A Linked Electronic Medical Record-Claims Analysis of the Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Patients Coded for Erosive Esophagitis in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Erosive esophagitis (EE) is a severe form of gastroesophageal reflux disease commonly treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The aim of this retrospective, observational cohort study was to describe the characteristics and healthcare burden of patients with EE. METHODS: We identified adults in the USA with an EE diagnosis between January  1, 2016 and February 28, 2019 in a linked dataset containing electronic health records (EHR) from the Veradigm Network EHR and claims data from Komodo Health. Patients were required to have 1 year of baseline data and 3 years of follow-up data. Patients were stratified by the number of PPI lines of therapy (LOT) during the 4-year study period. We descriptively captured patient characteristics and treatment patterns, along with all-cause and EE-related healthcare utilization and costs. RESULTS: Among the 158,347 qualifying adults with EE, 71,958 (45.4%) had 1 PPI LOT, 14,985 (9.5%) had 2 LOTs, 15,129 (9.6%) had 3+ LOTs, and 56,275 (35.5%) did not fill a PPI prescription. Omeprazole and pantoprazole comprised more than 70% of any LOT, with patients commonly switching between the two. Mean (standard deviation) annualized all-cause and EE-related healthcare costs in the follow-up period were $16,853 ($70,507) and $523 ($3659), respectively. Both all-cause and EE-related healthcare costs increased with LOTs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EE are commonly treated with prescription PPIs; however, 19.0% of patients cycled through multiple PPIs. Higher PPI use was associated with a higher comorbidity burden and higher healthcare costs compared to 0 PPI use.

Healthcare costs among patients with newly diagnosed helicobacter pylori infection in the United States: a linked claims-EHR study.

AIMS: The study objectives were to 1) characterize the cost drivers of patients with Helicobacter pylori (HP) and 2) estimate HP-related cost savings following lab-confirmed HP eradication with US guideline-recommended treatment compared to failed eradication. METHODS: We identified adults newly diagnosed with HP between 1/1/2016-12/31/2019 in the Veradigm Electronic Health Record Database linked to claims data (earliest HP diagnosis = index date). For the overall costs analysis, we required patients to have data available for ≥12 months before and after the index date. Then, we used multivariable modeling to assess the marginal effects of comorbidities on all cause-healthcare costs in the 12 months following HP diagnosis. For the eradication savings analysis, we identified patients with ≥1 HP eradication regimen, a subsequent HP lab test result, and ≥1 year of data after the test result. Then we used multivariable modeling to estimate HP-related cost while adjusting for eradication status, demographics, post-testing HP-related clinical variables, and the interactions between eradication status and each HP-related clinical variable. RESULTS: The overall cost analysis included 60,593 patients with HP (mean age 54.2 years, 65.5% female). Mean (SD) 12-month unadjusted all-cause costs were $23,693 ($78,089). Rare comorbidities demonstrated the highest marginal effect. The marginal effects of gastric cancer and PUD were $15,705 and $7,323, respectively. In the eradication savings analysis, 1,835 (80.0%) of the 2295 patients had lab test-confirmed HP eradication. Compared to failed eradication, there were significant one-year cost savings among patients with successful HP eradication and select conditions: $1,770 for PUD, $518 for atrophic gastritis, $494 for functional dyspepsia, and $352 for gastritis. CONCLUSIONS: The healthcare costs of patients with HP are partially confounded by their burden of high-cost comorbidities. In the subset of patients with available results, confirmed vs. failed eradication of HP was associated with short-term cost offsets among those with specific to HP-related sequelae.

Helicobacter pylori (HP) is a common infection. We aimed to better understand healthcare costs for people infected with HP. Specifically, we were interested in 1) investigating whether complications from HP were causing high costs. 2) whether successful eradication of HP would lead to lower healthcare costs. We captured data on adults diagnosed with HP between 2016 and 2019. The data used in this study came from medical records and insurance bills. In the first part of the study, we found that patients with HP often have other health issues, and these other health issues were driving high healthcare costs. The majority of cost savings associated with HP eradication accrue from the prevention of potential complications of long-term infection, such as peptic ulcer disease and, rarely, gastric cancer.

