Outcomes research examining treatments, quality of life and costs in HER2-negative and triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic literature review.

AIM: With the aggregation of real-world data in healthcare, opportunities for outcomes research are growing. In this study, we summarize published literature examining comparative effectiveness research (CER), treatment patterns, quality of life (QoL) and costs in HER2-negative and triple-negative (TN) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: PubMed (2010-January 2016) and four conferences (2013-January 2016) were searched using MeSH/keywords, including mBC, QoL, morbidity and therapeutics. Studies relating to CER, treatment patterns, QoL, costs or treatment appropriateness in US patients with HER2-negative/TN mBC were included in the review. RESULTS: Of 1782 identified records, 33 studies met full inclusion criteria: seven related to CER, 18 to treatment patterns, one to treatment appropriateness/navigation, two to QoL and five to costs. Studies varied in objectives, designs and outcomes. Study designs included retrospective chart reviews (52%), retrospective secondary database analyses (27%), economic models (12%), physician surveys (6%) and patient surveys (3%). 25 studies reported results on HER2-negative mBC, six on TN mBC and two on both subtypes. The most common end points examined were treatment patterns, overall survival and progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: Outcomes research in HER2-negative mBC in the USA was limited, specifically among TN patients, indicating an opportunity for further research in this high unmet need population. Endpoints and treatment options varied, thus, it is difficult to draw summary conclusions about these studies. Outcomes research examining real-world data in mBC has increased in recent years, and may continue to grow with the implementation of new policy programs.

Comparison of treatment patterns and economic outcomes among metastatic pancreatic cancer patients initiated on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is substantial while treatment options are limited. Little is known about the treatment patterns and healthcare costs among mPC patients who initiated first-line gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: The MarketScan® claims databases were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for pancreatic cancer, 1 claim for a secondary malignancy, completed ≥1 cycle of nab-P + G or FOLFIRINOX during 4/1/2013 and 3/31/2015, and had continuous plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and 3 months after the first-line treatment. Duration of therapy, per patient per month (PPPM) costs of total healthcare, mPC-related treatment, and supportive care were measured during first-line therapy. RESULTS: 550 mPC patients met selection criteria (nab-P + G, n = 294; FOLFIRINOX, n = 256). There was no difference in duration of therapy (p = 0.60) between nab-P + G and FOLFIRINOX. Compared with FOLFIRINOX, patients with nab-P + G had higher chemotherapy drug costs but lower treatment administration costs and supportive care costs (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with nab-P + G (vs FOLFIRINOX) had similar treatment duration but lower costs of outpatient prescriptions, treatment administration and supportive care. Lower supportive care costs in the nab-P + G cohort were mainly driven by lower utilization of pegfilgrastim and anti-emetics.

Comparison of treatment patterns, resource utilization, and cost of care in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: We compared real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and cost of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of inpatient and hospital-based outpatient data in the United States. Primary endpoints included median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and total cost of care per patient per month. Secondary endpoints included supportive care costs and hospitalization rate and length. RESULTS: Overall, 345 patients were included (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, n = 182; FOLFIRINOX, n = 163). Median TTD was significantly longer with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine vs FOLFIRINOX (4.3 vs 2.8 months; P = .0009). Mean acquisition cost was higher with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine ($10,643 vs $6549; P = .0043), but mean total cost of care was lower ($16,628 vs $19,936; P = .1740). Supportive care cost was significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine ($1995 vs $6456; P < .0001). Hospitalization rate and length were both significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher acquisition costs with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX-treated patients had higher total costs driven by supportive care. Toxicity-related costs and drug acquisition costs should be considered when evaluating total cost of care.

Health technology assessment on cervical cancer screening, 2000-2014.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a review of health technology assessments (HTAs) in cervical cancer screening to highlight the most common metrics HTA agencies use to evaluate and recommend cervical cancer screening technologies. METHODS: The Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), MedLine, and national HTA agency databases were searched using keywords ("cervical cancer screening" OR "cervical cancer" OR "cervical screening") and "HTA" from January 2000 to October 2014. Non-English language reports without English summaries, non-HTA reports, HTAs unrelated to a screening intervention and HTAs without sufficient summaries available online were excluded. We used various National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) methods to extract key assessment criteria and to determine whether a change in screening practice was recommended. RESULTS: One hundred and ten unique HTA reports were identified; forty-four HTAs from seventeen countries met inclusion criteria. All reports evaluated technologies for use among women. Ten cervical screening technologies were identified either as an intervention or a comparator. The most common outcome metric evaluated was diagnostic accuracy, followed by economic effectiveness. Additional outcome metrics such as the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific testing were commonly evaluated. Nearly one-third (fifteen of forty-four) of HTAs recommended a change in practice. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights popular metrics used in HTAs for cervical cancer screening. Clinical and economic effectiveness metrics have been consistently assessed in HTAs, while the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific screening became increasingly prevalent from after 2007. Moreover, we observed an increase in optimized recommendations after 2007.

The budget impact of controlling wastage with smaller vials: A data driven model of session sizes in Bangladesh, India (Uttar Pradesh),Mozambique, and Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Open vial vaccine wastage in multi-dose vials is a major contributor to vaccine wastage. Although switching from 10-dose vials to 5-dose vials could reduce wastage, a higher total cost could be triggered because smaller vials cost more to purchase and store. METHODS: This study drew field data of daily session sizes in local vaccination facilities from Bangladesh, India (Uttar Pradesh), Mozambique, and Uganda, and used Akaike Information Criteria to determine the best fit statistical distribution across various clinic types. These distributions were input to estimate the vaccine wastage using Lee's (2010) model. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) immunization was simulated to compare the costs over ten years with 10-dose vials versus 5-dose vials. RESULTS: By switching from 10- to 5-dose vials, the observed open vial wastage rate due to vial size preference and session size for IPV was reduced from 0.25 to 0.11 in Bangladesh, 0.17 to 0.08 in India (Uttar Pradesh), 0.13 to 0.06 in Mozambique, and 0.09 to 0.04 in Uganda, respectively. The cost savings realized from lower IPV wastage did not offset the higher costs of procurement and storage costs associated with smaller dose presentation. CONCLUSION: While our model showed that switching from 10-dose vials to 5-dose vials of IPV reduced open vial wastage, it was not cost-saving.