Estimated Effectiveness of Coadministration of the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 COVID-19 Vaccine With Influenza Vaccine.

Importance: No data comparing the estimated effectiveness of coadministering COVID-19 vaccines with seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) in the community setting exist. Objective: To examine the comparative effectiveness associated with coadministering the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2-biv [Pfizer BioNTech]) and SIV vs giving each vaccine alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective comparative effectiveness study evaluated US adults aged 18 years or older enrolled in commercial health insurance or Medicare Advantage plans and vaccinated with BNT162b2-biv only, SIV only, or both on the same day between August 31, 2022, and January 30, 2023. Individuals with monovalent or another brand of mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccine were excluded. Exposure: Same-day coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV; receipt of BNT162b2-biv only (for COVID-19-related outcomes) or SIV only (for influenza-related outcomes) were the comparator groups. For adults aged 65 years or older, only enhanced SIVs were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19-related and influenza-related hospitalization, emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters, and outpatient visits. Results: Overall, 3 442 996 individuals (57.0% female; mean [SD] age, 65 [16.7] years) were included. A total of 627 735 individuals had BNT162b2-biv and SIV vaccine coadministered, 369 423 had BNT162b2-biv alone, and 2 445 838 had SIV alone. Among those aged 65 years or older (n = 2 210 493; mean [SD] age, 75 [6.7] years; 57.9% female), the coadministration group had a similar incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.24) and slightly higher incidence of emergency department or urgent care encounters (AHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23) and outpatient visits (AHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11) compared with the BNT162b2-biv-only group. Among individuals aged 18 to 64 years (n = 1 232 503; mean [SD] age, 47 [13.1] years; 55.4% female), the incidence of COVID-19-related outcomes was slightly higher among those who received both vaccines vs BNT162b2-biv alone (AHR point estimate range, 1.14-1.57); however, fewer events overall in this age group resulted in wider CIs. Overall, compared with those who received SIV alone, the coadministration group had a slightly lower incidence of most influenza-related end points (AHR point estimates 0.83-0.93 for those aged ≥65 years vs 0.76-1.08 for those aged 18-64 years). Negative control outcomes suggested residual bias and calibration of COVID-19-related and influenza-related outcomes with negative controls moved all estimates closer to the null, with most CIs crossing 1.00. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV was associated with generally similar effectiveness in the community setting against COVID-19-related and SIV-related outcomes compared with giving each vaccine alone and may help improve uptake of both vaccines.

Cervical cancer geographical burden analyzer: An interactive, open-access tool for understanding geographical disease burden in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer (CC) disproportionately affects women based on socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic background. There is limited research in quantifying and visualizing whether substantial geographical disparities in the US exist with respect to CC burden, and especially with respect to recurrent or metastatic CC (r/mCC) disease burden. Identifying regions with higher r/mCC burden may help inform effective healthcare resource allocation and navigating patients to appropriate care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the 2015-2020 MarketScan® Commercial and Supplemental Medicare claims data; r/mCC burden was estimated as the number of patients initiating r/mCC systemic therapy over CC-diagnosed patients for each of the 410 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) considered. We developed a public, web-based tool, the Cervical Cancer Geographical Disease Burden Analyzer (Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer, http://www.geo-analyzer.org), that allows users to visualize r/mCC burden across MSAs over multiple years. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in r/mCC burden across MSAs, with a range of 0-83.3%. Burden increased in Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA (r/mCC to CC ratio: 41% in 2018 to 50% in 2020), and Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA (33% in 2018 to 50% in 2020). On the other hand, while r/mCC burden remained high, it decreased in Grand Rapids, MI (55% in 2018 to 31% in 2020) and San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (40% in 2018 to 26% in 2020). There were regions with sparse or no data, suggesting a need for more representative data capture. CONCLUSION: The Cervical Geo-Analyzer is a tool to visualize areas with high need for CC interventions. It also builds the foundation for further work to understand local risk factors of disease burden, identify populations of interest, characterize health disparities of CC or r/mCC and inform targeted interventions.

