Total cost of care for castration-resistant prostate cancer in a commercially insured population and a medicare supplemental insured population.

Background: The total cost of healthcare for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is an important component for assessing value of treatment options. The need for real-world evidence has increased with the introduction of oral targeted therapies for metastatic and nonmetastatic disease. In this study, we examined patient healthcare costs during periods of nonmetastatic CRPC (nmCRPC) and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC).Methods: This retrospective cohort study captured data from claims in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental (Medigap) databases (1/1/2012-12/31/2016). Male patients (≥18 years) with ≥1 prostate cancer diagnosis, a subsequent metastatic diagnosis, and prescription claim for an mCRPC-indicated therapy (index date) were included. Patients were considered to have nmCRPC during the 12-month period prior to mCRPC if they had ≥1 claim for androgen deprivation therapy. Unadjusted all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and associated costs in 2016 USD per patient per year (PPPY) were determined for nmCRPC and mCRPC periods.Results: Patients included from the Commercial database (N = 449) had an average age of 59.4 ± 4.5 (standard deviation) years and a mean Quan Charlson Comorbidity Index (QCI) score of 2.8 ± 1.6. Among patients included from the Medigap database (N = 1,173), the mean age was 78.6 ± 7.2 years and mean QCI score was 3.3 ± 2.0. Across all healthcare resource types, HRU was approximately 1.5-2.5 times greater after a diagnosis of metastasis for both study populations. For commercially insured patients, total all-cause healthcare costs increased 6.2-fold from the nmCRPC to mCRPC periods ($29,192 to $182,156 PPPY). Likewise, among Medigap patients, total all-cause healthcare costs increased 5.1-fold from the nmCRPC to mCRPC periods ($27,549 to $139,847).Conclusions: In this study, the cost of care during 2012-2016 was substantially higher for mCRPC than nmCRPC, underscoring the value of interventions that may delay progression to metastases in high-risk individuals.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy of Apalutamide and Enzalutamide with ADT in the Treatment of Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Apalutamide and enzalutamide are next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors that demonstrated efficacy in placebo-controlled studies (SPARTAN for apalutamide; PROSPER for enzalutamide) when used in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In the absence of comparative studies between these agents, the present study sought to indirectly compare metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with nmCRPC who received these therapies. METHODS: Individual patient-level data from SPARTAN (apalutamide plus ADT) and published data from PROSPER (enzalutamide plus ADT) were utilized. An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted by weighting the patients from the SPARTAN study to match baseline characteristics reported for PROSPER. Hazard ratios (HRs) for MFS and OS were re-estimated for SPARTAN using weighted Cox proportional hazards models and indirectly compared with those of PROSPER using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: From the SPARTAN population (N = 1207), a total of 1171 patients were matched to the PROSPER population (N = 1401). The recalculated HRs (95% confidence interval) for apalutamide versus ADT based on the reweighted SPARTAN data to mimic the PROSPER patient population were 0.26 (0.21; 0.33) for MFS and 0.62 (0.41; 0.94) for OS. MAIC-based HRs (95% credible interval) for apalutamide versus enzalutamide were 0.91 (0.68; 1.22) for MFS and 0.77 (0.46; 1.30) for OS. The Bayesian probabilities of apalutamide being more effective than enzalutamide were 73.6% for MFS and 83.5% for OS. CONCLUSIONS: MAIC results suggest that nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide have a higher probability of a more favorable MFS and OS compared with those treated with enzalutamide.

Clinical outcomes associated with pathogenic genomic instability mutations in prostate cancer: a retrospective analysis of US pharmacy and medical claims data.

