The Association of Retinal Disease with Vision Impairment and Functional Status in Medicare Patients.

Background: The association of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) with functional status in the general Medicare population are not well established. Objectives: This study examined patient-reported survey data linked with Medicare claims to describe the burden of these vision-threatening retinal diseases (VTRDs) among Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data linked with Medicare Fee-for-Service claims data from 2006 to 2018 were used in a nationally representative retrospective pooled cross-sectional population-based comparison study. Outcomes between community-dwelling beneficiaries with nAMD (n = 1228), DME (n = 101), or RVO (n = 251) were compared with community-dwelling beneficiaries without any VTRDs (n = 104 088), controlling for baseline demographic and clinical differences. Beneficiaries with a diagnosis of nAMD, DME, or RVO during the data year were included; those with other VTRDs were excluded. Outcomes included vision function and loss, overall functioning as assessed by difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (iADLs), anxiety/depression, falls, and fractures. Results: In patient cohorts with nAMD, DME, and RVO, approximately one-third (34.2%-38.3%) reported "a little trouble seeing" (vs 28.3% for controls), and 26%, 17%, and 9%, respectively, reported "a lot of trouble seeing/blindness" (vs 5% of controls). Difficulty walking and doing heavy housework were the most reported ADLs and iADLs, respectively. Compared with those without VTRDs, beneficiaries with nAMD had higher odds of diagnosed vision loss (odds ratio [OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 4.06-7.16; P < .001) and difficulties with iADLs (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.80; P = .005); no differences were observed for DME or RVO vs control. After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty status, comorbidities, and other relevant covariates, nAMD, DME, and RVO were not significantly associated with anxiety/depression, falls, or fractures. Discussion: Patients with nAMD or DME were more likely to report severe visual impairment than those without VTRDs, although only those with nAMD were more likely to be diagnosed with vision loss. Conclusions: Patients with nAMD continue to experience more vision impairment and worse functional status compared with a similar population of Medicare beneficiaries despite availability of therapies like antivascular endothelial growth factor to treat retinal disease.

Gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with the use of intravenous oliceridine compared with intravenous hydromorphone or fentanyl in acute pain management utilizing adjusted indirect treatment comparison methods.

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. Aim: To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine - 2; hydromorphone - 3; fentanyl - 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.

The impact of a statewide insulin copay cap policy for insured patients with diabetes in Utah.

BACKGROUND: Insulin affordability is a huge concern for patients with diabetes in the United States. On March 30, 2020, Utah signed House Bill 207 into law, aimed at capping copayments for insulin at $30 for a 30-day supply. The bill was enacted on January 1, 2021. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient basal insulin adherence, out-of-pocket costs, health plan costs, total costs on insulin, and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) in prepolicy vs postpolicy periods. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis using data from a regional health plan in Utah from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2021. Inclusion criteria were fully enrolled members of all ages, under commercial insurance, with at least 1 fill for any type of insulin in both the preperiod and the postperiod. Adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-tests and Wilcoxon sign rank tests were conducted to compare the health and economic outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 24,150 commercially insured individuals, a total of 244 patients were included. Across all 244 patients, there was a significant decline in monthly median out-of-pocket costs of insulin by 58.5% (P < 0.001), whereas the monthly median health plan costs of insulin increased by 22.0% (P < 0.001). The total monthly costs of insulin (the sum of out-of-pocket and health plan costs) were unchanged (P = 0.115). Only 74 patients with enough basal insulin fills in both periods were included in the analysis for PDC changes. PDC change was not statistically significant (P = 0.43). Among the 74 patients with PDC calculations, 29 patients had A1c recorded in both periods. The change in A1c was not statistically significant (P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: An insulin copayment max of $30 in Utah demonstrated lower patient out-of-pocket costs, subsidized by the health plan. PDC did not change, and HbA1c did not improve. An assessment of a longer period and on a larger population is needed.

Pregabalin Does Not Increase Risk of Heart Failure Exacerbation in Patients With Pre-existing Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Through actions of calcium channel trafficking inhibition and sodium/water retention, pregabalin may increase the risk of acute heart failure (AHF). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of heart failure (HF) acute exacerbations, measured by a composite of emergency department (ED) visits, per-patient per-year (PPPY) hospitalizations, time-to first ED admission, and time-to hospitalizations in pre-existing HF patients taking pregabalin compared with those who were pregabalin-naive. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of pregabalin users with HF were propensity score-matched to pregabalin-naïve patients with HF to evaluate the composite of ED admissions or PPPY hospitalizations, time-to first ED admission, and time-to hospitalizations during the 365 days post-index. Doubly robust generalized linear regression and Cox-proportional hazard regression modeling were undertaken for analysis of differences between groups. RESULTS: The matched cohort of 385 pregabalin users and 3460 pregabalin nonusers were principally middle-aged, equally gender distributed, and primary Caucasian. Most patients were on guideline-directed HF medical therapy. The estimated cumulative incidence of the primary outcome was a hazard ratio of 1.099 (95% CI: 0.789-1.530; P = 0.58). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This large, single-center, cohort study shows pregabalin is not associated with an increased risk of AHF events in patients with pre-existing HF.