Health care resource utilization and costs among individuals with vs without Huntington disease in a US population.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the extent of health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with Huntington disease (HD) is vital for providers, decisionmakers, and payers to understand unmet treatment needs and to ensure limited resources can be used to benefit the maximum number of people with HD. OBJECTIVE: To quantify HCRU and costs for people with HD, overall and by disease stage, and compare these with non-HD controls. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial, Multi-State Medicaid, and Medicare Supplemental Databases from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2018. People with an HD claim between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were selected for this analysis and matched with non-HD controls for comparison. The HD cohort and the non-HD controls were exact matched on their follow-up duration and propensity score matched 1:4 to create the final analytical cohort. Index date was the first HD diagnosis for the HD cohort (proxy index date assigned to controls), and all individuals were required to have continuous enrollment for 12 or more months pre-index (baseline) and 3 or more months post-index. Proportions of all-cause HCRU (ie, outpatient visits, inpatient visits, emergency department visits, pharmacy fills, radiology visits, and physical/occupational therapy visits) in the 6-months post-index and HCRU counts and costs per patient per month (PPPM) over the entire follow-up were calculated for each cohort. RESULTS: A total of 2,473 individuals with HD and 9,522 matched non-HD controls were identified. HCRU in 6 months post-index was significantly greater in people with HD compared with non-HD controls for all health care service categories; P < 0.0001. The mean number of HCRU PPPM for all measured healthcare services was significantly higher in people with HD compared with non-HD controls (P < 0.001). Mean total costs (2018 USD PPPM) for the HD cohort ($2,260 [SD = $4,682]) were twice the total costs in the non-HD cohort ($1,056 [SD = $3,078]) (P < 0.0001) and were highest across all disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides current comprehensive HCRU and cost estimates in individuals with HD relative to those without the disease, thus demonstrating the high economic burden imposed by HD. DISCLOSURES: Dr Ta: Employment with Genentech (at time of study) and stock options with Roche; Dr To: Employment and stock options/dividends with Genentech; Dr Patel: Employment and stock options with Roche/Genentech; Dr Fuller: Employment with CHDI Management/CHDI Foundation; Mr Surinach: Employment with Genesis Research (which receives consulting fees from Genentech/Roche); Dr Abbass: Employment and stock options with Genentech; Dr Exuzides: Employment and stock options with Roche/Genentech; and Ms Luo: Employment with CHDI Management/CHDI Foundation. This study was funded by Genentech Inc. The authors thank Greg Rowe of Chrysalis Medical Communications for providing medical writing support, which was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines (http://www.ismpp.org/gpp3).

Healthcare resource utilization and costs in individuals with Huntington's disease by disease stage in a US population.

AIMS: To quantify healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs by disease stage in individuals with Huntington's disease (HD) in a US population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial, Multi-State Medicaid, and Medicare Supplemental Databases between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018. Individuals with an HD claim between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 were selected. Index date was the date of first HD diagnosis. Individuals were required to have continuous enrollment for ≥ 12 months pre-index, 3 months post-index, and have no pre-index HD claims. All-cause HRU and costs per patient per month (PPPM) (overall and stratified by disease stage) were assessed for individuals with HD. RESULTS: A total of 2,669 individuals with HD were identified. Of these, 1,432 (53.7%), 689 (25.8%), and 548 (20.5%) had early-, middle-, and late-stage HD at baseline, respectively. Mean HRU PPPM by post-index HD stage increased with disease stage for outpatient visits, pharmacy claims, and HD-related pharmacy claims (p < 0.05 for all). Mean inpatient visits and emergency room visits PPPM were highest in individuals with middle-stage HD (p <0.05 for all). Mean total all-cause healthcare cost PPPM for individuals with HD was $2,889, and it was significantly higher in middle-stage individuals, at $7,988, compared with early- and late-stage individuals, at $3,726 and $5,125, respectively; p <0.0001. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of disease staging information in administrative claims data, staging was based on the presence of clinical markers in claims. Our evaluations didn't include the indirect costs of HD, which may be substantial as HD typically affects people at their peak earning potential. CONCLUSIONS: HRU and costs of care are high among individuals with HD, particularly among those with middle- and late-stage disease. This indicates that the disease burden in HD increases with disease stage, highlighting the need for interventions that can slow or prevent disease progression.

Trends in treatment patterns and costs of care among patients with advanced stage cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) do not offer satisfactory clinical benefits, with most patients progressing beyond first-line (1L) treatment. With new treatments under investigation, understanding current treatment patterns, the impact of newly approved therapies, and total costs of care for r/mCC are important. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a US commercial insurance claims database to identify adult patients with r/mCC between 2015 and Q1-2020; defining 1L treatment as the first administration of systemic treatment without concomitant chemoradiation or surgery. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, duration of therapy, and total costs of care were evaluated for each line of therapy. RESULTS: 1323 women initiated 1L treatment for r/mCC (mean age, 56.1 years; mean follow-up, 16.5 months). One-third (n = 438) had evidence of second-line (2L) treatment; of these, 129 (29%) had evidence of third-line (3L) treatment. No regimen represented a majority among 2L+ treatments. The 2018 approval of pembrolizumab led to increased 2L immunotherapy use (0% in 2015, 37% in 2019/Q1-2020). However, only a small proportion of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period. Mean per-patient-per-month total costs of care during treatment were $47,387 (1L), $77,661 (2L), and $53,609 (3L), driven primarily by outpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: No clear standard of care was observed in 2L+. Although immunotherapy is increasingly used in 2L+, only a small subset of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period, suggesting a need for more therapeutic options. Better understanding of disease biology and the introduction of new therapies may address these unmet needs.