Helicobacter pylori infection treatment in the United States: clinical consequences and costs of eradication treatment failure.

INTRODUCTION: Helicobacter pylori (Hp) is causal in benign and malignant gastrointestinal diseases. Accordingly, current guidelines recommend Hp eradication in patients with active infection. Unfortunately, treatment failure is common, exposing patients to complications associated with persistent Hp infection and consequences of repeated treatment, including promotion of antibiotic resistance. In the United States (US), data regarding eradication rates with available therapies are limited. Moreover, the clinical and economic burden of eradication treatment failure have not been thoroughly described. AREAS COVERED: We aimed to characterize Hp eradication rates and the clinical consequences and associated costs of persistent Hp infection among US adults. We conducted focused literature reviews using initial searches in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid followed by manual searches to identify relevant publications. EXPERT OPINION: Hp eradication rates were suboptimal, with most studies reporting rates ≤80% with clarithromycin-based triple therapy and bismuth quadruple therapy. There was direct evidence supporting numerous benefits of successful Hp eradication, including decreased risk of recurrent or complicated peptic disease and non-cardia gastric cancer. Cost benefits of eradication were related to mitigation of conditions associated with persistent Hp infection, (e.g. complicated peptic ulcer disease, and gastric cancer) which altogether exceed US$5.3 billion.

Switch rates and total cost associated with apremilast and biologics in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis.

Aim: Real-world treatment data for psoriatic arthritis are limited. We evaluated switch rates, adherence, and costs for patients initiating apremilast versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and interleukin inhibitor (ILi) among biologic-naive psoriatic arthritis patients. Materials & methods: This retrospective analysis used IBM MarketScan claims data to assess treatment switches, adherence and costs. Results: Twelve-month switch rates were significantly lower for apremilast versus TNFi (15.5% vs 26.6%; p < 0.0001) and similar to ILi (15.5% vs 14.0%; p = 0.71). Apremilast initiators had lower total costs versus TNFi and ILi (US$39,854 vs US$57,243 and US$65,687; p < 0.05) and adherence was slightly lower versus TNFi and higher versus ILi. Conclusion: Biologic-naive apremilast initiators had lower switch rates versus TNFi initiators and lower total costs versus TNFi or ILi initiators.

Postinfusion monitoring costs by site of care for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma receiving third- or later-line treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 and OUTREACH trials.

This retrospective study estimated postinfusion health care resource utilization (HCRU) by site of care among 303 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received third- or later-line treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 and OUTREACH trials. Inpatients (n = 256) had higher rates of hospitalization versus outpatients (n = 47; >99% vs 62%), by definition, and higher rates of tocilizumab use for cytokine release syndrome and/or neurological events (22% vs 9%). Rates of intensive care unit admission, corticosteroid use, vasopressor use, hemodialysis, and intubation were generally low and similar between groups. Median (range) total hospital length of stay was 15 (0-88) days (inpatients) and 4 (0-77) days (outpatients). Over 6 months, estimated mean postinfusion cost of care was $89,535 (inpatients) and $36,702 (outpatients). Most costs were incurred in the first month post infusion (inpatients, $50,369 [56%]; outpatients, $19,837 [54%]). Lower overall HCRU was observed with outpatient postinfusion monitoring.

Cytokine release syndrome and neurological event costs in lisocabtagene maraleucel-treated patients in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have demonstrated high response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL); however, these therapies are associated with 2 CAR T cell-specific potentially severe adverse events (AEs): cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NEs). This study estimated the management costs associated with CRS/NEs among patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL using data from the pivotal TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial of lisocabtagene maraleucel, an investigational CD19-directed defined composition CAR T-cell product with a 4-1BB costimulation domain administered at equal target doses of CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells. This retrospective analysis of patients from TRANSCEND with prospectively identified CRS and/or NE episodes examined relevant trial-observed health care resource utilization (HCRU) associated with toxicity management based on the severity of the event from the health care system perspective. Cost estimates for this analysis were taken from publicly available databases and published literature. Of 268 treated patients as of April 2019, 127 (47.4%) experienced all-grade CRS and/or NEs, which were predominantly grade ≤2 (77.2%). Median total AE management costs ranged from $1930 (grade 1 NE) to $177 343 (concurrent grade ≥3 CRS and NE). Key drivers of cost were facility expenses, including intensive care unit and other inpatient hospitalization lengths of stay. HCRU and costs were significantly greater among patients with grade ≥3 AEs (22.8%). Therefore, CAR T-cell therapies with a low incidence of severe CRS/NEs will likely reduce HCRU and costs associated with managing patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy. This clinical trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02631044.

