Better together? costs of first-line chemoimmunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Recent advances have created options for first-line (1L) treatment of advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). The study objectives were to describe the utilization of 3 classes of 1L treatment-chemotherapy (CT), immunotherapy (IO), and chemoimmunotherapy (IO+CT)-and the total, third-party payer, direct health care costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, administrative claims database analysis of patients with aNSCLC who initiated 1L treatment between January 1, 2017, and May 31, 2019, with IO, CT, or IO+CT. METHODS: Microcosting enumerated health care resource utilization, including antineoplastic drug costs, using standardized costs. Generalized linear models estimated per-patient per-month (PPPM) costs during 1L treatment, and adjusted cost differences in 1L among treatment cohorts were calculated using recycled predictions. RESULTS: A total of 1317 IO-, 5315 CT-, and 1522 IO+CT-treated patients were identified. Utilization of CT declined from 72.3% to 47.6% between 2017 and 2019, replaced by use of IO+CT, which increased from 1.8% to 29.8%. Total PPPM costs in 1L were highest with IO+CT at $32,436, compared with $19,000 and $17,763 in the CT and IO cohorts, respectively. Adjusted analyses showed that PPPM costs were $13,933 (95% CI, $11,760-$16,105) higher in the IO+CT vs IO cohort (P < .001) and IO costs were $1024 (95% CI, $67-$1980) lower than CT (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: IO+CT accounts for almost one-third of 1L aNSCLC treatment modalities, coinciding with a reduction in treatment with CT. Costs for patients treated with IO were lower than those for patients treated with both IO+CT and CT alone, driven primarily by antineoplastic drug and associated medical costs.

Economic and clinical impact of a novel, light-based, at-home antiviral treatment on mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Antiviral treatments for early intervention in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are needed as a complement to vaccination. We sought to estimate the impact on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and direct healthcare costs over 12 months following introduction of a novel, antiviral treatment, RD-X19, a light-based, at-home intervention designed for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection. METHODS: A time-dependent, state transition (semi-Markov) cohort model was developed to simulate infection progression in individuals with COVID-19 in 3 US states with varying levels of vaccine uptake (Alabama, North Carolina, and Massachusetts) and at the national level between 1 June 2020 and 31 May 2021. The hypothetical cohort of patients entering the model progressed through subsequent health states after infection. Costs were assigned to each health state. Number of infections/vaccinations per day were incorporated into the model. Simulations were run to estimate outcomes (cases by severity, deaths, and direct healthcare costs) at various levels of adoption of RD-X19 (5%, 10%, 25%) in eligible infected individuals at the state and national levels and across three levels of clinical benefit based on the results from an early feasibility study of RD-X19. The clinical benefit reflects a decline in the duration of symptomatic disease by 1.2, 2.4 (base case), and 3.6 days. RESULTS: In the base case analysis with 10% adoption, simulated infections/deaths/direct healthcare costs were reduced by 10,059/275/$69 million in Alabama, 21,092/545/$135 million in North Carolina, and 16,670/415/$102 million in Massachusetts over 12 months. At the national level, 10% adoption reduced total infections/deaths/direct healthcare costs by 686,722/17,748/$4.41 billion. CONCLUSION: At-home, antiviral treatment with RD-X19 or other interventions with similar efficacy that decrease both symptomatic days and transmission probabilities can be used in concert with vaccines to reduce COVID-19 cases, deaths, and direct healthcare costs.

The Use and Knowledge of Validated Geriatric Assessment Instruments Among US Community Oncologists.

PURPOSE: The use of a standardized geriatric assessment (GA) to inform treatment decisions in older adults with cancer improves quality of life, reduces treatment-related toxicity, and is guideline-recommended. This study aimed to assess community oncologists' knowledge and utilization of GAs. METHODS: Between September 2019 and February 2020, practicing US-based oncologists were invited to attend live meetings and complete web-based surveys designed to collect information on treatment decision making and various practice-based challenges in oncology care. RESULTS: Among the 349 oncologists surveyed, 74% practiced in a community setting. Sixty percent did not use a formal GA to inform treatment decisions for any of their older patients; the most common reasons for not using a GA were "Too cumbersome to incorporate into routine practice" (44%) and "Adds no value beyond the comprehensive history and physical exam" (36%). Validated GA instruments used in routine clinical practice included: Mini-Mental State Exam (54%), Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (23%), Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity tool (12%), and Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients tool (9%). Nineteen percent of oncologists were not aware of any validated GA instruments. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and comorbidities were the most frequently used assessment factors to inform treatment decisions (88% and 73%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Many oncologists have not incorporated GA tools because of perceptions that GAs are difficult to implement or do not add any value. Increasing education of the benefits of GA-directed therapy could help to increase GA utilization among community oncologists.

