 1, 2010, and August 31, 2019. The index date was the date of the first claim for systemic steroids after GVHD diagnosis. The baseline period was the 6 months before the index date, and the follow-up period was 2 years after the index date. Outcome variables included HCRU and costs associated with steroid complications, grouped into 4 categories: bone/muscle, gastrointestinal, infection, and metabolic/endocrine. A multivariate analysis was used to assess the cost ratio associated with the presence of each steroid complication; the linear model was adjusted for baseline patient characteristics and types of steroid conditions identified during follow-up. Another multivariate analysis assessed the hazard ratio for hospitalization associated with each steroid complication using a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for the time-varying presence of each complication category. A total of 689 patients were studied (median age, 55 years; male, 60%); 22% had aGVHD only, 21% had cGVHD only, and 39% had both types of GVHD. After 2 years of follow-up, 97% had at least 1 steroid-associated complication. The most common complication category was infection (79.5%), followed by metabolic/endocrine (32.4%), gastrointestinal (29.2%), and bone/muscle conditions (19.7%). About two thirds (66%) of patients with any steroid complication had ≥1 hospitalization requiring a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 20 (8-43) hospital days. Patients with an infection experienced the highest hospitalization rate (72%) and thus the highest associated costs. The total mean (median [IQR]) healthcare cost potentially related to steroid complications was $164,787 ($50,834 [$8865-$182,693]), and the largest expense was hospitalization (mean [median {IQR}], $140,637 [$26,782 {$0-$141,398}]). Of the different steroid complications, infections were associated with the highest cost (mean [median {IQR}], $167,473 [$57,680 {$16,261-$178,698}]). In addition, a significantly higher total adjusted cost was associated with the presence of an infection, gastrointestinal complication, or bone/muscle complication in patients with GVHD versus the absence of each complication (all P < .001). Complications occurring after steroid treatment for GVHD may add substantially to the HCRU and costs associated with GVHD management. Infections in particular required inpatient care and were associated with the highest economic burden.

Increasing prevalence of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a managed care population in the United States.

PURPOSE: Numerous treatment breakthroughs for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have been demonstrated in clinical trials in the past 15 years. However, real-world evidence on the changing epidemiology and longevity of this population has not been demonstrated. This study assessed prevalence trends for mCRPC over eight years in a large managed care population. METHODS: In a claims database, adult male patients were included with ≥ 1 claim for prostate cancer, pharmacologic/surgical castration, and metastatic disease during the identification period. The index mCRPC date was the first metastatic claim; six months of continuous enrollment before and after was required. Patients with metastatic disease at baseline were excluded. Patients were followed until death, end of study, or disenrollment, whichever was earliest. Total, mCRPC per-prostate cancer, and age-specific prevalence rates were calculated cross-sectionally for each year under study (2010-2017). RESULTS: Of 343,089 patients identified with a claim for prostate cancer, 3690 mCRPC cases (1.1%) were identified. Incidence (new cases per year) remained relatively constant over the study period while prevalence of mCRPC (total cases per year) increased. mCRPC prevalence increased with increasing age. Total and mCRPC per-prostate cancer prevalence rates increased in monotonic, year-over-year trends from 2010 to 2017, while incidence (new cases per year) of mCRPC remained relatively stable. CONCLUSION: This study found increasing prevalence of mCRPC in an insured patient population during the 8-year period, coupled with stable incidence, validating that patients with the disease are living longer. With the addition of androgen receptor-directed therapies and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in recent years, this trend will likely continue.

Real-World Costs of Adverse Events in First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common form of lung cancer in the United States. Immunotherapies and cytotoxic chemotherapies used to treat advanced NSCLC carry a substantial risk of adverse events (AEs), but real-world data on the incidence and costs associated with the unique AE profiles of these treatments are sparse. OBJECTIVE: To examine the AE incidence and costs among patients initiating non-driver mutation-targeted first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) in clinical practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective administrative claims study conducted among commercial and Medicare Advantage health plan members who initiated first-line, nontargeted systemic anti-NSCLC therapy between January 1, 2008, and February 28, 2018. Patients were assigned to mutually exclusive treatment cohorts (cytotoxic chemotherapy [CHEM], immuno-oncology agents [IO], or immuno-oncology + cytotoxic chemotherapy [IO-CHEM]) and were observed from the index date (start of first-line therapy) through the earliest of health plan disenrollment, death, or March 31, 2018. AE incidence rates and associated health care costs were measured from the index date through the earliest of the start of a new therapy, 180 days after the end of first-line therapy, or the end of the study period. The factors influencing whether patients incurred high AE-related health care costs were assessed using multivariable models adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The final study population (mean [SD] age 68.6 [9.5] years, 53.9% male) included 8,818 in the CHEM cohort, 482 in the IO cohort, and 412 in the IO-CHEM cohort. Overall, 74.4% had at least 1 AE during follow-up. The AE incidence rate was lowest for the IO cohort, with incidence rate ratios (95% CI) of 1.4 (1.3-1.6) for the CHEM cohort and 1.4 (1.2-1.6) for the IO-CHEM cohort. Mean AE-related costs were lowest for the IO cohort ($16,319) and highest for the CHEM cohort ($23,009; P < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the odds of incurring any AE costs were similar for the IO and IO-CHEM cohorts compared with the CHEM cohort (OR = 0.82; P = 0.135 and OR = 0.98; P = 0.888, respectively). Among patients who incurred AE costs, those in the IO cohort were less likely than those in the CHEM cohort to have high costs (OR = 0.60; P = 0.030); the difference between the IO-CHEM and CHEM cohorts was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among real-world patients initiating nontargeted first-line therapy for mNSCLC, those receiving immunotherapy experienced fewer AEs and had lower total AE-related costs than those treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Immunotherapy-treated patients were no more likely than chemotherapy-treated patients to incur AE-related costs and were less likely to have high AE costs if they incurred any at all. These findings indicate that immunotherapy-related AEs are not a differentiating factor in cost of care for this patient population in clinical practice. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Ryan is an employee of AstraZeneca. Engel-Nitz, Johnson, and Bunner are employees of Optum, which was contracted by AstraZeneca to conduct this study, and shareholders in UnitedHealth Group. Engel-Nitz has also worked on cancer-related studies for which Optum received funding from Bayer AG, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exact Sciences, Janssen, and Novartis. Johnson worked on cancer-related studies for which Optum received funding from Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Sanofi, and UnitedHealthcare. Bunner has worked on cancer-related studies for which Optum received funding from Celgene and Incyte.