Household Influenza Transmission and Healthcare Resource Utilization Among Patients Treated with Baloxavir vs Oseltamivir: A United States Outpatient Prospective Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Influenza is a common, seasonal infectious disease with broad medical, economic, and social consequences. Real-world evidence on the effect of influenza treatment on household transmission and healthcare resource utilization is limited in outpatient settings in the USA. This study examined the real-world effectiveness of baloxavir vs oseltamivir in reducing influenza household transmission and healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: This prospective electronic survey on patient-reported outcomes was conducted between October 2022 and May 2023 via CVS Pharmacy in the USA. Adult participants (≥ 18 years old) were eligible if they filled a prescription for baloxavir or oseltamivir at a CVS Pharmacy within 2 days of influenza symptom onset. Participant demographics, household transmission, and all-cause healthcare resource utilization were collected. Transmission and utilization outcomes were assessed using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Of 87,871 unique patients contacted, 1346 (1.5%) consented. Of 374 eligible patients, 286 (90 baloxavir- and 196 oseltamivir-treated patients) completed the survey and were included in the analysis. Mean age of participants was 45.4 years, 65.6% were female, and 86.7% were White. Lower household transmission was observed with baloxavir compared with oseltamivir therapy (17.8% vs 26.5%; relative risk = 0.67; 95% CI 0.41-1.11). Healthcare resource utilization, particularly emergency department visits (0.0% vs 4.6%), was also numerically lower in the baloxavir-treated group; no hospitalizations were reported in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this real-world study suggest that antiviral treatment of influenza with baloxavir may decrease household transmission and reduce healthcare resource utilization compared with oseltamivir.

Reduced mortality, complications, and economic burden among medicare beneficiaries receiving influenza antivirals.

INTRODUCTION: Antiviral therapy may be underutilized in patients at high risk for increased clinical and economic burden (e.g. older adults). We aimed to examine the benefits associated with antiviral treatment of seasonal influenza among treated and untreated Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: This retrospective study of Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files identified patients ≥66 years old with an influenza diagnosis in outpatient setting between October 2016-March 2019 (flu seasons 2016-2018). Index date defined as date of first claim with influenza diagnosis; baseline as the 12 months pre-index. Treated patients received antivirals ≤2 days from index. Untreated patients had no antivirals ≤6 months post-index. Treated/untreated patients were 1:1 propensity score matched. Outcomes (death, all-cause and respiratory-related healthcare resource utilization [HCRU] and costs) were assessed until death or up to 6 months post-index. Descriptive statistics were reported; Kaplan-Meier estimation was used for survival over time. RESULTS: Among 116,901 matched patient pairs, all-cause mortality within 6 months from index diagnosis was 1.6% among treated versus 4.3% among untreated patients. Rates (treated versus untreated) of all-cause inpatient hospitalizations during follow-up were 13.9% versus 22.7% and respiratory-related hospitalizations were 4.2% versus 9.0%. Mean (SD) total all-cause and respiratory-related costs were $9,830 ($18,616.0) and $900 ($4016.4) among the treated, respectively, versus $13,207 ($24,405.1) and $2,024 ($7,623.7) among untreated, respectively. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of antiviral treatment is associated with increased mortality, HCRU, and economic burden in older Medicare beneficiaries with seasonal influenza. Future research should investigate whether the choice of antivirals affects influenza burden.

Previous studies have shown that antiviral drugs help prevent flu-related complications and lower healthcare utilization and costs. However, these previous studies have focused on working aged people with existing health problems. Our study looks at how antiviral treatment can lower the health and financial burden caused by the flu in older adults. Using a Medicare claims database from the 2016­2018 flu season, we identified 116,901 matched (treated versus untreated) patient pairs. All-cause mortality within 6 months from the index diagnosis (defined as the first claim with a flu diagnosis) was 1.6% among treated versus 4.3% among untreated patients. Rates (treated versus untreated) of all-cause inpatient hospitalizations during follow-up (defined as 6 months after the index diagnosis date) were 13.9% versus 22.7% and respiratory-related hospitalizations were 4.2% versus 9.0%. Mean total all-cause and respiratory-related costs were $9,830 and $900 among the treated, respectively, versus $13,207 and $2,024 among untreated, respectively. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). This analysis of older adults with the flu found that prompt antiviral treatment is associated with lower rates of mortality and acute complications, reduced hospitalization, and lower healthcare costs. Use of antiviral treatment for patients at high risk of flu, such as older adults, is warranted.

