Treatment Patterns, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Cost in Patients with Myelofibrosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This study analyses treatment patterns, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) and a subgroup treated with ruxolitinib (RUX). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment patterns, all-cause and MF-related HCRU, and costs were analyzed in adults with MF with continuous enrollment in a commercial or the Medicare Advantage health plan in the pre-index period, defined as the 12 months immediately prior to the index date (date of primary or secondary MF diagnosis), and the post-index period, defined as ≥6 months following the index date. In a subgroup analysis, outcomes were analyzed in patients treated with optimal RUX (OPT RUX, ≥30 mg) and suboptimal RUX (SUB RUX, <30 mg) in the pre-index RUX period, defined as the 3 months immediately prior to the index RUX date (first date for an RUX claim), and the post-index RUX period, defined as ≥6 months following the index RUX date. RESULTS: Of 2830 patients with an MF diagnosis, 1191 met eligibility requirements. The median age of patients was 72 years, 54% were male, and comorbidities were frequent. Sixty percent of patients received ≥1 line of therapy (LOT), of which 46% (n = 331) had ≥2 LOTs during the post-index MF period. Costs increased considerably 6-month pre-index to 6-month post-index (all-cause: cause ($24,216 to $48,966) and MF-related ($16,502 to $39,383), driven by inpatient stays and pharmacy costs. In the subgroup analysis, patients treated with RUX (n = 495) experienced significant disease burden and high costs, regardless of dose. A shorter duration of therapy and a higher rate of discontinuation were observed in patients treated with SUB RUX (n = 191) versus OPT RUX (n = 304). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest a significant disease and economic impacts associated with MF patients that persists with RUX therapy, highlighting the need for additional therapeutic options for MF.

Retrospective Claims Analysis of Treatment Patterns, Relapse, Utilization, and Cost Among Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Initiating Second-Line Disease-Modifying Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Real-world studies of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) have reported suboptimal adherence. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe treatment patterns, relapses, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in MS patients experiencing their first observed DMT switch. METHODS: In this retrospective, claims database study, adult patients were selected if they had an MS diagnosis and DMT claim during the study period (1 January 2009-31 March 2019). Patients who switched to a new DMT between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2018 were included. Adherence, persistence, relapses, and all-cause and MS-related healthcare utilization and costs were reported pre- and post-index. RESULTS: In total, 1554 MS patients were identified; the mean age was 46 years and most (74%) were female. The majority of patients switched from an injectable DMT (n = 1116; 71.8%), and patients generally switched to an oral DMT (n = 878; 57%). Among patients who switched DMTs, 46.0% (n = 715) were nonadherent, 42% (n = 645) were nonpersistent, and 21.5% (n = 334) relapsed in the 12 months post-switch. An increase in all-cause and MS-related healthcare costs was observed pre- to post-index for all patients. Cost drivers included outpatient visit costs and pharmacy prescriptions. Compared with patients who switched to an injectable DMT, those who switched to an oral DMT had significantly higher persistence and adherence. No significant difference was observed in post-index relapse or all-cause and MS-related total cost of care. CONCLUSION: Low adherence and poor persistence remain following an initial DMT switch; however, patients who switched to oral DMTs had higher persistence and adherence.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disabling disease that is treated with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Little is known about how patients with MS take their medication, how disease progression may change with treatment, or what the impact of switching to a new DMT is on the cost of care. In an analysis of commercially insured individuals, patients with MS were examined before and after switching to a new DMT. Results showed that the patients most often switched from an injectable medication to an oral DMT; however, a large proportion of patients did not take the prescription as directed by their physician. Additionally, a large proportion of patients did not stay on their new therapy. Nearly one-third of patients experienced an MS relapse after they switched to a new treatment, and healthcare costs increased following the treatment switch. A higher proportion of patients switching to an oral DMT took their medication as prescribed by their physicians, stayed on therapy, and incurred smaller increases in cost compared with patients switching to injectable medications. Despite such improvements, additional treatments are needed for patients with MS.

Evaluating Treatment Patterns, Relapses, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Costs Associated with Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis in DMT-Naïve Patients.

PURPOSE: Early diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) can reduce relapse number and severity, which has cost implications. We describe treatment patterns, healthcare utilization, and cost among MS patients newly initiating DMTs (index). PATIENTS AND METHODS: DMT-naïve adults with 12 months' continuous enrollment pre- and post-index and ≥2 MS claims (2009‒2018) were identified from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database. Treatment adherence and persistence were measured as time on index DMT. Relapses were identified using a validated claims-based algorithm. All-cause and MS-related healthcare expenditures and utilization were captured pre- and post-index. Outcomes were stratified by route of administration. Multivariate analyses assessed differences in outcomes and costs. RESULTS: The analysis included 5906 MS patients (mean age, 46.6 years). The majority initiated injectable (63.5%) followed by oral (28.8%) and infusion (7.7%) DMTs. Post-index, 45.3% of patients were nonadherent and 39.4% were nonpersistent. Relapse rates decreased from pre- to post-index (oral: 24.3%‒16.1%; injectable: 25.0%‒17.1%; infusion: 29.3%‒15.5%). Post-index mean (SD) all-cause total costs were lowest with oral ($70,970 [$36,681]) vs injectable ($82,521 [$58,569]) and infusion ($80,871 [$49,627]) DMTs. MS-related total costs were lowest with oral ($65,149 [$65,133]) vs injectable ($76,197 [$60,204]) and infusion ($72,703 [$47,287]) DMTs. Multivariate analysis showed no differences between oral and injectable DMTs in adherence, persistence, or relapse rate; however, oral DMTs had significantly lower all-cause and MS-related costs. CONCLUSION: With similar outcomes across DMT administration routes, initiating the least costly DMT may be warranted for many patients. In newly treated MS patients, the need exists to improve adherence and persistence.

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.