Real-world treatment patterns, costs, and outcomes in patients with AL amyloidosis: analysis of the Optum EHR and commercial claims databases.

BACKGROUND: This study characterised real-world treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and cost-of-illness in patients with light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. METHODS: Data were extracted from the US-based Optum® EHR and Clinformatics® Data Mart (claims) databases (2008-2019) for patients newly diagnosed with AL amyloidosis and who initiated anti-plasma cell therapies. Healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and related costs were compared across lines of therapy (LOT). Incidences of cardiac and renal failure were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: About 1347 patients (EHR, n = 776; claims, n = 571) were included. Median age was 68 years; 56.8% were male. At initial diagnosis, 33.1% and 15.1% of patients had cardiac and renal failure, respectively. Most patients received bortezomib-containing treatment in LOT1 (69%); bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone was most common (26%). HCRU was similar across LOTs. Mean per-patient-per-month and per-patient-per-LOT costs were $19,343 and $105,944 for LOT1, $19,183 and $95,793 for LOT2, and $16,611 and $128,446 for LOT3, respectively. Costs were primarily driven by anti-plasma cell therapies, outpatient visits, and hospitalisations. The 5-year cardiac and renal failure rates following initial diagnosis were 64.5% and 39.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: AL amyloidosis is associated with substantial costs and suboptimal outcomes, highlighting the need for new therapeutic approaches to prevent organ deterioration, and reduce disease burden.

Systematic literature review of evidence in amyloid light-chain amyloidosis.

Introduction: Treatment of amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, a rare disease with a <5-year lifespan, remains challenging. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to evaluate the current evidence base in AL amyloidosis. Methods: Literature searches on clinical, health-related quality of life, economic and resource use evidence were conducted using the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases as well as gray literature. Results: This SLR yielded 84 unique studies from: five randomized controlled trials; 54 observational studies; 12 health-related quality of life studies, none with utility values; no economic evaluation studies; and 16 resource use studies, none with indirect costs. Conclusion: This SLR highlights a paucity of published literature relating to randomized controlled trials, utility values, economic evaluations and indirect costs in AL amyloidosis.

Economic burden of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Results from an international trial.

OBJECTIVE: The direct cost of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is documented; indirect costs are being explored. Healthcare payers seek cost-offsets from therapies that improve clinical outcomes but challenge budgets; employers seek lower absenteeism and better productivity. Study goals were to: (i) identify direct and indirect economic factors of RRMM, and (ii) explore longitudinal relationships between clinical, economic, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessments. METHODS: Economic questionnaire, clinical, and HRQoL data from a multisite, international, randomized, controlled study in RRMM were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients (n=263) were 53.6% male, 91.6% Caucasian; mean age of 62.9 years, median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 1 (56.3%). Moderate to severe pain or fatigue was reported by 30.4% and 70.6%, respectively. At baseline, ≥1 hospitalization was reported by 107 (41.8%); 182 (71.1%) and 86 (33.6%) reported specialist and family physician visits, respectively. A total of 28 (10.8%) were working: 10 (37.0%) of which reported RRMM-driven absenteeism ≥1 day. Of those who were not working, 110 (48.2%) indicated that it was due to RRMM. Multivariate modeling showed lower hospitalization with a major tumor response (ß=-1.44, CI: -2.89 to 0.01, P=.05). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial RRMM indirect, social costs were observed. Better major tumor response may reduce hospital visits.

Economic evaluation of OROS hydromorphone for chronic pain: a Pan-European perspective.

OBJECTIVES: OROS hydromorphone (osmotic extended-release oral delivery system [OROS] hydromorphone) is a long-acting opioid analgesic, which is approved in Europe for the management of severe pain. The authors aimed to estimate the economic value of this product relative to other widely used oral opioids, including sustained-release morphine, extended-release (ER) oxycodone, and twice-daily (bid) hydromorphone. DESIGN: An adaptable, decision-analytic cost-utility model was developed. Separate versions of the model were developed for five European countries: Germany, Denmark, Slovakia, Portugal, and Italy. RESULTS: OROS hydromorphone represents a cost-effective alternative to other strong oral opioids in the treatment of both nonmalignant and malignant pain in all five countries. In the treatment of chronic severe nonmalignant pain, OROS hydromorphone was dominant (ie, lower cost and incremental quality-adjusted life years gains) when compared with ER oxycodone in Denmark and bid hydromorphone in Germany. Likewise, OROS hydromorphone was dominant in the treatment of chronic severe malignant pain when compared with ER oxycodone in both Germany and Denmark and when compared with bid hydromorphone in all markets where hydromorphone was marketed. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates the cost effectiveness of OROS hydromorphone relative to other strong oral opioids in the treatment of chronic severe malignant and nonmalignant pain.

Cost effectiveness of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin therapy in patients not at cholesterol treatment goal in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: This analysis compared the cost effectiveness of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin therapy versus atorvastatin titration or adding cholestyramine (a resin) for patients at high risk of a coronary artery disease (CAD) event who did not reach target cholesterol levels on their current atorvastatin dosage. The primary analysis focused on 65-year-old patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels of 3.1 or 3.6 mmol/L with a treatment goal of <2.5 mmol/L, classified as very high risk according to the 2000 Canadian Guidelines for Management and Treatment of Hyperlipidaemia. METHODS: A previously developed Markov model was utilised to capture the cost and clinical consequences of lipid-lowering therapy in primary and secondary prevention of CAD. Comparisons between treatment strategies were made using ICERs (cost per QALY) from a Canadian Ministry of Health perspective. The effects of lipid-lowering therapies were based on clinical trial data. The risks of CAD events were estimated using Framingham Heart Study risk equations. Treatment costs and the costs of acute and long-term care for CAD events were included in the analysis. Costs (Canadian dollar, 2002 values) and outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. RESULTS: Ezetimibe added to atorvastatin therapy compared with treatment with the most common fixed atorvastatin daily dosage (10 mg) or with common atorvastatin titration strategies (up to 20 mg daily; up to 40 mg daily) resulted in cost per QALY estimates ranging from 25,344 to 44,332 Canadian dollars. The addition of ezetimibe to atorvastatin therapy was less costly and more effective than the addition of cholestyramine (dominant). CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin for patients not achieving treatment goals with their current atorvastatin dose produces greater clinical benefits than treatment with a fixed-dose atorvastatin or atorvastatin titration at an increased overall cost. The cost-effectiveness ratios provide strong evidence for the adoption of ezetimibe within the Canadian healthcare system.