Impact of list price changes on out-of-pocket costs and adherence in four high-rebate specialty drugs.

BACKGROUND: Insurers manage the cost of specialty medicines via rebates, however it is unclear if the savings are passed on to patients, and whether reducing rebates may lead to changes in patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and medication adherence. This study examined two drug classes to understand the impact of reducing list prices to net prices, via lower-priced national drug codes (NDCs) or authorized generics, on patient OOP costs and adherence. METHODS: This retrospective analysis assessed IQVIA PharMetrics ® Plus adjudicated medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients. Patient OOP costs per prescription and payer drug costs were assessed for evolocumab or alirocumab (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors [PCSK9is]) or velpatasvir/sofosbuvir or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (hepatitis C virus [HCV] medications). For PCSK9is and HCV medications, the original and lower-priced versions were compared. Adherence was estimated based on proportion of days covered (PDC) (PCSK9is) and receipt of full treatment regimen (HCV medications). RESULTS: In total, 10,640 patients were included (evolocumab, 5,042; alirocumab, 1,438; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir, 2,952; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir,1,208). After list price reductions, mean payer drug costs decreased by over 60%, while patient OOP cost reductions ranged from 14% to 55% (evolocumab: 55%, p < 0.01; alirocumab: 51%, p < 0.01; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir: 30%, p < 0.01; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir: 14%, p = 0.03). Patients with coinsurance as the largest contributor to their OOP costs had the largest reductions in OOP costs, ranging from adjusted, mean values of US$135 to US$379 (>60% reductions). Six-month PDC for PCSK9is and proportion receiving full HCV treatment regimen were high with the original versions and did not substantially differ with the new, lower-priced versions. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing list prices to approximate net prices (as a proxy for reducing rebates) resulted in lower patient OOP costs, particularly for those with coinsurance. Our findings suggest that future reduction of rebates may assist in patient affordability, although additional transparency is needed.

Economic and health care resource utilization burden of central nervous system metastases in patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic melanoma, central nervous system (CNS) involvement is associated with poor prognosis, increased costs, and higher health care resource utilization (HCRU); however, previous cost-estimate studies were conducted before widespread use of targeted therapies and immunotherapies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs and HCRU in patients with metastatic melanoma with and without CNS metastases in the current treatment era following introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapies. METHODS: This real-world retrospective cohort study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims database to estimate and compare costs and HCRU in patients with metastatic melanoma by presence or absence of CNS metastases between January 2011 and June 2019. Patients with at least 2 melanoma claims, at least 2 metastatic claims, and continuous enrollment at least 6 months before and at least 1 month after first metastatic diagnosis were included. Mean per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs are reported in 2019 US dollars. Analyses were also conducted by time period of first metastatic diagnosis: 2011-2014 (reflecting BRAF inhibitor monotherapy and anti-CTLA-4 therapy) and 2015-2019 (reflecting availability of BRAF and MEK inhibitor combinations and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies). RESULTS: Of 4,078 patients, 1,253 (30.7%) had CNS metastases. Patients with CNS metastases were more likely to receive any treatment (89.1% vs 58.9%; P < 0.001), including systemic treatment (73.3% vs 55.4%; P < 0.001) and radiation (65.8% vs 11.8%; P < 0.001), and to have brain imaging any time after metastatic diagnosis (98.3% vs 67.2%; P < 0.001). In patients with CNS metastases, 40.0% had dexamethasone 4 mg within 30 days of CNS metastatic diagnosis. Patients with CNS metastases incurred higher total mean PPPM costs ($29,953 vs $14,996; P < 0.001). The largest contributors were total radiology ($2,351 vs $1,110), targeted therapies ($2,499 vs $638), and immunotherapies ($7,398 vs $5,036). HCRU and costs were higher in patients with vs without CNS metastases regardless of time period of first metastatic diagnosis. In patients with CNS metastases, use of any systemic treatment was increased in 2015-2019 vs 2011-2014 (81.2% vs 64.5%; P < 0.001), including chemotherapy (68.1% vs 50.0%; P < 0.001), immunotherapy (60.9% vs 30.1%; P < 0.001), and/or targeted therapies (32.7% vs 27.4%; P = 0.05). Mean total PPPM costs for patients with CNS metastases increased from $28,183 in 2011-2014 to $31,569 in 2015-2019 (P < 0.001); main drivers were immunotherapies and targeted therapies. CONCLUSIONS: CNS metastases occur frequently in patients with metastatic melanoma and are associated with significantly increased economic burden compared with patients without CNS metastases; the largest contributors to total costs in the current treatment era are radiology, targeted therapies, and immunotherapies. Brain imaging remains underused, and there is an opportunity to improve outcomes through early detection of CNS metastases, potentially reducing the high HCRU and costs associated with CNS metastases. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. Seetasith and Lee are employed by and report stock ownership in Genentech, Inc. Bartley and McKenna were employed by Genentech, Inc., at the time of this study and report stock ownership. Tawbi reports grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, Novartis, BMS, and Merck; grants from GSK and Celgene; and personal fees from Eisai, outside the submitted work. Kent, Burton, and Haydu have nothing to disclose. The results of this study were presented in part at the AMCP Nexus 2020 Virtual Meeting, October 19-23, 2020.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost of Care in Patients With Periocular Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-World Study.