Real-world treatment patterns, cost of care and effectiveness of therapies for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck pre and post approval of immuno-oncology agents.

Aims: In 2016, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were approved for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) following progression after initial platinum-based therapy. We sought to explore the uptake, effectiveness, and impact on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and total costs of care pre and post introduction of immuno-oncology (IO) agents.Materials and Methods: Recurrent/metastatic SCCHN patients were identified from a healthcare claims clearinghouse by selecting patients with a claim for distant metastases or who initiated systemic therapy at least 120 days following discontinuation of platinum-based therapy. Two cohorts were created according to the date of post-platinum therapy (PPT) initiation: pre-IO = 08/01/2014-07/31/2015; post-IO = 08/01/2016-07/31/2017. Treatment patterns and effectiveness (duration of treatment, time to next treatment) during first-line (1 L) PPT, HRU, and costs were compared between propensity-score matched patients from each cohort.Results: Of 716 patients identified (pre-IO = 265, post-IO = 451) 46.3% of post-IO patients received IO post-platinum. In 229 matched patients 20.0% of the post-IO compared to 10.7% of the pre-IO (p=.02) had at least a 6 month duration of 1 L PPT. Inpatient admissions during 1 L PPT: 34.1% post-IO versus 48.0% pre-IO (p= <.01). PPPM total costs of care in 1 L PPT were significantly greater post-IO ($11,535) compared to pre-IO ($9,054, p=.002). Time to next treatment (from 1 L PPT start) was 6.1 months pre-IO versus 7.4 months post-IO (p=.046).Limitations: Recurrent SCCHN patients were identified using a validated claims-based algorithm but misclassification may occur. Requiring patients to have received 1 L PPT the pre-IO cohort may be systematically different that the post-IO cohort as pre-IO patients were more likely to have not received further treatment beyond 1 L PPT.Conclusions: The significant uptake of IO therapy resulted in longer durations of therapy, lower rates of hospitalizations although higher treatment costs. The results suggest IO treatment provides additional clinical benefits to recurrent/metastatic SCCHN patients.

Real-world incidence and cost of pneumonitis post-chemoradiotherapy for Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: To estimate the real-world incidence and timing of radiation pneumonitis following chemoradiotherapy for Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer and compare costs between patients with and without radiation pneumonitis. Methods: Retrospective analysis using the Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse. Results: Pneumonitis incidence was 12.4% with a 177-day mean time to onset. Patients with versus without pneumonitis were more frequently admitted to the hospital (33.8 vs 19.2%, p < 0.0001) and seen in the emergency room (51.9 vs 35.8%, p < 0.0001) and had higher mean total healthcare costs (US$4251 vs US$3969 per-patient per-month; p = 0.0163). Conclusion: Although pneumonitis significantly increased healthcare resource utilization and costs in chemoradiotherapy-treated Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, the per-patient per-month differential was <10%. Such financial assessments are critical for cost-benefit analysis.