The costs of care from a US claims database in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder.

BACKGROUND: Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that often leads to severe disability. Patients with highly active NMOSD have approximately a 10-times higher hospital inpatient admission rate compared with patients without NMOSD. Accurate assessments of the impact of NMOSD treatments on the burdens of illness require quantitative metrics of these burdens, including costs of care. METHODS: This study evaluated claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases between 2014 and 2018. Patients were included based on inpatient or outpatient claims meeting criteria defined for NMOSD. Non-NMOSD controls were matched 5:1 to patients with NMOSD. Total costs of healthcare services in consumer price index-adjusted 2019 US dollars during the 1-year postindex follow-up period were calculated for patients and controls. RESULTS: Patients with NMOSD required more healthcare services and incurred significantly greater costs for inpatient hospitalizations (annual mean [SD] cost: $29,054 [$144,872] vs controls $1521 [$10,759]), outpatient services ($24,881 [$35,463] vs $4761 [$26,447]), and emergency department (ED) visits ($2400 [$7771] vs $408 [$2579]). Almost 12% of patients with NMOSD were further burdened with plasma exchange or intravenous immunoglobulin G treatments, costing an annual median (interquartile range) of $1684 ($566-$3817) and $24,353 ($5425-$42,975), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with controls, patients with NMOSD had significantly higher costs associated with hospitalizations, ED visits, and prescriptions. These results highlight the considerable economic burden of NMOSD, which may be favorably impacted by disease-modifying therapies that are regulatory-approved to be safe and effective.

Burden and cost of comorbidities in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder.

BACKGROUND: Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is associated with various comorbidities, including non-autoimmune and autoimmune conditions. The burden and cost of illness for NMOSD are unclear, particularly in the context of comorbidities. METHODS: Claims data from IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases between 2014 and 2018 were analyzed. Patients with NMOSD were specified as having inpatient or outpatient claims for NMOSD diagnosis or specific NMOSD symptoms claims and no subsequent claims for multiple sclerosis (MS) or use of MS disease-modifying therapy (DMT). Continuous enrollment ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 1 year after the first claim (index date) was required for study inclusion. Total costs stratified by comorbidities within 12 months post-index date were calculated per patient and compared 1:5 with matched non-NMOSD controls. RESULTS: A total of 162 patients with NMOSD and 810 non-NMOSD controls were evaluated. A significantly higher proportion of NMOSD patients had comorbidities than non-NMOSD controls (66.7% vs 41.5%; P < 0.001). Concomitant autoimmune disease occurred in 19.1% vs 4.9% (P < 0.001) of patients with NMOSD vs non-NMOSD controls. NMOSD patients incurred significantly higher total median (interquartile range) healthcare costs per patient ($68,386.48 [$23,373.54-$160,862.70]) than matched non-NMOSD controls with autoimmune disease ($17,215.13 [$6715.48-$31,441.93]; P < 0.001) or patients with NMOSD without autoimmune comorbidity ($23,905.42 [$8632.82-$67,251.54]; P = 0.022). Similarly, patients with NMOSD and non-autoimmune comorbidities incurred higher median healthcare costs than matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NMOSD experience significant disease burden and cost that are amplified by comorbidities. Effective therapies are needed, particularly for patients with concomitant autoimmune disease.