PURPOSE: To date, there are no studies on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs for treating periocular basal cell carcinoma (pBCC). We investigated real-world HRU and costs of patients with limited versus extensive pBCC. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cost analysis. METHODS: Administrative claims database was mined for basal cell carcinoma (BCC)-related claims from January 2011 to December 2018. Patients had ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient nondiagnostic claims for pBCC ≥30 days apart, ≥6 months of continuous enrollment in a health plan before the index date, and ≥18 months of continuous enrollment after the index date. Patients were categorized by disease severity (limited or extensive) using Current Procedural Terminology codes. A total of 1368 patients were propensity matched 1:1 for limited and extensive pBCC (n = 684 each). Outcomes were cost and HRU measures during the 18-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Patients with extensive disease had a higher number of outpatient visits (32.47 vs 28.81; P < .0001), radiation therapies (0.53 vs 0.17; P = .001), surgeries (1.82 vs 1.24; P < .001), days between first and last surgery (40.82 vs 16.51 days; P < .001), outpatient pBCC claims (3.89 vs 3.38; P < .001), and days between pBCC claims (170.43 vs 144.01 days; P < .001). Patients with extensive disease incurred higher total all-cause costs ($36,986.10 vs $31,893.13; P = .02), outpatient costs ($20,450.26 vs $16,885.87; P = .005), radiation therapy costs ($314.28 vs $89.81; P = .01), and surgery costs ($3,697.08 vs $2,585.80; P < .001) than patients with limited disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with extensive pBCC incurred higher costs, greater HRU, and longer time between first and last surgery versus patients with limited pBCC. Early diagnosis and early treatment of pBCC have economic benefits.

HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Healthcare Costs in the Targeted-Therapy Age.

INTRODUCTION: Claims data (IBM MarketScan Commercial and MarketScan Medicare Supplemental databases) from June 30, 2011 to September 30, 2017 were used to evaluate the cost impact of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in this retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The primary analysis compared short-term costs for patients diagnosed with HER2+ MBC at least 180 days after the end of first HER2-targeted treatment (MBC+ cohort) versus a propensity score matched cohort of patients with breast cancer who did not develop MBC (MBC- cohort). A pseudo-post period for patients in the HER2+ MBC- cohort was defined by indexing to the HER2+ treatment completion-MBC diagnosis time interval of the matched pair in the HER2+ MBC+ cohort; we then compared average monthly cost differences between these groups for the year preceding and following MBC diagnosis. In secondary analyses, we estimated medium-term aggregate and categorical healthcare costs for patients with HER2+ MBC up to 3 years post-diagnosis. RESULTS: In the short-term primary analysis, costs for the HER2+ MBC+ and HER2+ MBC- cohorts were largely comparable in the year preceding MBC diagnosis. Monthly direct costs were significantly higher for the HER2+ MBC+ cohort in the months immediately preceding MBC diagnosis, with differences in the range of $500-5000. Following diagnosis, total monthly costs were $13,000-34,000 higher for patients in the HER2+ MBC+ cohort vs. the HER2+ MBC- cohort. In the medium-term secondary analysis, mean per patient total costs were $218,171 [standard error (SE) $5450] in the first year following MBC diagnosis and $412,903 (SE $13,034) cumulatively over 3 years following diagnosis (among patients with complete follow-up). Primary cost contributors were outpatient visits ($195,162; SE $8043) and HER2-targeted therapy drug costs ($177,489; SE $8120). CONCLUSIONS: HER2+ MBC is associated with high short-term and medium-term direct healthcare costs. These could be alleviated with early diagnosis and optimal standard-of-care treatment for early breast cancer, which can significantly reduce the risk of recurrence.

