Assessment of algorithms for identifying patients with triple-class refractory multiple myeloma using real-world data.

Objective: Patients with triple-class refractory (TCR) multiple myeloma (MM) have limited treatment options and poor prognoses. This high unmet need has prompted the development of new therapies allowing for improved outcomes for these patients. Recently, new targeted therapies for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory MM have been approved based on single-arm clinical trial results. Real-world (RW) data enable a better understanding of the effectiveness of new therapies in clinical practice and provide external controls for single-arm studies. However, using RW data to identify patients with TCR MM is challenging and subject to limitations. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study of an analysis of the COTA electronic health record (EHR) database, we used four algorithms to define refractory status and created four groups of patients with TCR MM initiating post-TCR therapy. Each algorithm relied on slightly different criteria to identify TCR patients, but all were based on the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG)-derived and/or healthcare provider (HCP)-reported progressions within the database. Results: A total of 3815 patients with newly diagnosed MM met the eligibility criteria for this study. The choice of the algorithm did not impact the characteristics of identified patients with TCR MM (Algorithm 1 [n = 404], Algorithm 2 [n = 123], Algorithm 3 [n = 404], and Algorithm 4 [n = 375]), including their demographic and disease characteristics, MM treatment history, or treatment patterns received after becoming TCR. However, identifying TCR MM using a combination of IMWG-derived and HCP-reported progressions allowed up to a 70% increase in the size of the identified group of patients compared with using only IMWG-derived progressions. Conclusion: In RW settings, progressions from both IMWG-derived data and physician reports may be used to identify patients with TCR MM.

Economic Burden and Healthcare Resource Use of Alopecia Areata in an Insured Population in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Comparative data on the economic burden of alopecia areata relative to the general population are limited. The objective of this retrospective database analysis was to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and direct medical costs among patients with alopecia areata from the US payer perspective compared with matched controls. METHODS: Validated billing codes were used to identify patients with alopecia areata from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus (2016-2018) who had continuous pharmacy and medical enrollment for 365 days both before (baseline period) and after (evaluation period) the index date. Demographic and clinical characteristics were characterized, and baseline comorbidities were assessed with the Quan Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Using the exact matching feature from Instant Health Data, 14,340 patients with alopecia areata were matched with 42,998 control patients aged ≥ 12 years. Patients with alopecia areata had higher healthcare resource utilization and adjusted total all-cause mean medical costs versus matched controls ($8557 versus $6416; p < 0.0001), because of higher inpatient costs, emergency department visits, ambulatory visits, number of prescriptions and prescription costs, and other costs such as durable medical equipment and home healthcare. The number of inpatient visits did not significantly differ between the two groups. Mean ambulatory costs were $3640 for patients with alopecia areata and $2062 for controls, and mean pharmacy costs were $3287 and $1843, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both). Pharmacy costs related to immunologic agents represented 50.0% of the total difference in pharmacy spending between patients with alopecia areata and controls. Surgery on the integumentary system accounted for 9.5% of the total difference in ambulatory costs. CONCLUSION: Alopecia areata is associated with significant incremental healthcare resource utilization and costs relative to matched controls due to increased spending in areas such as surgical procedures and psychological and pharmacological interventions. Costs are primarily driven by ambulatory and pharmacy spending.