Development of an Assessment Tool for Completion by Patients with Overweight or Obesity.

INTRODUCTION: Discussions of weight-management strategies between patients and healthcare providers can yield positive outcomes for people with overweight or obesity. Nonetheless, people with overweight or obesity encounter communication challenges and other barriers to pursuing effective weight-management strategies with their healthcare providers. The aim of this study was to develop a new self-completed assessment tool to initiate and facilitate conversations related to weight management between patients and healthcare providers. METHODS: Developing the assessment tool involved a series of steps and draft versions of the tool, based on feedback from key opinion leaders in the field of obesity (N = 4) and input from people with overweight or obesity (N = 18). Three iterative rounds of qualitative interviews were conducted in the USA. A targeted review of prior qualitative research was conducted to identify common and important impacts of obesity on patients' functioning. Standard qualitative analytical methods were used to identify concepts of importance in a concept elicitation exercise during the interviews and were evaluated for potential inclusion in the tool. Potential problems with the tool were flagged during cognitive debriefing of the draft tool. RESULTS: During 18 individual interviews, participants referenced the impact of their weight on their lives, including health and comorbidities, physical function, emotional/mental functioning, social life, and physical appearance. Over the course of the tool's development, 24 common and important impacts of obesity on patients' functioning were reduced to a final set of eight concepts in the final tool that were deemed important and relevant to both patients and key opinion leaders. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment tool is a five-item, self-completed measure expected to foster patient self-advocacy for individuals with overweight or obesity by giving them an opportunity to define their weight-management goals and discuss these, along with various medical interventions, with a healthcare provider.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of semaglutide 2.4 mg for the treatment of adult patients with overweight and obesity in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence and associated public health burden of obesity has led to advancements in pharmaceuticals for weight management. Semaglutide 2.4 mg, an anti-obesity medication (AOM) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has demonstrated clinically relevant weight loss in its phase 3 clinical trials. Economic evaluation comparing semaglutide 2.4 mg with other available weight management therapies is essential to inform payers for decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 2.4 mg in the treatment of adult patients with obesity (ie, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30) and adult patients who are overweight (ie, BMI 27-29.9) with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort Markov model was constructed to compare semaglutide 2.4 mg with the following comparators: no treatment, diet and exercise (D&E), and 3 branded AOMs (liraglutide 3 mg, phentermine-topiramate, and naltrexone-bupropion). All AOMs, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, were assumed to be taken in conjunction with D&E. Changes in BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol level, experience of acute and chronic obesity-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were simulated over 30 years based on pivotal trials of the AOMs and other relevant literature. Drug and health care prices reflect 2021 standardized values. Cost-effectiveness was examined with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to plausible variation in model inputs. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to improve QALYs by 0.138 to 0.925 and incur higher costs by $3,254 to $25,086 over the 30-year time horizon vs comparators. Semaglutide 2.4 mg is cost-effective against all comparators at the prespecified WTP threshold, with the incremental cost per QALY gained ranging from $23,556 to $144,296 per QALY gained. In the sensitivity analysis, extended maximum treatment duration, types of subsequent treatment following therapy discontinuation, and weight-rebound rates were identified as key drivers for model results. The estimated probability of semaglutide 2.4 mg being cost-effective compared with comparators ranged from 67% to 100% when varying model parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: As a long-term weight management therapy, semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to be cost-effective compared with no treatment, D&E alone, and all other branded AOM comparators under a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained over a 30-year time horizon. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this research was provided by Novo Nordisk Inc. The study sponsor was involved in several aspects of the research, including the study design, the interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Kim and Ms Ramasamy are employees of Novo Nordisk Inc. Ms Kumar and Dr Burudpakdee were employees of Novo Nordisk Inc at the time this study was conducted. Dr Sullivan received research support from Novo Nordisk Inc for this study. Drs Wang, Song, Wu, Ms Xie, and Ms Sun are employees of Analysis Group, Inc, who received consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk Inc in connection with this study.