Real-World Economic Outcomes of Brexpiprazole and Extended-Release Quetiapine Adjunctive Use in Major Depressive Disorder.

PURPOSE: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic mental disorder with a substantial clinical and economic burden. Despite the efficacy of adjunctive atypical antipsychotics (AAP) for augmentation in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who failed first-line antidepressant therapy (ADT), little is known of the impact of AAP choices on healthcare resource use and costs in real-world practice. Therefore, this study compared real-world healthcare utilization and costs in patients with MDD treated with brexpiprazole or extended-release (XR) quetiapine as adjunctive treatment to ADT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with MDD starting adjunctive treatment with brexpiprazole (n=844) or extended-release (XR) quetiapine (n=688) were identified in the adjudicated health plan claims data (07/2014 - 09/2016). Resource use and healthcare costs in the 6 months following treatment initiation were compared between non-matched populations, and between propensity score-matched groups, and by multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: During follow-up, unadjusted all-cause hospitalization (6.6% vs 12.5%) and ED visits (17.0% vs 27.5%) were lower with brexpiprazole compared to quetiapine XR (both p<0.001). Brexpiprazole-treated patients had significantly lower mean medical costs (US$6,421 vs US$8,545, p=0.0123) but higher mean pharmacy costs (US$7,401 vs US$4,691, p<0.0001) than quetiapine XR-treated patients did. Total healthcare costs were not significantly different between the two cohorts. Propensity score-matched comparisons of 397 patients in each cohort showed no statistically significant difference in all-cause hospitalization, ED visits, and total healthcare costs; and significantly lower medical costs (US$5,719 vs US$8,602, p=0.0092) but higher pharmacy costs (US$7,091 vs US$5,091, p=0.0007) in brexpiprazole compared to quetiapine XR. In multivariable regressions, brexpiprazole was associated with 16.1% lower medical costs (p=0.0186) and 9.4% higher total healthcare costs (p=0.0463) as compared to quetiapine XR. CONCLUSION: Significantly lower medical costs were observed in patients with MDD treated with brexpiprazole vs quetiapine XR.

Assessment and effect of a gap between new-onset epilepsy diagnosis and treatment in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the treatment gap between a new epilepsy diagnosis and antiepileptic drug (AED) initiation in the United States. METHODS: Retrospective claims-based cohort study using Truven Health MarketScan databases (commercial and supplemental Medicare, calendar years 2010-2015; Medicaid, 2010-2014) and a validation study using PharMetrics Plus Database linked to LRx claims database (2009-2014). Persons met epilepsy diagnostic criteria, had an index date (first epilepsy diagnosis) with a preceding 2-year baseline (1 year for persons aged 1 to <2 years; none for persons <1 year), and continuous medical and pharmacy enrollment without epilepsy/seizure diagnosis or AED prescription during baseline. Outcomes included percentage of untreated persons (no AED prescription) up to 3 years' follow-up and comparative outcomes (incidence rate ratio: untreated persons/treated persons), including medical events and health care resource utilization. RESULTS: In the primary study, 59,970 persons met selection (or inclusion) criteria; 36.7% of persons with newly diagnosed epilepsy remained untreated up to 3 years after diagnosis. In the validation study (N = 30,890), 31.8% of persons remained untreated up to 3 years after diagnosis. Lack of AED treatment was associated with an adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.2 (1.2-1.3) for medical events, 2.3 (2.2-2.3) for hospitalizations, and 2.8 (2.7-2.9) for emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of newly diagnosed persons remain untreated up to 3 years after epilepsy diagnosis. The increased risk of medical events and health care utilization highlights the consequences of delayed treatment after epilepsy diagnosis, which might be preventable.

