Real-world effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin versus physicians' choice chemotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma following autologous stem cell transplantation in the United Kingdom and Germany.

This retrospective study compared effectiveness of (brentuximab vedotin) BV to other chemotherapies in patients with rrHL following an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Data originated from a medical chart review of patients treated in real-world clinical settings at 50 sites in the United Kingdom and Germany. Inverse probability of treatment weights based on propensity scores were used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups. Among 312 rrHL patients included, 196 received BV and 116 received physicians' choice chemotherapy. Median PFS was significantly longer (27.0 months vs. 13.4 months; p = .0144) and 12-month OS survival greater (78.1% vs. 65.9%; p = .0129) with BV compared to chemotherapy. Documented adverse events included leukopenia (12.8%) and peripheral neuropathy (8.7%) for BV and leukopenia (12.1%), anemia (5.2%) and diarrhea (5.2%) for chemotherapy. In this real-world study, rrHL patients treated for relapse after ASCT with BV had longer median PFS and 12-month OS than patients receiving chemotherapy.

Brentuximab vedotin in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma who are Ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant: A Germany and United Kingdom retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate licensed for the treatment of relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (rrHL) following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or at least two prior therapies when ASCT or multiagent chemotherapy is not an option. The objective of this study was to describe real-world outcomes with BV in patients with rrHL considered ASCT ineligible or who refuse ASCT. METHODS: This was a retrospective medical chart review study that enrolled patients ≥18 years old who were initially diagnosed with HL between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2014, considered ASCT ineligible, and treated in routine care with BV for progressive disease after multidrug chemotherapy regimens. Clinical outcomes included best response to treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included, with a median age of 70 years at initial HL diagnosis. The most common reasons for ASCT ineligibility were comorbidities (74%) and age (57%). Overall response rate was 74%, and PFS and OS were 15.1 and 17.8 months, respectively. Peripheral neuropathy was observed in 9.6% of patients. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide real-world evidence on the feasibility and effectiveness of BV in elderly or frail ASCT-ineligible patients with rrHL in a real-world setting.

Rate of Adverse Events and Healthcare Costs Associated with the Topical Treatment of Rosacea.

BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a condition more common in women than in men, and in people aged ≥30 years than in younger patients. Adverse events associated with the use of topical medications for rosacea may lead to a lack of treatment adherence. Previous studies have reported low treatment adherence rates among patients with rosacea. OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate of treatment discontinuation resulting from adverse events and the associated healthcare costs among patients with rosacea who are receiving a topical medication. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with rosacea based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 695.3 who were newly initiating topical treatment with metronidazole, azelaic acid, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, or benzoyl peroxide between January 1, 2009, and September 30, 2013. Patients were identified from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and the Medicare Supplemental database and had to be aged ≥30 years, have continuous coverage with medical and pharmacy benefits ≥12 months before treatment and ≥3 months after treatment inititation, and have no evidence of oral antibiotic use or ocular rosacea during the study period. The 3-month period immediately after the index date (ie, first topical rosacea treatment) was defined as the postindex period and was used to evaluate the outcome measures, which included the rate of adverse events, treatment patterns, and healthcare costs. RESULTS: The final cohort included 49,351 patients, with a mean age of 54 years, and 74.5% of the patients were female. Metronidazole was the most common (72.7%) treatment, followed by azelaic acid (21.7%), sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur (3.4%), and benzoyl peroxide (2.2%). A total of 6270 (12.7%) patients had a coded adverse event, of whom 199 (3.2%) continued treatment despite the adverse event, 466 (7.4%) switched to another treatment within 8.8 days, and 5605 (89.4%) discontinued therapy within 31.1 days. Patients with adverse events incurred, on average, a cost of $325 (medical, $143; pharmacy, $182) in rosacea-related costs; patients without adverse events incurred, on average, a cost of $172 (medical, $14; pharmacy, $157) in rosacea-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adverse events associated with current topical drugs for rosacea resulted in treatment switch or discontinuation. Drugs with a different mechanism of action or new formulations of existing drugs may provide additional treatment options for patients and may lead to improved adherence and better symptom control.

Comparing hospital-based resource utilization and costs for prostate cancer patients with and without bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, several new treatments for prostate cancer (PCa), which have entered the US market, are poised to have an impact on treatment approaches; however, there is a paucity of evidence with respect to treatment patterns and costs. As new treatment patterns emerge, it will be imperative to understand treatment patterns and costs of care prior to the advent of novel treatments. OBJECTIVE: As the PCa treatment landscape is evolving, this study sought to compare the hospital-based utilization and costs in two cohorts of patients with PCa: patients with bone metastases (w/BM) and patients without bone metastases (w/oBM). Comparisons were also made for patients with inpatient versus outpatient encounters. METHODS: Patients in the Premier Perspective Database, a US hospital database, between January 2006 and December 2010, treated in an inpatient or outpatient setting for PCa (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision [ICD-9] diagnosis codes 185, 233.4) were included. Patients were required to be ≥40 years of age with no additional cancers. Patients were put into cohorts on the basis of the presence of bone metastases (ICD-9 code 198.5 or use of zoledronic acid or pamidronate disodium). Utilization of PCa-related treatments was compared, controlling for age, race, hospital type, payer type, bed size, and admission source and type. Differences in treatments were assessed utilizing logistic regression, while differences in costs were analyzed using gamma-distributed generalized linear models with a log-link function. All costs are reported in US$ 2010. RESULTS: There were 23,747 hospitalizations for men w/BM (13,716 inpatient; 10,031 outpatient) and 187,708 hospitalizations (74,435 inpatient; 113,258 outpatient) for men w/oBM. The mean length of stay for men w/BM was 4 days compared with 2 days for men w/oBM (P < 0.0001). Overall, the mean cost per encounter was US$9,728 in men with w/BM and US$7,405 in men w/oBM (P = 0.0006). For inpatient stays, the mean cost per encounter was US$14,145 for men w/BM and US$11,944 for men w/oBM. For outpatient visits, the mean cost per encounter was US$3,688 for men w/BM and US$4,422 for men w/oBM. Men w/BM received hormone therapy (44.3%) and secondary hormone therapy (46.4%) most often, while men w/oBM received radiation (48.8%) and surgery (31.9%) most often. CONCLUSION: Costs and utilization of PCa-related treatments vary on the basis of the presence of metastases and treatment setting (inpatient vs. outpatient).