The Incidence, Prevalence, and Associated Costs of Anemia, Malignancy, Venous Thromboembolism, Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, and Infections in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients by Treatment History in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can influence treatment selection, impact treatment persistency, and increase health care costs. This study assessed the magnitude of comorbidity burden via epidemiology (incidence and prevalence) and associated costs of select comorbidities in RA patients: anemia, malignancy, venous thromboembolism (VTE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and infections, stratified by history of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) exposure. METHODS: From the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database, we selected adult patients with RA (2 or more RA diagnostic codes at least 30 days apart) at initiation of a new DMARD (DMARD-naïve), after the first conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) or after the first biologic DMARD (bDMARD). We assessed pre-index prevalence (percentage) and on-treatment incidence (per 100 patient-years [P100PY]) of the aforementioned comorbidities. For patients with versus without incident conditions, we compared total all-cause health care costs as unadjusted and adjusted for baseline characteristics and health care costs. RESULTS: Prior to initiating a new treatment, among DMARD-naïve patients (N = 28,201), csDMARD switchers (N = 7,816), or bDMARD switchers (N = 4,656), the overall prevalence ranged from 14.1% to 16.2% (anemia), from 1.3% to 5.2% (malignancy, evaluated in csDMARD and bDMARD switchers), from 1.5% to 2.1% (VTE), from 1.8% to 2.9% (MACE), and from 66.6% to 76.1% (infections). Once on index treatment, overall incidence (P100PY) among the cohorts ranged from 6.9 to 8.9 (anemia), from 2.0 to 2.3 (malignancy), from 0.7 to 0.9 (VTE), from 1.6 to 2.0 (MACE), and from 77.4 to 87.7 (infections). The incident comorbidities (except herpes zoster) were associated with increased adjusted health care costs. CONCLUSION: Anemia, malignancy, VTE, MACE, and infections affect patients with RA at all stages of their treatment journey and are associated with increased health care costs.

Correction to: Real-World Treatment Patterns, Adverse Events, Resource Use, and Costs Among Commercially Insured, Younger Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the USA: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

In the original article, it has been noticed that the abbreviation ''CLL'' is incorrectly published throughout the paper as the abbreviation "CCL". The correct abbreviation is "CLL".

Real-World Treatment Patterns, Adverse Events, Resource Use, and Costs Among Commercially Insured, Younger Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the USA: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst a changing treatment landscape, real-world evidence on the burden of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden among treated patients with CLL. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus. Patients at least 18 years old with CLL treatment between November 1, 2013 and May 31, 2018 were identified; index date was first observed CLL treatment. Patients had at least one CLL diagnosis pre-index and a second diagnosis anytime during the study period, at least 1-year pre- and at least 30-day post-index continuous enrollment and no pre-index CLL treatment. Analyses focused on patients receiving one of the four most common regimens observed. Outcomes included treatment patterns, frequency of incident AEs, and healthcare resource use and costs. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear modelling were used to evaluate risk of hospitalization and all-cause costs per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: A total of 1706 patients were included in the study (median [interquartile range] age 58 [55-62] years, 66% male, median Charlson Comorbidity Index 2 [2-3], median follow-up 16 [8-28] months). Common regimens, irrespective of treatment line, were bendamustine-rituximab (B-R, 27%), ibrutinib monotherapy (I, 27%), rituximab monotherapy (R, 19%), and fludarabine combined with cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR, 16%); 59% had at least one incident AE (B-R, 62%; I, 60%; R, 25%; FCR, 79%). Mean total all-cause healthcare cost over follow-up was $13,858 ± 14,626 PPPM. Increased number of AEs was associated with increased odds of hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-3.4) and increased mean cost PPPM (cost ratio = 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.2). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the treatment toxicity and associated economic burden among patients with CLL in the USA. As novel therapies are increasingly used, further research examining outcomes will inform the risks, benefits, and value of novel agents to prescribers and patients.