Real-world treatment patterns, healthcare use and costs in triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in the USA.

Aim: To estimate treatment patterns and healthcare costs among triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Materials & methods: Eligible patients had ≥1 line of therapy (LOT) each of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and daratumumab in December 2015-September 2018 and received a new LOT. Results: A total of 154 patients were included with a median follow-up of 6.2 months. Median time from diagnosis to new LOT was 41.0 months. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to therapy discontinuation was 4.2 months. Mean per-patient, per-month MM-related costs were USD 35,657. Most frequently observed regimens were lenalidomide or pomalidomide + daratumumab (18.2%), lenalidomide or pomalidomide + proteasome inhibitors (15.6%) and lenalidomide or pomalidomide monotherapy (11.0%). Conclusion: Triple-class exposed RRMM patients receive heterogeneous treatments for a short duration with high healthcare resource utilization and costs.

Productivity Loss and Associated Costs Among Employed Patients Receiving Disease-Modifying Treatment for Multiple Sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the indirect burden of employed multiple sclerosis (MS) patients initiating disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in the US. METHODS: DMT-treated MS patients (DMT users) and direct-matched controls without MS (1:3) were captured using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database and the Health and Productivity Management Database between 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2017. DMT users were also stratified by route of administration. Time loss and costs from absenteeism, short-term disability, and long-term disability were assessed for DMT users and matched controls. RESULTS: A total of 3022 DMT users were matched to 9066 controls. Compared with injectable DMT users, oral DMT users took twice as long to initiate therapy but had numerically lower absenteeism costs and significantly lower long-term disability costs in the first year after DMT initiation. The mean (standard deviation) indirect costs of absenteeism, short-term disability, and long-term disability were US$6474 (US$6779), US$2368 (US$5777), and US$280 (US$2578), respectively, for DMT users and US$4468 (US$3814), US$328 (US$1950), and US$36 (US$938), respectively, for controls in the first year (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Employed DMT users in the US incurred incremental increased indirect burden ($2007 in absenteeism, $2040 in short-term disability, and $244 in long-term disability) compared with matched controls. Despite evidence of delays in treatment initiation, oral DMT users had evidence of reduced work loss compared with injectable users, suggesting that open access to all treatment options may reduce the indirect burden of MS. Additional research into the impact of route of administration on the burden of long-term disability among MS patients is needed.