Real-world outcomes among patients with early rapidly progressive rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and disease activity among patients with early rapidly progressive rheumatoid arthritis (eRPRA) in the United States when treated with a first-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) inhibitor or first-line abatacept. STUDY DESIGN: Observational, multicenter, retrospective, longitudinal, medical records-based, cohort study. METHODS: Patients with eRPRA were identified by anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, 28-joint Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein of 3.2 or greater, symptomatic synovitis in 2 or more joints for at least 8 weeks prior to the index date, and onset of symptoms within 2 years or less of the index date. Patients received abatacept or a TNF inhibitor as first-line treatment. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, HRU, and disease activity following bDMARD initiation were compared across the 2 groups. Odds ratios (ORs) of HRU in the first 6 months of bDMARD treatment were estimated using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for patient mix. RESULTS: There were 60 patients treated with abatacept and 192 treated with a TNF inhibitor in the first line. Those treated with first-line abatacept had lower adjusted odds of hospitalization (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.95), emergency department (ED) visits (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.93), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.97) than those treated with a first-line TNF inhibitor (all P <.05). Adjusted odds of achieving low disease activity as measured by clinical disease activity index within 100 days of bDMARD initiation favored first-line abatacept versus a first-line TNF inhibitor (OR, 4.37; 95% CI, 1.34-13.94; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting for disease severity, patients with eRPRA who were treated with first-line abatacept were less likely to have hospitalizations, ED visits, and MRI use during the first 6 months of bDMARD treatment and more likely to achieve low disease activity within 100 days of bDMARD start compared with those who received a first-line TNF inhibitor.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs in First-Line Treatments for Patients with Metastatic Melanoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for patients with metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically with the introduction of novel therapies, such as targeted therapies and immunotherapies, in recent years. Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and cost data are needed to further evaluate these treatments in a value-based health care system. OBJECTIVE: To examine HCRU and total cost of care among U.S. metastatic melanoma patients treated with first-line systemic therapies, including immunotherapies, targeted therapies, and chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using a U.S. claims database. Adults with ≥ 2 claims for melanoma and ≥ 1 claim for metastasis between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2017, were identified. Patients had pharmacy and medical enrollment ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 3 months following first-line treatment start. Per patient per month (PPPM) HCRU and costs were calculated by first-line treatment drug class: PD-1 inhibitors, CTLA-4 inhibitors, CTLA-4 + PD-1 combination, BRAF monotherapy, BRAF + MEK combination, and chemotherapy. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for HCRU were estimated by logistic regressions and adjusted costs were estimated by generalized linear models using log-link with gamma distribution to control for differences in patient characteristics across groups. RESULTS: Among 1,599 metastatic melanoma patients (PD-1, n = 255; CTLA-4, n = 555; CTLA-4 + PD-1, n = 88; BRAF, n = 210; BRAF + MEK, n=102; chemotherapy=389), mean age ranged from 59-68 years, and the majority were male (62%). Any hospitalization during first-line treatment was less frequent among PD-1-treated patients (25.9%) compared with 34.7%-45.5% of all other groups (all P < 0.05). PPPM hospitalizations were lowest in PD-1 (0.06) compared with 0.09-0.16 across all other groups (all P < 0.05), and PPPM emergency department (ED) visits were lowest in PD-1 (0.09) compared with 0.13-0.18 across all other groups (all P < 0.05), except for BRAF + MEK (0.14, P = 0.08). CTLA-4, CTLA-4 + PD-1, and BRAF + MEK had increased odds of hospitalization compared to PD-1 (adjusted ORs = 2.10, 2.35, 2.15, respectively; all P < 0.05). Total adjusted PPPM costs were significantly lower for PD-1 ($13,059) compared with CTLA-4 ($25,583), CTLA-4 + PD-1 ($31,310), and BRAF + MEK ($21,517) and higher compared to BRAF ($8,158) and chemotherapy ($6,361). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalizations and ED visits represent important HCRU for metastatic melanoma patients and were lowest among PD-1-treated patients compared with any other systemic therapies (except for ED visits when compared with BRAF + MEK). Total monthly costs varied substantially across first-line regimens and were significantly lower in PD-1-treated patients compared with patients treated with CTLA-4, CTLA-4 + PD-1, and BRAF + MEK. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Klink, Feinberg, and Nero are employees of Cardinal Health Specialty Solutions, which received funding from Merck to conduct this study. Chmielsowki is a consultant to Merck but received no funding for the development of this manuscript. Ahsan and Liu are employees of Merck. Chmielowski reports advisory board/speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Iovance Biotherapeutics, HUYA Bioscience International, Compugen, Array BioPharma, Regeneron, Biothera, Janssen, and Novartis. Ahsan has a patent (US20160008380A1) pending.

The gamification of healthcare: emergence of the digital practitioner?

The application of behavioral economics principles in healthcare has been transformed through the use of technology and recently the advent of video gaming concepts, or gamification, to modify patient behaviors. The role of practitioners in the era of gamification has not been well established, but it is possible that the need has arisen for development of clinical practice guidelines and the "digital practitioner": one who specializes in healthcare apps, accepts referrals from other practitioners, identifies the best programs to meet individual patient needs, and consults to assess whether game apps might improve clinical outcomes.

Understanding total cost of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer pre- and postapproval of immuno-oncology therapies.

This study assesses resource utilization and total direct medical cost among patients in the United States starting systemic antineoplastic therapy (ST) pre- and postapproval of immuno-oncology (IO) agents for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Adults diagnosed with lung cancer initiating first-line ST within 6 months of diagnosis during either the pre- (March 2013-March 2014) or post-IO (March 2015-December 2016) approval period were identified in a US-based multipayer administrative claims database. Excluded were patients with small cell lung cancer, secondary malignancies, less than 1 month follow-up, and those in clinical trials. Total cost (TC) was calculated from the date of initiation of treatment until the last follow-up. Propensity score matching was adjusted for differences in patient cohorts, including follow-up time. Binary multiple logistic regression assessed predictors of high TC (above mean) pre- and post IO. Mean TC per patient was higher pre-IO versus post IO in both unmatched ($165,548 vs $95,715) and matched analyses($129,977 vs $113,177). Hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visit rates were higher pre-IO versus postapproval. Predictors of high TC pre-IO included use of first-line combination therapy, radiation, targeted therapy, maintenance therapy, biomarker testing, more comorbidities, longer follow-up, first-line hospitalization, first-line cost above mean, and age 65 years and older. In the post-IO period, additional predictors of higher TC included use of IO, having mild liver disease or hemiplegia, and longer time to ST initiation. Early data show lower ED visit and hospitalization rates and associated lower TC in the post-IO era.