Real-World Economic Outcomes of Brexpiprazole and Extended-Release Quetiapine Adjunctive Use in Major Depressive Disorder.

PURPOSE: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic mental disorder with a substantial clinical and economic burden. Despite the efficacy of adjunctive atypical antipsychotics (AAP) for augmentation in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who failed first-line antidepressant therapy (ADT), little is known of the impact of AAP choices on healthcare resource use and costs in real-world practice. Therefore, this study compared real-world healthcare utilization and costs in patients with MDD treated with brexpiprazole or extended-release (XR) quetiapine as adjunctive treatment to ADT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with MDD starting adjunctive treatment with brexpiprazole (n=844) or extended-release (XR) quetiapine (n=688) were identified in the adjudicated health plan claims data (07/2014 - 09/2016). Resource use and healthcare costs in the 6 months following treatment initiation were compared between non-matched populations, and between propensity score-matched groups, and by multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: During follow-up, unadjusted all-cause hospitalization (6.6% vs 12.5%) and ED visits (17.0% vs 27.5%) were lower with brexpiprazole compared to quetiapine XR (both p<0.001). Brexpiprazole-treated patients had significantly lower mean medical costs (US$6,421 vs US$8,545, p=0.0123) but higher mean pharmacy costs (US$7,401 vs US$4,691, p<0.0001) than quetiapine XR-treated patients did. Total healthcare costs were not significantly different between the two cohorts. Propensity score-matched comparisons of 397 patients in each cohort showed no statistically significant difference in all-cause hospitalization, ED visits, and total healthcare costs; and significantly lower medical costs (US$5,719 vs US$8,602, p=0.0092) but higher pharmacy costs (US$7,091 vs US$5,091, p=0.0007) in brexpiprazole compared to quetiapine XR. In multivariable regressions, brexpiprazole was associated with 16.1% lower medical costs (p=0.0186) and 9.4% higher total healthcare costs (p=0.0463) as compared to quetiapine XR. CONCLUSION: Significantly lower medical costs were observed in patients with MDD treated with brexpiprazole vs quetiapine XR.

Treatment patterns, adverse events, healthcare resource use and costs among commercially insured patients with mantle cell lymphoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden in younger, commercially insured patients treated for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). METHODS: Adults with ≥1 treatment for MCL between 1 November 2013-31 December 2017 were identified from IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US; index date was first treatment. Patients carried ≥1 MCL diagnosis, were newly treated, and were enrolled continuously for ≥12 months prior to and ≥30 days following index. Patients receiving the four most common MCL regimens were included. Measures included frequency of incident AEs, resource use, and costs overall and by number of AEs. Adjusted logistic regression and generalized linear modeling evaluated risk of hospitalization and all-cause costs per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and nine treated patients had a drug-specific code and were classified to a specific treatment regimen. Of those patients, 1785 patients received at least one of the four most commonly used MCL regimens (R-CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B-R, and ibrutinib) at some point over follow-up (median 23 months). R-CHOP was the most common regimen observed in the first line (26%), followed by rituximab monotherapy (19%), B-R (15%), and ibrutinib (5%). The median age was 57 years; median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0. Among patients receiving the four most common regimens, 63% of patients experienced ≥1 incident AE (R-CHOP 77%, B-R 58%, and ibrutinib 52%). An increasing number of incident AEs was associated with increased hospitalization risk (odds ratio = 2.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.1-2.7) and increased mean costs PPPM (cost ratio = 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.2). DISCUSSION: This is the largest study describing treatment patterns and clinical and economic impact of MCL treatment. The most common regimens were R-CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B-R, and ibrutinib. The majority of treated patients experienced at least one incident AE, with hospitalization risk and all-cause costs increasing as the number of AEs increased.

Clinical outcomes associated with pathogenic genomic instability mutations in prostate cancer: a retrospective analysis of US pharmacy and medical claims data.