Background: Prostate cancer (PC) is a clinically heterogenous disease, and genetic mutations may be useful for patient risk stratification. This retrospective cohort study compared clinical outcomes, pharmacy use, and outpatient resource use in PC patients with and without pathogenic genomic instability mutations, including DNA repair deficiency (DRD) mutations and those in TP53, PTEN, and RB1. Methods: Patients ≥18 years newly-diagnosed with PC between June 2011-March 2016 were identified in medical and prescription claims databases linked to a genomic dataset. All-cause and PC-specific pharmacy use and outpatient resource use (office visits, laboratory tests, radiology examinations, and radiation therapies) over 1, 2, and 3 years and time to evidence of disease progression after PC diagnosis, based on secondary cancer diagnosis codes and treatments received, were evaluated in mutation carriers with ≥1 of 24 gene mutations and in a sub-set of DRD gene mutation carriers, with each compared to non-mutation carriers. Results: Mutation carriers (n = 274) and non-mutation carriers (n = 74) had similar demographic and clinical features. Non-mutation carriers had lower risks of developing metastasis and castration-resistant PC than mutation carriers (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5-0.9; HR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.9, respectively) and DRD mutation carriers (HR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.7; HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.7, respectively). Compared to non-mutation carriers, mutation carriers had more all-cause pharmacy claims over 2 years of follow-up (74.4 vs 59.1, p = 0.04) and more PC-specific pharmacy claims over 2 years (11.1 vs 6.5, p = 0.01) and 3 years (17.9 vs 9.8, p = 0.01) of follow-up. No differences were observed in outpatient resource use during the follow-up period by mutation status. Conclusion: PC patients carrying ≥1 pathogenic DNA instability mutation, and DRD mutation carriers specifically, had higher clinical burden than non-mutation carriers. Targeted therapies for these patients are needed to reduce clinical burden and associated healthcare resource utilization.

Medication Adherence, Treatment Patterns, and Dose Reduction in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Receiving Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of and overall survival associated with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) treatments rely on patients' consistent adherence to the recommended dosage regimens. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate treatment patterns and patient adherence to abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide therapy in real-world practice, and to examine the factors that may be associated with medication dose reduction in patients with metastatic CRPC. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan research databases among patients with metastatic CRPC who initiated treatment with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 2014 (index date). The patients were followed for up to 12 months, and their baseline characteristics were assessed during the 6 months before the index date. Medication adherence was measured at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postindex using medication possession ratios (MPRs), and dose reduction was measured using refill gaps and relative dose intensity over the entire observation period. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between the initial treatment and the risk for dose reduction. RESULTS: The study included 2591 and 807 patients who initiated treatment with abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide, respectively. At 6, 9, and 12 months postindex, the patients who initiated abiraterone acetate had higher MPRs than the patients who initiated enzalutamide. In addition, the patients who initiated abiraterone acetate had lower Kaplan-Meier rates of dose reduction across 4 measurements for dose reduction. All hazard ratios for treatment (abiraterone acetate vs enzalutamide) were significantly lower than 1 (range, 0.57-0.80), indicating a lower risk for dose reduction associated with abiraterone acetate. CONCLUSION: Patients who initiated abiraterone acetate therapy had higher medication adherence and lower risk for dose reduction than those who initiated enzalutamide therapy. Improved medication adherence may be associated with longer duration of treatment, which in turn may lead to better survival. Further research is needed to assess the potential effect of medication adherence on the overall survival of patients with metastatic CRPC.

Assessment of Real-World Central Nervous System Events in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer Using Abiraterone Acetate, Bicalutamide, Enzalutamide, or Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Central nervous system (CNS) events are frequently reported among patients with advanced prostate cancer as a consequence of the treatments used in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of CNS events in patients with advanced prostate cancer who initiated treatment with abiraterone acetate, bicalutamide, enzalutamide, or chemotherapy. METHODS: The Truven Health MarketScan Research databases were used to retrospectively identify patients with prostate cancer who initiated treatment with abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, bicalutamide, or chemotherapy after September 1, 2012 (ie, the index date). The chemotherapy agents included cabazitaxel, docetaxel, mitoxantrone hydrochloride, and estramustine, and were used as monotherapy or as combination therapy. Patients were followed until December 31, 2014, the end of exposure to treatment, or until loss to follow-up. Kaplan-Meier rates and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the incidence of CNS events between the abiraterone acetate cohort and the other cohorts. A sensitivity analysis of patients with a diagnosis of metastasis was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 1067 patients receiving abiraterone acetate, 5524 receiving bicalutamide, 592 receiving enzalutamide, and 256 receiving chemotherapy were identified. After 12 months, patients who received abiraterone acetate were less likely to have a CNS event than patients who received enzalutamide (39.5% vs 46.0%, respectively; P = .0036) or chemotherapy (39.5% vs 51.1%, respectively; P = .0277), and were more likely to have a CNS event than patients who received bicalutamide (39.5% vs 34.2%, respectively; P = .0397). After multivariate adjustment, at 12 months, patients who initiated abiraterone acetate treatment had 20% (P = .0388) reduction in the risk for a CNS event compared with patients who initiated enzalutamide; 8% (P = .3622) versus bicalutamide; and 27% (P = .0456) versus chemotherapy. The sensitivity analysis yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: The results of this large observational study suggest that among patients with metastatic prostate cancer, treatment with abiraterone acetate is associated with a significantly lower likelihood of having a CNS event compared with treatment with enzalutamide or chemotherapy, but not with bicalutamide, even when controlling for metastatic disease.