Treatment Patterns and Relapses Among Newly Treated Multiple Sclerosis Patients From a Retrospective Claims Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although all disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) reduce risk of relapse in multiple sclerosis (MS), many factors, including route of administration, influence selection of first-line DMT. Knowledge of real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness in reducing relapses across DMTs is important to understanding factors influencing this choice. This study sought to describe treatment patterns and relapses among newly treated adults with MS and by DMT route of administration (oral, injectable, and infusion). METHODS: IBM MarketScan research databases were used to identify MS adults newly initiating DMTs (index event) from January 1, 2011-April 1, 2016, who had 12 months of continuous preindex and postindex medical and pharmacy benefits. Newly treated patients were those with ≥2 nondiagnostic claims with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (340) or Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (G35) code and no DMT prescription claims in the 12 months' preindex. Persistence and adherence were measured from index until the earliest of ≥60 days without DMT, switching DMTs, or end of follow-up. Relapses were defined using a validated claims-based algorithm and measured in the 12-month preindex and postindex periods. Regression analysis adjusting for patient characteristics and prior relapses was used to determine the association between DMT route of administration and odds of 12-month persistence, odds of postindex relapse, and number of postindex relapses. FINDINGS: Of 9378 newly treated MS patients meeting inclusion criteria; average age was 46.7 years, and 73.3% were female. Most patients initiated an injectable (65.5%) or oral (26.1%) DMT. Relapses decreased markedly from preindex to postindex (32.9%-24.0%), which was highest among oral users (35.8%-21.6%). Patients with no (vs ≥3) relapses preindex were more likely to be relapse free postindex (81.6% vs 31.4%). Nonpersistence (39.1% overall) was lowest among oral users (33.4%) and higher among those with versus without a postindex relapse (50.6% vs 35.5%). Patients initiating oral versus injectable agents were more likely to be persistent at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; p < 0.0001) and less likely to relapse (OR, 0.75; p < 0.0001) postindex. Switches were uncommon (~10%) across cohorts. Preindex relapses were associated with increased odds of postindex relapses (OR, 1.73; p < 0.0001) but not with odds of persistence at 12 months. IMPLICATIONS: The 12-month nonpersistence rate was high among all MS patients but lower among oral users. Oral users were also less likely to relapse postindex. Despite the effectiveness of DMTs in reducing relapses, the low persistence, lack of switching to a new DMT, and continued relapses highlight an unmet need in the MS treatment landscape.

Switch Rates and Total Cost of Care Associated with Apremilast and Biologic Therapies in Biologic-Naive Patients with Plaque Psoriasis.

PURPOSE: Compare treatment switching rates and costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis used IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases to identify patients who initiated apremilast or a biologic (ie, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] or interleukin [IL] inhibitor) for psoriasis treatment between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. A 1:1 propensity score matching was used to adjust for possible selection bias and maximize the number of patients available for analysis. Treatment switching, days to switch, and healthcare costs were assessed at 12 months. T-test and chi-square test were used to evaluate differences between cohorts for continuous and categorical variables as appropriate; Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess cost differences. RESULTS: In total, 88,025 patients newly initiated apremilast, a TNF inhibitor, or an IL inhibitor. After inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied and patients were propensity score matched, 1645 (apremilast), 1207 (TNF inhibitor), and 438 (IL inhibitor) patients were included in this analysis. Twelve-month switch rates were significantly lower for apremilast initiators compared with TNF inhibitor initiators (14% vs 25%; p<0.01) and comparable to IL inhibitors (14% vs 11%; p>0.05). No statistical difference was observed in days to switch at 12 months for any treatment group. Total healthcare costs were lower for apremilast initiators compared with TNF and IL inhibitor initiators ($34,028 vs $55,973 and $64,430; p<0.0001). Per-patient per-month (PPPM) costs were significantly lower for apremilast initiators compared with TNF inhibitor and IL inhibitor initiators ($2834 vs $4662 and $5366; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Over a 12-month follow-up, biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast had significantly lower switching rates compared with patients on TNF inhibitors and similar rates as patients on IL inhibitors. PPPM and total healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients initiating apremilast vs TNF or IL inhibitors, primarily due to lower pharmacy costs.

Real-world switch patterns and healthcare costs in biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

Aim: Treatment switching and healthcare costs were compared among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics with ≥12 months pre-/post-index continuous enrollment in Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart. Methods: After propensity score matching, switch rates (new therapy post-index) and days between index and switch were assessed. Total and per-patient per-month costs by service type were assessed. Results: Apremilast initiators (n = 533) were matched and compared with biologic initiators (n = 955). Twelve-month cumulative switch rates and days to switch were similar. Apremilast initiators had significantly lower total healthcare costs than biologic initiators; apremilast switchers and nonswitchers had significantly lower per-patient per-month costs than biologic switchers and nonswitchers, driven mainly by reduced outpatient pharmacy costs. Conclusion: Apremilast initiators had lower healthcare costs even with treatment switching.

