Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain: An Analysis of a Prospective, Multicenter Product Surveillance Registry.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) for the treatment of cancer-related pain have been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Despite positive evidence for this therapy, IDDS remains underutilized to treat cancer pain. Real-world registry data augment existing safety and effectiveness data and are presented here to broaden awareness of this therapeutic option, needed for adequate cancer-related pain treatment, and as a viable tool addressing concerns with systemic opioid use. METHODS: This prospective, long-term, multicenter (United States, Western Europe, and Latin America) registry started in 2003 to monitor the performance of SynchroMed Infusion Systems. Patient-reported outcomes were added in 2013. Before data acquisition, all sites obtained Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board approval and written patient consent. The study was registered (NCT01524276 at clinicaltrials.gov) before patients were enrolled. Patients who provided informed consent were enrolled in the registry at initial IDDS implant or replacement. RESULTS: Through July 2017, 1403 patients with cancer pain were enrolled and implanted. The average (minimum/maximum) age of patients was 59 years (13/93 years), with 56.6% female. The most frequent cancer types were lung, breast, colon/rectal, pancreatic, and prostate. The majority of patients whose registry follow-up ended (87%; 1141/1311) were followed through death, with 4.3% (n = 57) exiting due to device explant or therapy discontinuation; the remaining 113 (8.6%) discontinued for reasons such as transfer of care, lost to follow-up, and site closure. Pain scores within the cohort of patients providing baseline and follow-up data improved significantly at 6 (P = .0007; n = 103) and 12 (P = .0026; n = 55) months compared to baseline, with EuroQol with 5 dimensions (EuroQol-5D) scores showing significant improvement at 6 months (P = .0016; n = 41). Infection requiring surgical intervention (IDDS explant, replacement, pocket revision, irrigation and debridement, etc) was reported in 3.2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate and improved pain control in patients with cancer, even in advanced stages, with concurrent quality of life maintenance is attainable. Results from this large-scale, multicenter, single-group cohort supplement existing RCT data that support IDDS as a safe and effective therapeutic option with a positive benefit-risk ratio in the treatment of cancer pain.

Health Services Utilization and Payments in Patients With Cancer Pain: A Comparison of Intrathecal Drug Delivery vs. Conventional Medical Management.

INTRODUCTION: To compare health services utilization and payments for cancer patients who received an implantable intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) system, consisting of a pump and catheter, vs. conventional medical management (CMM) for the treatment of cancer-related pain. METHODS: This retrospective claims-data analysis compared health services utilization and payments in a population of patients receiving either IDD or CMM for treatment of cancer pain. Patients were propensity score-matched 1:1 based on characteristics including, but not limited to, age, gender, cancer type, comorbid conditions, and health care utilization and payments. RESULTS: From a sample of 142 IDD patients and 3188 CMM patients who met all inclusion/exclusion criteria, 73 matched pairs were obtained. In the year following implant, IDD patients had a consistent trend of lower medical utilization, and total payments that were $3195 lower compared to CMM. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high initial cost of IDD, this analysis suggests that patients with IDD incur lower medical utilization and payments over the first year post-implant. Further analysis comprised of a larger, longitudinal sample would contribute to health economics and outcomes research, and assist with future practice guideline development.

Assessment of Health Care Utilization and Cost of Targeted Drug Delivery and Conventional Medical Management vs Conventional Medical Management Alone for Patients With Cancer-Related Pain.

Importance: Targeted drug delivery (TDD) has potential for cost savings compared with conventional medical management (CMM). Despite positive clinical and economic evidence, TDD remains underused to treat cancer pain. Objective: To assess the cost of TDD and CMM in treating cancer-related pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic evaluation using propensity score-matched analysis was conducted using MarketScan commercial claims data on beneficiaries receiving TDD and CMM or CMM only for cancer pain from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2015. Participants were matched on age, sex, cancer type, comorbidity score, and pre-enrollment characteristics. Data analysis was performed from June 1 to September 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total 2-, 6-, and 12-month costs, number of health care encounters, length of hospital stay, additional components of cost, and health care utilization. Results: A total of 376 TDD and CMM patients (mean [SD] age, 51.88 [9.98] years; 216 [57.5%] female) and 4839 CMM only patients (mean [SD] age, 51.52 [11.16] years; 3005 [62.1%] female) were identified for study inclusion. After matching, 536 patients were included in the study: 268 patients in the TDD and CMM group and 268 in the CMM only group. Compared with CMM only, TDD and CMM was associated with mean total cost savings of $15 142 (95% CI, $3690 to $26 594; P = .01) at 2 months and $63 498 (95% CI, $4620 to $122 376; P = .03) at 12 months; cost savings at 6 months were not statistically different ($19 577; 95% CI, -$12 831 to $51 984; P = .24). The TDD and CMM group had fewer inpatient visits (2-month mean difference [MD], 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2; P < .001; 6-month MD, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-1.7; P < .001; 12-month MD, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (2-month MD, 6.8 days; 95% CI, 5.0-8.7 days; P < .001; 6-month MD, 6.8 days; 95% CI, 3.1-10.5 days; P < .001; 12-month MD, 10.6 days; 95% CI, 2.9-18.3 days; P = .007). Use of CMM only was associated with greater opioid use at 12 months (MD, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.4-6.0; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with CMM alone, TDD and CMM together were associated with significantly lower cost and health care utilization. The findings suggest that TDD is a cost-saving therapy that should be considered in patients with cancer for whom oral opioids are inadequate or produce intolerable adverse effects and should be expanded as health care systems transition to value-based models.