"Real-world" outcomes and prognostic indicators among patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: There is no current standard of care for patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection or for those who cannot receive or decline cisplatin-based perioperative chemotherapy. Understanding current, real-world treatment patterns may help inform decisions from clinical, research, and population health management perspectives. We examined real-world treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and prognostic factors among Medicare beneficiaries with high-risk MIUC who did not receive adjuvant treatment after surgical resection. METHODS: We identified patients with high-risk MIUC in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database who underwent surgical resection (radical cystectomy and/or radical nephroureterectomy). Eligible patients had indicators of high-risk MIUC and surgical resection between 2001 and 2013. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including comorbidities, American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) stage, tumor stage/grade and nodal status, and distribution of neoadjuvant treatment by the year of surgical resection were evaluated. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed for the full cohort and by subgroups using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate patient demographics and clinical characteristics associated with OS and DFS. RESULTS: A total of 665 patients were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 75.5 years; most were men (61%) and had AJCC stage IIIA disease (69%). Neoadjuvant treatment increased over the entire study period, both overall (from 12% to 46%) and cisplatin based (from 5% to 38%). Median OS for the entire cohort was 23.1 months (95% confidence interval: 18, 27); median DFS was 13.5 months (95% confidence interval: 11.3, 16.8). AJCC stage IIIB/IVA was the most significant predictor of poor prognosis for both OS and DFS, followed by non-white race and comorbidity burden. CONCLUSION: The prognosis for high-risk patients with MIUC remains poor, with significant risk of mortality within 2 years of radical cystectomy despite increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment. Unmet treatment needs persist for this difficult-to-treat patient population despite the increasing use of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Survival outcomes in an older US population with advanced melanoma and central nervous system metastases: SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: Central nervous system (CNS) metastasis is common in advanced melanoma patients. New treatment options have improved overall prognosis, but information is lacking for patients with CNS metastases. We investigated treatment patterns and survival outcomes in older melanoma patients with and without CNS metastases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of SEER-Medicare, a population-based linked database, was undertaken in patients aged > 65 years with advanced melanoma diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 and followed until 2013. RESULTS: A total of 2522 patients were included. CNS metastases were present in 24.8% of patients at initial metastatic diagnosis; 16.5% developed CNS metastases during follow-up. Chemotherapy was the most common treatment regardless of CNS metastases. Overall survival (OS) was better for patients without CNS metastases (median, 9.5 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8-10.2) vs patients with CNS metastases (3.63 months; 95% CI, 3.4-3.9). Among patients with CNS metastases, median OS for targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy was 6 (95% CI, 2.5-9.6), 5.5 (95% CI, 3.8-7.5), and 4.5 (95% CI, 3.8-5.4) months, respectively, vs 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1-2.7) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) months for local radiotherapy and no treatment, respectively. Stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated higher OS vs whole-brain radiation therapy (median, 4.98 [95% CI, 3.5-7.5] vs 2.4 [95% CI, 2.1-2.7] months). CONCLUSION: Patients with CNS metastases from melanoma remain a population with high unmet medical need despite recent advances in treatment. Systemic treatments (eg, BRAF-targeted therapy and immunotherapy) and stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated meaningful but modest improvements in OS. Further explorations of combinations of radiotherapy, BRAF-targeted therapies, and immunotherapies are needed.

Patterns of treatment and costs associated with transfusion burden in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

Transfusion dependence (TD) among myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients negatively impacts survival and health-related quality of life. We evaluated cost patterns of MDS care during TD and transfusion independence (TI). MDS patients were identified from a US claims database (2008-2013). TD was defined as ≥2 consecutive 8-week periods with ≥1 claim during each, and no interim 56-day period without transfusion; TI as 8 subsequent transfusion-free weeks; and transfusion frequency as the mean interval between transfusions during the TD period. 13,741 patients were included; 19% were TD and 70% had a mean interval between transfusions of ≤28 days. During a 2-year period, TD patients incurred a mean total cost of $17,815/patient-month; 53% higher for those with ≤28 days ($19,498) vs. >28 days ($12,717) between transfusions. Among patients who achieved TI, mean total cost was $7874/patient-month. For TD-MDS patients, cost increases are proportional to transfusion frequency and achieving TI yields economic benefits.

Patterns of total cost and economic consequences of progression for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have addressed the cost patterns of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) before and after first relapse. This US claims analysis evaluated, from a US health plan perspective, patterns of total direct costs of care from treatment initiation to progression for patients with MM treated with novel agents, using time to next therapy (TTNT) as a proxy measure for progression. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using a large US claims database, evaluating patients with claims for MM between 2006 and 2013. Patients with claims for stem cell transplant (SCT) were excluded. The analysis focused on patients receiving lenalidomide (LEN) or bortezomib (BORT) based treatment, for whom complete claim history was available through initiation of subsequent treatment. Average patient monthly direct costs were determined, including medical and pharmacy costs, and total cost patterns over quarterly time periods were calculated. RESULTS: The study population comprised 2843 patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and 1361 with relapsed MM. Total monthly cost for patients with NDMM declined steadily, from $15,734 initially to $5082 at 18+ months after therapy. Upon initiation of second-line therapy, total monthly costs rose to $13,876 and declined to $6446 18 months later. Although NDMM cost levels for individual ordinal months were similar between the LEN and BORT groups, TTNT was longer for LEN-based treatments (37 months). The BORT-treated cohort had higher average monthly total costs for NDMM and for the common time period through 37 months after initiation of therapy ($7534 vs $10,763 for LEN and BORT, respectively). Key limitations of this study, in addition to the lack of mortality and staging information available from claims data, include the definition of TTNT based on change in treatment or a defined gap in therapy prior to retreatment, which may differ from actual time of progression in some patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with NDMM receiving either LEN- or BORT-based treatment without SCT, followed until TTNT, total direct monthly costs (drug + medical) declined steadily over time. Monthly costs returned to near initial levels when patients began second-line therapy and then followed a similar pattern of decline. Due to the longer TTNT for patients initiated on LEN and the associated longer period of below-average costs, patients initiated with LEN-based treatments had mean monthly total costs >$3200 lower than total costs for patients initiated on BORT during the first 3 years after starting treatment, cumulating to nearly $120,000 in lower costs for patients initiated on LEN.