Value-Based Calculators in Cancer: Current State and Challenges.

The ASCO Value Framework, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering's DrugAbacus, and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculator are value-based methodologies that attempt to address the disproportionate increase in cancer care spending. These calculators can be used as an initial step for discussing cost versus value, but they fall short in recognizing the importance of the cancer journey because they do not fully factor the patient's perspective or the global cost of care. This timely review highlights both the limitations and the advantages of each value calculator and suggests opportunities for refinement. Practicing oncologists, payers, and manufacturers should be familiar with value-based calculators because the role these tools play in cost containment is likely to be hotly debated.

Real-world evidence and the behavioral economics of physician prescribing.

The projections for the rising cost of healthcare have spurred robust dialogue, and among the many targets for cost control are specialty drugs. An important question thus becomes: Are behavioral economic factors driving physician prescribing? This article presents a review of leading behavioral economic theories and their application to the results of an Oncology Medical Home pilot that reversed incentives from drug administration to patient care. A host of these theories may explain the irrational economic actors in regard to physician prescribing, including heuristics, framing, and defaults. Ultimately, the complex interplay of behavioral economics may result in reimbursement methodology alternatives to the prevailing fee-for-service payment system having less impact on prescribing behavior than has been conjectured.

Physician behavior impact when revenue shifted from drugs to services.

OBJECTIVES: In partnership with a large nonprofit healthcare insurer for the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, we launched the first cancer clinical pathway in the United States in August 2008. Due to its early success with regard to savings and physician participation and compliance, a second-generation pathways program-the Oncology Medical Home-was piloted in 2011. This program offered a physician reimbursement model that shifted the source of revenue from drug reimbursement margin to professional charges for cognitive services (evaluation and management codes). We report our observations of the impact of that reimbursement model on physician prescribing behavior. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis. METHODS: A select group of practices that participated in the first-generation pathways program were invited to voluntarily participate in the Oncology Medical Home and its cognitive weighted reimbursement design. A matched control group was chosen from the first-generation pathways participants. Comparisons of physician behavior parameters were made pre- and postimplementation and between the Oncology Medical Home practices and the first-generation pathways control group. RESULTS: Physician behavior was not significantly modified by cognitive weighted reimbursement. No significant change in frequency of office visits for established patients was observed. No change in chemotherapy prescribing was observed. Observed increases in generic regimen use were no different than matched control. CONCLUSIONS: Observations from this oncology medical home pilot program suggest that reimbursement methodology alternatives to the prevailing fee-for-service may have less impact on prescribing behavior than has been conjectured. Future research is ongoing to validate these observations and assess additional influences on prescribing behavior.

Implementation of cancer clinical care pathways: a successful model of collaboration between payers and providers.

Despite rising medical costs within the US healthcare system, quality and outcomes are not improving. Without significant policy reform, the cost-quality imbalance will reach unsustainable proportions in the foreseeable future. The rising cost of healthcare in part results from an expanding aging population with an increasing number of life-threatening diseases. This is further compounded by a growing arsenal of high-cost therapies. In no medical specialty is this more apparent than in the area of oncology. Numerous attempts to reduce costs have been attempted, often with limited benefit and brief duration. Because physicians directly or indirectly control or influence the majority of medical care costs, physician behavioral changes must occur to bend the healthcare cost curve in a sustainable fashion. Experts within academia, health policy, and business agree that a significant paradigm change in stakeholder collaboration will be necessary to accomplish behavioral change. Such a collaboration has been pioneered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Physician Resource Management, a highly specialized oncology healthcare consulting firm with developmental and ongoing technical, analytic, and consultative support from Cardinal Health Specialty Solutions, a division of Cardinal Health. We describe a successful statewide collaboration between payers and providers to create a cancer clinical care pathways program. We show that aligned stakeholder incentives can drive high levels of provider participation and compliance in the pathways that lead to physician behavioral changes. In addition, claims-based data can be collected, analyzed, and used to create and maintain such a program.