Background: Prostate cancer (PC) is a clinically heterogenous disease, and genetic mutations may be useful for patient risk stratification. This retrospective cohort study compared clinical outcomes, pharmacy use, and outpatient resource use in PC patients with and without pathogenic genomic instability mutations, including DNA repair deficiency (DRD) mutations and those in TP53, PTEN, and RB1. Methods: Patients ≥18 years newly-diagnosed with PC between June 2011-March 2016 were identified in medical and prescription claims databases linked to a genomic dataset. All-cause and PC-specific pharmacy use and outpatient resource use (office visits, laboratory tests, radiology examinations, and radiation therapies) over 1, 2, and 3 years and time to evidence of disease progression after PC diagnosis, based on secondary cancer diagnosis codes and treatments received, were evaluated in mutation carriers with ≥1 of 24 gene mutations and in a sub-set of DRD gene mutation carriers, with each compared to non-mutation carriers. Results: Mutation carriers (n = 274) and non-mutation carriers (n = 74) had similar demographic and clinical features. Non-mutation carriers had lower risks of developing metastasis and castration-resistant PC than mutation carriers (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5-0.9; HR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.9, respectively) and DRD mutation carriers (HR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.7; HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.7, respectively). Compared to non-mutation carriers, mutation carriers had more all-cause pharmacy claims over 2 years of follow-up (74.4 vs 59.1, p = 0.04) and more PC-specific pharmacy claims over 2 years (11.1 vs 6.5, p = 0.01) and 3 years (17.9 vs 9.8, p = 0.01) of follow-up. No differences were observed in outpatient resource use during the follow-up period by mutation status. Conclusion: PC patients carrying ≥1 pathogenic DNA instability mutation, and DRD mutation carriers specifically, had higher clinical burden than non-mutation carriers. Targeted therapies for these patients are needed to reduce clinical burden and associated healthcare resource utilization.

Assessment and effect of a gap between new-onset epilepsy diagnosis and treatment in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the treatment gap between a new epilepsy diagnosis and antiepileptic drug (AED) initiation in the United States. METHODS: Retrospective claims-based cohort study using Truven Health MarketScan databases (commercial and supplemental Medicare, calendar years 2010-2015; Medicaid, 2010-2014) and a validation study using PharMetrics Plus Database linked to LRx claims database (2009-2014). Persons met epilepsy diagnostic criteria, had an index date (first epilepsy diagnosis) with a preceding 2-year baseline (1 year for persons aged 1 to <2 years; none for persons <1 year), and continuous medical and pharmacy enrollment without epilepsy/seizure diagnosis or AED prescription during baseline. Outcomes included percentage of untreated persons (no AED prescription) up to 3 years' follow-up and comparative outcomes (incidence rate ratio: untreated persons/treated persons), including medical events and health care resource utilization. RESULTS: In the primary study, 59,970 persons met selection (or inclusion) criteria; 36.7% of persons with newly diagnosed epilepsy remained untreated up to 3 years after diagnosis. In the validation study (N = 30,890), 31.8% of persons remained untreated up to 3 years after diagnosis. Lack of AED treatment was associated with an adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.2 (1.2-1.3) for medical events, 2.3 (2.2-2.3) for hospitalizations, and 2.8 (2.7-2.9) for emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of newly diagnosed persons remain untreated up to 3 years after epilepsy diagnosis. The increased risk of medical events and health care utilization highlights the consequences of delayed treatment after epilepsy diagnosis, which might be preventable.