Treatment Switch Patterns and Healthcare Costs in Biologic-Naive Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: We compared treatment switch patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated apremilast or biologics. METHODS: A 1:2 propensity score match was used to adjust administrative claims data for adults initiating apremilast or biologics from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2016, for possible selection bias. Patients had at least 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment in the Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart database. Outcomes included switch frequency, days to switch, adherence on index treatment, and healthcare costs (total and per patient per month). Switch rate was defined as the proportion of patients who switched to a new treatment after initiation of the index treatment, and days to switch was calculated as the days between initiation of the index treatment and initiation of the new treatment. Adherence was calculated using the proportion of days covered and the medication possession ratio. The t test and chi-square, Kaplan-Meier, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to evaluate differences between the cohorts. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and switch rates were similar between the matched apremilast (n = 170) and biologic (n = 327) cohorts. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between the matched cohorts. The 12-month switch rates were similar for patients initiating apremilast versus those on biologics (17.7% vs. 25.1%, P = 0.06). This trend was similar at 6 months (7.7% vs. 13.2%, P = 0.07) and 18 months (24.4% vs. 29.3%, P = 0.33). Regardless of treatment switching, 12-month total healthcare costs were lower with apremilast versus biologics (all: $28,423 vs. $41,178, P < 0.0001; switched: $39,803 vs. $51,517, P = 0.0040; did not switch: $25,984 vs. $37,717, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Biologic-naive patients with PsA who initiated apremilast had switch rates similar to biologic users and significantly lower healthcare costs, regardless of treatment switching.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects an estimated 30% of psoriasis patients who use systemic therapy. Symptoms of PsA, such as joint swelling and tenderness, can be painful and disabling and may worsen quality of life. PsA can also impart a substantial economic burden. Treatment for moderate to severe PsA often involves the use of systemic oral medications (e.g., conventional systemic treatments such as methotrexate or targeted systemic treatments such as apremilast) or biologic therapy given by injection or infusion. Because PsA symptoms and responses to treatment can vary, patients may switch treatments over time. More research is needed to better understand how switching treatments affects healthcare costs among patients starting treatment with apremilast or a biologic for PsA. This study compared treatment switching and healthcare costs among patients with PsA who had never been treated with a biologic and who started treatment with apremilast or a biologic for PsA. Rates of treatment switching at 12 months were similar for patients starting treatment with apremilast versus those starting a biologic. Patients starting treatment with apremilast had significantly lower total healthcare costs compared with those starting a biologic, even if they later switched to a biologic. Healthcare costs calculated per patient per month (PPPM) were also lower with apremilast versus biologics, driven by lower PPPM pharmacy costs. These findings suggest that starting treatment with apremilast may be an effective and cost-effective strategy for managing PsA, even for patients who later switch to a biologic.

Treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: results from a US claims analysis.

Objective: Information on treatment costs for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can be valuable for payers and providers who make treatment and formulary decisions. This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients with PsA initiating apremilast or biologics.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database. The study included biologic-naive patients with PsA who initiated treatment with apremilast or a biologic between 1 January 2014, and 31 December 2015. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.Results: In all, 125 biologic-naive patients initiating treatment with apremilast were matched to 245 biologic-naive patients initiating treatment with a biologic. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for apremilast vs. biologic users (43.2 vs. 36.7%; p = .2277). While persistent on treatment for up to 12 months, total healthcare costs (from all utilizations) were significantly lower among apremilast vs. biologic users ($28,130 vs. $37,093; p < .0001). Likewise, per-patient per-month costs while persistent on treatment were significantly lower among apremilast vs. biologic users whether they switched treatments ($2,455 vs. $3,497; p = .0103), remained persistent on treatment ($2,434 vs. $3,521; p < .0001), or discontinued but did not switch treatments ($2,178 vs. $2,696; p = .0082).Conclusions: Apremilast patients had significantly lower healthcare costs than biologic patients, even when they switched to a biologic, during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize PsA care while reducing healthcare costs.

Treatment patterns and costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for psoriatic arthritis.

Aim: We evaluated treatment patterns and healthcare costs of initiating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment with oral apremilast versus biologics. Methods: Claims data identified biologic-naive adults with PsA who initiated either apremilast or a biologic from 2013 to 2016. Results: Medication adherence was similar at 12 months (76.9 vs 73.4%; p = 0.175) between apremilast (n = 381) and matched biologic (n = 761) patients. Apremilast users had $12,715 lower total costs per-patient-per-month (p < 0.001), largely due to outpatient pharmacy and medical costs. Conclusion: Commercially insured patients with PsA initiating apremilast had adherence similar to those initiating biologics but lower total healthcare costs.