The impact of copay assistance on patient out-of-pocket costs and treatment rates with ALK inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: The patient cost burden of oral anticancer medicines has been associated with prescription abandonment, delayed treatment initiation, and poorer health outcomes in the US. Since 2011, several small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with rearrangement of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene. The objective of this study was to measure the impact of copay assistance on patient cost sharing and treatment patterns in patients prescribed oral ALK inhibitors (ALKi's). METHODS: Patterns of claims approval/rejection and payment/reversal, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and treatment persistence were reported for patients identified in the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer database from January 2013 to August 2017 linked to a medical claims database. The primary study cohorts were patients with copay assistance, including manufacturer's copay cards, other discount cards, or free-trial vouchers, on the index ALKi claim, and patients without copay assistance at any time during the follow-up period. RESULTS: In total, 3,143 patients were included in analyses related to claim patterns, and 1,685 patients were included in analyses related to treatment persistence. Copay assistance decreased the OOP cost for the first approved ALKi by $1,930, on average. Patients with copay assistance picked up ALKi prescriptions from the pharmacy sooner than patients without copay assistance (2.6 days vs 25.7 days). In adjusted analyses, patients with copay assistance had 88.2% lower risk of abandoning their first approved prescription and 24.3% lower risk of discontinuing treatment with the first observed ALKi (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Copay assistance reduced the patient cost burden for ALKi's and was associated with patients picking up their ALKi prescriptions, beginning ALKi treatment sooner, and remaining on treatment.

Adherence rates and health care costs in Crohn's disease patients receiving certolizumab pegol with and without home health nurse assistance: results from a retrospective analysis of patient claims and home health nurse data.

BACKGROUND: Patient support programs have a positive effect on adherence to therapy. Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is a tumor necrosis factor antagonist for the treatment of Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess, using real-world claims data, whether home health nurse assistance had an effect on patients' adherence to CZP and to measure its impact on health care use and costs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims data from the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims Database was conducted using data from January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2015. CZP patients with Crohn's disease were eligible to receive self-administration instructions from a nurse or nurse-administered CZP injections, or both. These services were provided by CIMplicity®, a home health nurse program sponsored by UCB Pharma. Cohorts were based on patients with and without nurse assistance and were matched based on gender and categorical age. Adherence to CZP was determined using the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC). A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare time to discontinuation of CZP between the two cohorts. Multivariate regression analyses were performed, adjusting for additional covariates to compare the effect of CZP with and without nurse assistance on hospitalization and total health care costs. RESULTS: Patients with at least 12 months of continuous enrollment post-index date were evaluated for adherence to CZP (n=276 in each cohort). The mean and median PDC and MPR values were higher with nurse assistance than without. Time to discontinuation was significantly longer in patients who received CZP with nurse assistance than without (P=0.0004). Results from the multivariate analyses showed a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization (-55.8%; P=0.0026) and total health care costs (-14.3%; P=0.0045) with nurse assistance. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that home health nurse assistance increases adherence to CZP and reduces health care costs in patients with Crohn's disease.

Changes in healthcare resource use and costs associated with early versus delayed initiation of atypical antipsychotic adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder.

AIMS: The study compared all-cause and major depressive disorder (MDD)-related healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs in patients with MDD treated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) adjunctive therapy early or later in treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with MDD and antidepressant treatment (ADT) who newly initiated adjunctive aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, or quetiapine between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015 were identified in the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims database; the index date was the date of the first AAP claim. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: AAP initiated in the first year (Y1); in the second year (Y2); and more than 2 years (Y3) of first ADT use. Within each cohort, HRU and costs were compared between the 12 months before and after the index date. Pre-post changes in HRU and costs were then compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Five hundred and six (36.7%) patients were categorized as Y1; 252 (18.3%) as Y2; and 622 (45.1%) as Y3. AAP use was associated with significantly decreased rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalization and emergency department visits, and increased rates of pharmacy fills and physician office visits; and the magnitude of changes was largest in cohort Y1. Cohort Y1 had the largest reductions in mean (±SD) all-cause medical costs per patient (-$10,496 ± $85,022, p = .015) compared to Y2 (-$2,474 ± $85,022, p = .572) and Y3 (-$472 ± $31,334, p = .823), mainly due to the reduction in hospitalization. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the largest reductions in hospitalization and medical costs were observed in cohort Y1. Similar increases in all-cause pharmacy costs were seen in all cohorts. A similar trend in costs was observed in MDD-related healthcare services. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: AAP treatment was associated with reductions in all-cause and MDD-related medical costs, primarily in decreased hospitalization. The reductions were largest among patients who initiated treatment in the first year.