The impact of copay assistance on patient out-of-pocket costs and treatment rates with ALK inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: The patient cost burden of oral anticancer medicines has been associated with prescription abandonment, delayed treatment initiation, and poorer health outcomes in the US. Since 2011, several small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with rearrangement of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene. The objective of this study was to measure the impact of copay assistance on patient cost sharing and treatment patterns in patients prescribed oral ALK inhibitors (ALKi's). METHODS: Patterns of claims approval/rejection and payment/reversal, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and treatment persistence were reported for patients identified in the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer database from January 2013 to August 2017 linked to a medical claims database. The primary study cohorts were patients with copay assistance, including manufacturer's copay cards, other discount cards, or free-trial vouchers, on the index ALKi claim, and patients without copay assistance at any time during the follow-up period. RESULTS: In total, 3,143 patients were included in analyses related to claim patterns, and 1,685 patients were included in analyses related to treatment persistence. Copay assistance decreased the OOP cost for the first approved ALKi by $1,930, on average. Patients with copay assistance picked up ALKi prescriptions from the pharmacy sooner than patients without copay assistance (2.6 days vs 25.7 days). In adjusted analyses, patients with copay assistance had 88.2% lower risk of abandoning their first approved prescription and 24.3% lower risk of discontinuing treatment with the first observed ALKi (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Copay assistance reduced the patient cost burden for ALKi's and was associated with patients picking up their ALKi prescriptions, beginning ALKi treatment sooner, and remaining on treatment.

Adherence rates and health care costs in Crohn's disease patients receiving certolizumab pegol with and without home health nurse assistance: results from a retrospective analysis of patient claims and home health nurse data.

BACKGROUND: Patient support programs have a positive effect on adherence to therapy. Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is a tumor necrosis factor antagonist for the treatment of Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess, using real-world claims data, whether home health nurse assistance had an effect on patients' adherence to CZP and to measure its impact on health care use and costs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims data from the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims Database was conducted using data from January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2015. CZP patients with Crohn's disease were eligible to receive self-administration instructions from a nurse or nurse-administered CZP injections, or both. These services were provided by CIMplicity®, a home health nurse program sponsored by UCB Pharma. Cohorts were based on patients with and without nurse assistance and were matched based on gender and categorical age. Adherence to CZP was determined using the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC). A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare time to discontinuation of CZP between the two cohorts. Multivariate regression analyses were performed, adjusting for additional covariates to compare the effect of CZP with and without nurse assistance on hospitalization and total health care costs. RESULTS: Patients with at least 12 months of continuous enrollment post-index date were evaluated for adherence to CZP (n=276 in each cohort). The mean and median PDC and MPR values were higher with nurse assistance than without. Time to discontinuation was significantly longer in patients who received CZP with nurse assistance than without (P=0.0004). Results from the multivariate analyses showed a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization (-55.8%; P=0.0026) and total health care costs (-14.3%; P=0.0045) with nurse assistance. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that home health nurse assistance increases adherence to CZP and reduces health care costs in patients with Crohn's disease.

Changes in healthcare resource use and costs associated with early versus delayed initiation of atypical antipsychotic adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder.

AIMS: The study compared all-cause and major depressive disorder (MDD)-related healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs in patients with MDD treated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) adjunctive therapy early or later in treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with MDD and antidepressant treatment (ADT) who newly initiated adjunctive aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, or quetiapine between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015 were identified in the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims database; the index date was the date of the first AAP claim. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: AAP initiated in the first year (Y1); in the second year (Y2); and more than 2 years (Y3) of first ADT use. Within each cohort, HRU and costs were compared between the 12 months before and after the index date. Pre-post changes in HRU and costs were then compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Five hundred and six (36.7%) patients were categorized as Y1; 252 (18.3%) as Y2; and 622 (45.1%) as Y3. AAP use was associated with significantly decreased rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalization and emergency department visits, and increased rates of pharmacy fills and physician office visits; and the magnitude of changes was largest in cohort Y1. Cohort Y1 had the largest reductions in mean (±SD) all-cause medical costs per patient (-$10,496 ± $85,022, p = .015) compared to Y2 (-$2,474 ± $85,022, p = .572) and Y3 (-$472 ± $31,334, p = .823), mainly due to the reduction in hospitalization. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the largest reductions in hospitalization and medical costs were observed in cohort Y1. Similar increases in all-cause pharmacy costs were seen in all cohorts. A similar trend in costs was observed in MDD-related healthcare services. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: AAP treatment was associated with reductions in all-cause and MDD-related medical costs, primarily in decreased hospitalization. The reductions were largest among patients who initiated treatment in the first year.