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database. Patients with psoriasis were selected if they had initiated apremilast or biologics between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015; had 12 months of pre-index and post-index continuous enrollment in the database; and were biologic-naive. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for apremilast or biologic, and occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment without a > 60-day gap in therapy (discontinuation) or a switch to a different psoriasis treatment during the 12-month post-index period. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥ 80% while persistent on the index treatment. Persistence-based MPR was defined as the number of days with the medication on hand measured during the patients' period of treatment persistence divided by the duration of the period of treatment persistence. Because patients were not randomized, apremilast patients were propensity score matched up to 1:2 to biologic patients to adjust for possible selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: In all, 343 biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast were matched to 680 biologic-naive patients initiating biologics. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast vs biologics (32.1% vs 33.2%; p = 0.7079). While persistent on therapy up to 12 months, per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were significantly lower among biologic-naive cohorts initiating apremilast vs biologics ($2,214 vs $5,184; p < 0.0001). Likewise, PPPM costs while persistent on therapy were significantly lower among patients initiating apremilast vs biologics, whether they switched treatments ($2,475 vs $4,422; p < 0.0001), remained persistent ($2,279 vs $3,883; p < 0.0001), or discontinued but did not switch treatments ($2,104 vs $6,294; p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Data were limited to individuals with United Healthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, and may not be generalizable to psoriasis patients with other insurance or without health insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Biologic-naive patients with similar patient characteristics receiving apremilast vs biologics had significantly lower PPPM costs, even when they switched to biologics during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize psoriasis care while reducing healthcare costs.

Real-world US healthcare costs of psoriasis for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

AIM: Biologics and apremilast have advanced psoriasis management by adding treatment options. This study evaluated persistence, adherence and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients receiving apremilast or biologics. METHODS: Administrative claims data for adults starting apremilast or biologics from 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2016 were matched based on demographics. RESULTS: Apremilast (n = 703) and biologics (n = 1378) had similar baseline characteristics. 12-month persistence and adherence rates were similar. Adjusted total healthcare costs were lower with apremilast versus biologics (p < 0.001) due to lower total outpatient pharmacy costs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Real-world apremilast users had similar adherence and lower total healthcare costs versus biologic users. Apremilast's cost advantage was evident regardless of whether the patients were persistent or nonpersistent, or switched or did not switch treatments.

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.

Treatment patterns, health state, and health care resource utilization of patients with radioactive iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) often respond well to treatment but some become refractory to radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment, and treatment options are limited. Despite the humanistic and economic burden RAI refractory disease imposes on patients, published research concerning treatment patterns and health care resource utilization is sparse. METHODS: Data were collected from an online retrospective chart review study in the US and five European Union (EU) countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and UK) with physicians recruited from an online panel. Physicians (N=211) provided demographics, disease history, treatment information, and health care resource utilization for one to four of their patients with radioactive iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). RESULTS: The majority of the patients with RR-DTC (N=623) were female (56%), and their mean age was 58.2 years. In this sample, 63.2% had papillary thyroid cancer and 57.0% were in Stage IV when deemed RAI refractory. Patients with RR-DTC experienced regional recurrence in the thyroid bed/central neck area (25.3%) and had distant metastatic disease (53.6%). At the time data were collected, 50.7% were receiving systemic treatment. Of those, 78.5% were on first-line treatment and 62.7% were receiving multikinase inhibitors. Regional differences for prescribed treatments were observed; the US was more likely to have patients receiving multikinase inhibitors (79.2%) compared with UK (41.2%) and Italy (17.1%). Additional details regarding treatment patterns and resource utilization are discussed. CONCLUSION: The current study aimed to obtain a greater understanding of RR-DTC treatment globally. These results can assist in the development and implementation of treatment guidelines and ultimately enhance the care of patients with RR-DTC.