On-label and off-label prescribing patterns of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in inpatient hospital settings in the US during the period of major regulatory changes.

BACKGROUND: A number of policy and labeling interventions aimed at reducing inappropriate prescribing of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were implemented in the U.S. between 2006 and 2010. These interventions included the addition of an FDA Black Box Warning to ESA labeling, the implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program, and the adoption of payment restrictions by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The impact of these safety interventions on different types of ESA prescribing (on-label, off-label; evidence-based, not evidence-based) has not been investigated in a single study. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore the prescribing patterns of ESAs for on- and off-label indications in the U.S. hospital inpatients during the period of major policy and labeling changes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of ESAs utilization patterns was conducted using Cerner Health Facts® database from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2011. The study population consisted of adult patients admitted to hospitals during the study period who received at least one ESAs order. Indications for ESA use were assigned based on ICD-9 CM diagnosis codes, procedure codes, and medication records. ESA use was then classified based on FDA-approval and the strength of scientific evidence supporting its use. Indication categories included (1) on-label use (ONS); (2) off-label use, supported (OFS); and (3) off-label use, unsupported (OFU). Descriptive statistics were used to examine ESA use by patient, hospital, and physician characteristics and over time. RESULTS: ESAs were most frequently prescribed for ONS (48.7%), followed by OFU (42.7%) and OFS indications (8.6%). Of all off-label use, 83.2% were for unsupported indications. Between 2005 and 2010, the percent of inpatient visits with ESA use decreased for supported indications, both on-label (-63.2%) and off-label (-78.2%), but increased for unsupported indications (80%). OFU use surpassed ONS use as the most common type of ESA use in 2009. CONCLUSIONS: Total and ONS ESA use decreased markedly, while OFU ESA use continued to increase during the period of major policy and labeling changes.

Clinical and economic burden of peripheral T-cell lymphoma in commercially insured patients in the United States: findings using real-world claims data.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective cohort study utilized real-world claims data to assess the clinical and economic burden of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) over the continuum of care in the US. METHODS: Data were extracted from US administrative claims databases to identify adult patients with PTCL (ICD-9-CM code 202.7X) diagnosed between October 2007 and June 2011. Patients had to have ≥6 months of continuous enrollment before and ≥12 months of continuous enrollment after their index date (date of first PTCL diagnosis). PTCL patients were matched (1:5) by age, sex, region, plan type, payer type, and length of continuous enrollment, to a control group of randomly selected patients without PTCL. Patient-level healthcare resource utilization data and associated costs (in US dollars) were measured. Mean costs per patient per month were determined. RESULTS: Of 2820 patients with PTCL, 1000 met all inclusion criteria (median age = 57 years; 57.5% male) and were matched to the control group (n = 5000). On an average monthly basis, PTCL patients were hospitalized more frequently (0.07 vs 0.01 admissions; p < 0.0001) and had a longer length of hospital stay (6.4 vs 4.0 days; p < 0.0001) compared with controls. PTCL patients also had higher monthly utilization of pharmacy services (2.85 vs 0.97 prescriptions; p < 0.0001), office visits (1.35 vs 0.34 visits; p < 0.0001), ER visits (0.07 vs 0.02 visits; p < 0.0001), hospice stays (0.05 vs 0.01 stays; p < 0.0001) and other patient services/procedures. Overall, PTCL patients incurred higher average monthly costs per patient compared with control patients ($6327.84 vs $388.39; p < 0.0001), driven mainly by hospitalizations (32.2% of overall costs) and pharmacy services (19.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first real-world study to quantify healthcare resource utilization, costly treatment, and overall medical expenditure in commercially insured PTCL patients. Better tolerated and more effective treatments may improve disease management and reduce the clinical and economic burden of PTCL.