A Real-World Evidence Study Assessing the Impact of Adding the Aerobika Oscillating Positive Expiratory Pressure Device to Standard of Care Upon Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs in Post-Operative Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this real-world study was to measure the benefit of the Aerobika oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) device when added to standard of care (defined as incentive spirometry [IS]) for post-operative patients. METHODS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized for cardiac, thoracic or upper abdominal surgery between 1 September 2013 and 30 April 2017 were identified from IQVIA's Hospital Charge Detail Master (CDM) database; the index date was the date of the first hospitalization for surgery. The control cohort (IS) included patients who had ≥ 1 CDM record within 12 months prior to the index date and ≥ 1 record after discharge, evidence of IS use during index hospitalization and no evidence of use of a PEP or OPEP device at any time during the study period. The Aerobika OPEP cohort was selected in a similar manner, except that patients were required to have evidence of Aerobika OPEP use during the index hospitalization. Aerobika OPEP patients were 1:1 matched to IS patients using propensity score (PS) matching. Hospital readmissions and costs were measured at 30 days post-discharge from the index hospitalization. RESULTS: After PS matching, 144 patients were included in each cohort. At 30 days post-discharge, compared to the control (IS) cohort there were significantly fewer patients in the Aerobika OPEP cohort with ≥ 1 all-cause re-hospitalizations (13.9 vs. 22.9%; p = 0.042). The patients in the Aerobika OPEP cohort also had a shorter mean length of stay (± standard deviation) (1.25 ± 4.04 vs. 2.60 ± 8.24 days; p = 0.047) and lower total unadjusted mean all-cause cost per patient ($3670 ± $13,894 vs. $13,775 ± $84,238; p = 0.057). Adjusted analyses suggested that hospitalization costs were 80% lower for the Aerobika OPEP cohort versus the IS cohort (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the addition of the Aerobika OPEP device to standard of care (IS) is beneficial in the post-operative setting. FUNDING: Trudell Medical International.

Clinical and economic burden of peripheral T-cell lymphoma in commercially insured patients in the United States: findings using real-world claims data.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective cohort study utilized real-world claims data to assess the clinical and economic burden of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) over the continuum of care in the US. METHODS: Data were extracted from US administrative claims databases to identify adult patients with PTCL (ICD-9-CM code 202.7X) diagnosed between October 2007 and June 2011. Patients had to have ≥6 months of continuous enrollment before and ≥12 months of continuous enrollment after their index date (date of first PTCL diagnosis). PTCL patients were matched (1:5) by age, sex, region, plan type, payer type, and length of continuous enrollment, to a control group of randomly selected patients without PTCL. Patient-level healthcare resource utilization data and associated costs (in US dollars) were measured. Mean costs per patient per month were determined. RESULTS: Of 2820 patients with PTCL, 1000 met all inclusion criteria (median age = 57 years; 57.5% male) and were matched to the control group (n = 5000). On an average monthly basis, PTCL patients were hospitalized more frequently (0.07 vs 0.01 admissions; p < 0.0001) and had a longer length of hospital stay (6.4 vs 4.0 days; p < 0.0001) compared with controls. PTCL patients also had higher monthly utilization of pharmacy services (2.85 vs 0.97 prescriptions; p < 0.0001), office visits (1.35 vs 0.34 visits; p < 0.0001), ER visits (0.07 vs 0.02 visits; p < 0.0001), hospice stays (0.05 vs 0.01 stays; p < 0.0001) and other patient services/procedures. Overall, PTCL patients incurred higher average monthly costs per patient compared with control patients ($6327.84 vs $388.39; p < 0.0001), driven mainly by hospitalizations (32.2% of overall costs) and pharmacy services (19.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first real-world study to quantify healthcare resource utilization, costly treatment, and overall medical expenditure in commercially insured PTCL patients. Better tolerated and more effective treatments may improve disease management and reduce the clinical and economic burden of PTCL.