Duration of Treatment in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ) are oral therapies offering survival benefit to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Despite the availability of multiple treatment options for mCRPC, there is a lack of information on the effect that being initiated on AA or ENZ has on the combined prostate cancer treatment duration. OBJECTIVE: To compare the combined duration of prostate cancer treatments of patients initiated on AA with that of patients initiated on ENZ. METHODS: Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases from March 2012 to December 2014 were used to identify males with prostate cancer initiated on AA or ENZ (index therapy). Baseline characteristics were assessed during the 6 months pre-index. Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) were used to reduce baseline confounding. Treatment duration spanned from the index date to the earliest of treatment discontinuation (defined as a > 60-day gap in treatment), 24 months post-index, health plan disenrollment, or end of data. Weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the combined duration of mCRPC treatments (AA, ENZ, chemotherapy, sipuleucel-T, and radium 223) and any prostate cancer treatments (mCRPC, hormonal, and corticosteroid treatments) between patients initiated on either AA or ENZ. RESULTS: A total of 2,591 patients initiated on AA and 807 patients initiated on ENZ were selected for the study. Patients' characteristics were generally well balanced after IPTW. At 3 months, patients initiated on AA were associated with fewer discontinuations of mCRPC treatments (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, P = 0.004) or of any prostate cancer treatments (HR = 0.61, P = 0.002), compared with patients initiated on ENZ. This result was maintained at 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months for mCRPC treatments (HR = 0.75, P < 0.001) and for any prostate cancer treatments (HR = 0.69, P < 0.001). Median duration of mCRPC treatments was 4.1 months longer for patients initiated on AA compared with those initiated on ENZ (18.3 vs. 14.2 months, P < 0.001) and similarly, the median duration of any prostate cancer treatment was longer for patients initiated on AA compared with those initiated on ENZ (not reached vs. 22.2 months, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients initiated on AA, compared with those initiated on ENZ, had a longer combined duration of mCRPC or prostate cancer treatments. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Pilon, Emond, and Lefebvre are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting company that has received research grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs. Behl and Ellis are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs and stockholders in Johnson & Johnson. Dawson is on the speakers bureau for Janssen, Astellas, and Sanofi Aventis. Emond reports grants from Regeneron, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Aegerion, Bayer, Novartis, Allergan, Millenium, and Genentech. Pilon reports grants from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Bayer. Lefebvre reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Bayer, Medtronic, Noven, and Novo Nordisk. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Pilon and Lefebvre, along with the other authors. Pilon, Emond, and Lefebre collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Behl, Lefebvre, and Dawson, along with Pilon, Ellis, and Emond, The manuscript was written by Pilon, Emond, and Lefebvre and revised by Behl, Ellis, and Dawson.

Assessment of Evidence-Based Standards in the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer in a Community Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Although the monitoring of patients with advanced prostate cancer is essential to optimize treatment, little is known about adherence to guidelines. In this study we compared testing practices at an integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice with evidence-based guidelines and best practices. METHODS: Electronic medical records up to December 2014 from the integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice were queried to identify patients who received androgen deprivation therapy and in whom advanced disease was staged as androgen deprivation therapy sensitive, subcastration resistant (incompletely defined probable castration resistant prostate cancer) or castration resistant after April 2011 and for 6 months or more. Frequency of prostate specific antigen and testosterone level testing as well as imaging (magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography, positron emission tomography/computerized tomography, bone scan or x-ray) was evaluated, and compared to national guidelines and best practices. RESULTS: Overall 346 patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive prostate cancer, 90 with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and 102 with castration resistant prostate cancer met the study inclusion criteria. On average, prostate specific antigen was tested every 4.7, 3.7 and 3.3 months for patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive disease, subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively, compared with the 3 to 12 months and 3 months recommendations of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and RADAR (Prostate Cancer Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence) for patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive disease and nonmetastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively. Testosterone levels were assessed within 6 months of classification for 23% and 46% of patients with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively. Finally, 28% and 46% of patients with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively, underwent some type of imaging within 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study of patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy at a particular integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice demonstrated adherence to prostate specific antigen best practices. However, there was some room for improvement in terms of testosterone testing and imaging.