The economic burden of psoriasis: a systematic literature review.

Costs associated with psoriasis present a considerable economic burden. A previously published review was lacking comprehensive data on biologics. Therefore, a systematic literature review was performed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the economic burden of psoriasis throughout the world. Studies published in the English language between January 2001 and May 2013 reporting the direct and indirect economic burden of psoriasis were identified from PubMed and conference proceedings. Thirty-five studies from 11 countries met the inclusion criteria. In 2004, the annual total cost (direct and indirect) in the USA alone was approximately US$1.40 billion. Among the European countries, the most recent studies reported an annual total cost per patient of €11,928 in Sweden, €8372 in Italy, €2866-6707 in Germany and CDN$7999 in Canada, based on treatment type. Costs associated with psoriasis are high in many countries, indicating a continued need for treatments that offer good value for money.

Budgetary Impact of Adding Riociguat to a US Health Plan for the Treatment of Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension or Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) are chronic, debilitating, and life-threatening conditions. Riociguat is the first and only pharmacotherapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of PAH and for CTEPH in patients who are either inoperable or have persistent pulmonary hypertension after surgery. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budgetary impact of adding riociguat to a US health plan's formulary for the treatment of patients with PAH or CTEPH using a budget impact analytic model. METHODS: A customizable, Microsoft Excel-based decision analytic tool was developed to estimate the impact of riociguat on per-member per-month (PMPM) and per-member per-year (PMPY) bases in Medicare and non-Medicare health plans. The economic impact was calculated based on 1 million insured lives, published prevalence estimates of PAH and CTEPH, pharmacotherapy-eligible patients with PAH or CTEPH, administration costs, and monitoring costs related to pharmacotherapy. The drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs, and the medical costs were derived from Truven Health MarketScan claims data and the Medicare 2013 Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Fee Schedule and Physician Fee Schedule. The market share for approved treatments was based on a tracking study of physicians treating patients with PAH or CTEPH. A sensitivity analysis was used to test the model's robustness. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan population of 1 million members, the model estimated that 7 patients with PAH and 2 patients with CTEPH would be suitable for pharmacotherapy. Overall, 3 patients (1 with PAH and 2 with CTEPH) were receiving riociguat in a health plan consisting of patients with commercial and with Medicare insurance coverage. The incremental PMPY and PMPM costs for providing insurance coverage for riociguat were $0.27 and $0.02, respectively, for non-Medicare and Medicare health plans. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the budget impact increased by $0.01 PMPM, with a 25% increase in base-case parameter values. CONCLUSION: Riociguat is a first-in-class and the only FDA-approved treatment for patients with PAH or CTEPH-2 debilitating, chronic, and life-threatening conditions with poor prognosis. This drug offers health plans an effective and safe treatment option, with a minimal economic impact. The financial impact to a health plan of providing coverage for riociguat in the first year of treatment was as low as $0.02 PMPM. The real-world budget impact of riociguat needs to be measured using real-world evidence to validate our results.

Costs of tumor necrosis factor blockers per treated patient using real-world drug data in a managed care population.

BACKGROUND: Several anti-inflammatory biologic medications are available in the United States for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate-to-severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. The tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab are approved for use in adults with any of these conditions, but predicting the annual costs of TNF-blocker treatment is complex due to differences in dosing schedules, treatment gaps, switching between TNF blockers, and dose escalation over time. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the annual cost per treated patient from the payer perspective for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. METHODS: Adults in the IMS LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database were analyzed if they had at least 1 claim for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab between February 1, 2008, and July 5, 2010, and were continuously enrolled for at least 180 days before (pre-index period) through 360 days after the index claim (the first TNF-blocker claim after 6 months of continuous enrollment in the study period). Patients had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis, or a combination of these conditions, in the pre-index period. Cost was based on dose and price using April 2012 wholesale acquisition cost. Costs of administration were included for the first subcutaneous dose (etanercept or adalimumab) for new patients and for every intravenous dose (infliximab). Total TNF-blocker drug and administration costs, including nonindex TNF-blocker costs among patients who switched treatments, were divided by number of patients to yield cost per treated patient for each index TNF blocker. Subgroup analyses included cost by condition and cost for patients who were new to TNF-blocker treatment (no index TNF-blocker claim in the pre-index period) or continuing TNF-blocker treatment. RESULTS: Of the 30,107 patients in the analysis, the majority received etanercept (15,488 patients; 51.4%), followed by adalimumab (8,959 patients; 29.8%) and infliximab (5,660 patients; 18.8%). Approximately 2 in 3 patients (18,897 patients) were continuing TNF-blocker treatment, including 66.0%, 52.6%, and 70.0% of patients in the etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab groups, respectively. Across all indications, the annual TNF-blocker cost per treated patient was lowest for etanercept, followed by adalimumab and then infliximab, respectively: overall ($17,767, $19,272, and $24,273); new patients ($17,270, $17,959, and $21,482); and continuing patients ($18,203, $20,453, and $25,468). Cost by condition among all patients ranged from $14,838 to $20,251 for etanercept, from $18,051 to $20,233 for adalimumab, and from $22,939 to $28,519 for infliximab. Cost by condition was 3% to 31% greater for adalimumab than for etanercept (relative cost, 103% to 131%), except among patients with psoriasis (relative cost, 94%), and was 26% to 72% greater for infliximab than for etanercept (relative cost, 126% to 172%). Approximately 9% to 11% of patients in each group switched TNF blockers in the first year, and the costs of nonindex TNF blockers comprised 16.8% of the total cost for etanercept, 13.4% for adalimumab, and 6.9% for infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis, or some combination of these conditions, etanercept had a lower cost per treated patient than adalimumab or infliximab, except in patients with psoriasis alone. In these patients, adalimumab had a lower cost per treated patient than etanercept or infliximab.

Economic burden of toxicities associated with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment regimens containing monoclonal antibodies.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about toxicity-related costs of monoclonal antibody treatments in metastatic colorectal cancer. This study aimed to identify toxicities associated with bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab and estimate the direct costs of these toxicities. METHODS: Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were identified by a comprehensive literature search. Inpatient costs were estimated using ICD-9 codes and 2007 Medicare payments from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database; costs were converted to 2010 dollars. Outpatient costs were estimated by applying 2010 Medicare reimbursement rates to resource use assumptions (based on in-depth clinical interviews). RESULTS: Toxicities associated with bevacizumab included hypertension, arterial thrombosis, hemorrhage, gastrointestinal (GI) perforation, fistula, and wound-healing complications; toxicities associated with cetuximab and panitumumab included skin rash, hypomagnesemia, and infusion reactions. The inpatient cost per event was highest for GI perforation (USD 32,443), followed by fistula (USD 29,062), arterial thrombosis (USD 20,346), and wound-healing complications (USD 13,240), while inpatient costs per event for hypomagnesemia and skin rash were among the lowest. The cost per event of toxicities treated in the outpatient setting included USD 185 for skin rash up to USD 585 for wound-healing complications. LIMITATIONS: Treatment costs of toxicities for the outpatient setting were determined using assumptions validated by clinicians, and unit costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates, which are often lower than the reimbursement rates for commercial health insurance plans. Toxicities included were only grades 3 and 4 adverse events and might be limited by differences between clinical studies. CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibodies have different toxicity profiles and the costs associated with managing these toxicities vary greatly.