Estimating the Size and Cost of the STD Prevention Services Safety Net.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is expected to reduce the number of uninsured people in the United States during the next eight years, but more than 10% are expected to remain uninsured. Uninsured people are one of the main populations using publicly funded safety net sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention services. Estimating the proportion of the uninsured population expected to need STD services could help identify the potential demand for safety net STD services and improve program planning. In 2013, an estimated 8.27 million people met the criteria for being in need of STD services. In 2023, 4.70 million uninsured people are expected to meet the criteria for being in need of STD services. As an example, the cost in 2014 U.S. dollars of providing chlamydia screening to these people was an estimated $271.1 million in 2013 and is estimated to be $153.8 million in 2023. A substantial need will continue to exist for safety net STD prevention services in coming years.

Comparative efficacy and safety of daclatasvir/asunaprevir versus IFN-based regimens in genotype 1b hepatitis C virus infection.

AIM: Efficacy and safety comparison of daclatasvir/asunaprevir (DCV + ASV) versus peginterferon-α/ribavirin (A/R) alone or combined with telaprevir, boceprevir, simeprevir or sofosbuvir in chronic genotype 1b hepatitis C virus infection. METHODS: Network meta-analysis (NMA) and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). RESULTS: Among treatment-naive patients, DCV + ASV demonstrated higher sustained virologic response (SVR) rates than telaprevir + A/R, boceprevir + A/R and A/R in NMA and MAICs and simeprevir + A/R in NMA. DCV + ASV among treatment-experienced patients had higher SVR rates than telaprevir + A/R, boceprevir + A/R, simeprevir + A/R and A/R in MAICs. DCV + ASV had lower adverse events rates than comparators. CONCLUSION: DCV + ASV demonstrated superior efficacy and safety compared with A/R-based regimens.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended that patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are candidates for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy have their tumors tested for KRAS mutations because tumors with such mutations do not respond to anti-EGFR therapy. Limiting anti-EGFR therapy to those without KRAS mutations will reserve treatment for those likely to benefit while avoiding unnecessary costs and harm to those who would not. Similarly, tumors with BRAF genetic mutations may not respond to anti-EGFR therapy, though this is less clear. Economic analyses of mutation testing have not fully explored the roles of alternative therapies and resection of metastases. METHODS: This paper is based on a decision analytic framework that forms the basis of a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in mCRC in the context of treatment with cetuximab. A cohort of 50 000 patients with mCRC is simulated 10 000 times, with attributes randomly assigned on the basis of distributions from randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Screening for both KRAS and BRAF mutations compared with the base strategy (of no anti-EGFR therapy) increases expected overall survival by 0.034 years at a cost of $22 033, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $650 000 per additional year of life. Compared with anti-EGFR therapy without screening, adding KRAS testing saves approximately $7500 per patient; adding BRAF testing saves another $1023, with little reduction in expected survival. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for KRAS and BFAF mutation improves the cost-effectiveness of anti-EGFR therapy, but the incremental cost effectiveness ratio remains above the generally accepted threshold for acceptable cost effectiveness ratio of $100 000/quality adjusted life year.

Cypher versus Taxus: the stent war.

Cypher (sirolimus-eluting stent) and Taxus (paclitaxel-eluting stent) have been approved for use in percutaneous coronary intervention. Both of the stents have shown superiority over bare metal stents in reducing major adverse cardiac events, restenosis rates and target vessel revascularisation. Results of clinical trials with head-to-head comparison of Taxus and Cypher stents in patients with obstructive coronary artery diseases have recently been reported. This review compares the performance of Cypher and Taxus stents as noted in observational studies and clinical trials in various types of coronary artery lesions.