Cost-effectiveness of the tubeless automated insulin delivery system vs standard of care in the management of type 1 diabetes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system (Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System) demonstrated improved glycated hemoglobin A1c levels and increased time in range (70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL) for both adults and children with type 1 diabetes in a 13-week multicenter, single-arm study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the tubeless AID system compared with standard of care (SoC) in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from a US payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (version 9.5), with a time horizon of 60 years and an annual discount of 3.0% on both costs and effects. Simulated patients received either tubeless AID or SoC, the latter being defined as either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (86% of patients) or multiple daily injections. Two cohorts (children: <18 years; adults: ≥18 years) of patients with T1D and 2 thresholds for nonsevere hypoglycemia (nonsevere hypoglycemia event [NSHE] <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL) were considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of different risk factors for tubeless AID were sourced from the clinical trial. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from US national database sources. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Treating children with T1D with tubeless AID, considering an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL, brings incremental life-years (1.375) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.521) at an incremental cost of $15,099 compared with SoC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,927 per QALY gained. Similar results were obtained for adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $10,310 per QALY gained). Furthermore, tubeless AID is a dominant treatment option for children and adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 70 mg/dL compared with SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses results showed that compared with SoC, in both children and adults with T1D, tubeless AID was cost-effective in more than 90% of simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. The key drivers of the model were the cost of ketoacidosis, duration of treatment effect, threshold of NSHE, and definition of severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The current analyses suggest that the tubeless AID system can be considered a cost-effective treatment compared with SoC in people with T1D from a US payer's perspective. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Insulet. Mr Hopley, Ms Boyd, and Mr Swift are full-time Insulet employees and own stock in Insulet Corporation. IQVIA, the employer of Ms Ramos and Dr Lamotte, received consulting fees for this work. Dr Biskupiak is receiving research support and consulting fees from Insulet. Dr Brixner has received consulting fees from Insulet. The University of Utah has received research funding from Insulet. Dr Levy is a consultant with Dexcom and Eli Lilly and has received grant/research support from Insulet, Tandem, Dexcom, and Abbott Diabetes. Dr Forlenza conducted research sponsored by Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly. He has been speaker/consultant/advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly.

Patient Perspectives on the Use of Digital Technology to Help Manage Cystic Fibrosis.

Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs) have shown potential to improve health outcomes through improved medication adherence in different disease states. Cystic fibrosis (CF) requires care coordination across pharmacies, patients, and providers. DHTs can potentially support patients, providers, and pharmacists in diseases like CF, where high medication burden can negatively impact patient quality of life and outcomes. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, a CF-specific mobile application (Phlo) was distributed to adults with CF who received care at the University of Utah Cystic Fibrosis Center, used an iPhone, and filled prescriptions through the University of Utah Specialty Pharmacy services. Participants were asked to use Phlo for 90 days with an optional 90-day extension period. Participants completed four surveys at baseline and after 90 days. Changes in patient-reported outcomes, adherence, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization from baseline to 90 days were tracked. Results: Phlo allowed users to track daily regimen activities, contact their care team, receive medication delivery reminders, and share progress with their healthcare team. A web-based dashboard allowed the care team to review reported performance scores from the app. Most patients (67%) said the app improved confidence in and motivation for continuing their regimen. The most important reported benefit of Phlo was having a single location to manage their whole routine. Conclusions: Phlo is a mobile health technology designed to help patients with CF manage their treatment regimen and improve patient-provider communication.

Understanding patient cost-sharing thresholds for diabetes treatment attributes via a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: The process used to prefer certain products across drug classes for diabetes is generally focused on comparative effectiveness and cost. However, payers rarely tie patient preference for treatment attributes to formulary management resulting in a misalignment of value defined by providers, payers, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' willingness to pay (WTP) for the predetermined high-value and low-value type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatments within a health plan. METHODS: A cross-sectional discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was used to determine patient preference for the benefit, risk, and cost attributes of T2DM treatments. A comprehensive literature review of patient preference studies in diabetes and a review of guidelines and medical literature identified study attributes. Patients and diabetes experts were interviewed and instructed to identify, prioritize, and comment on which attributes of diabetes treatments were most important to T2DM patients. The patients enrolled in a health plan were asked to respond to the survey. A multinomial logit model was developed to determine the relative importance and the patient's WTP of each attribute. The patients' relative values based on WTPs for T2DM treatments were calculated and compared with the treatments by a health plan. RESULTS: A total of 7 attributes were selected to develop a web-based DCE questionnaire survey. The responses from a total of 58 patients were analyzed. Almost half (48.3%) of the respondents took oral medications and injections for T2DM. The most prevalent side effects due to diabetes medications were gastrointestinal (43.1%), followed by weight gain (39.7%) and nausea (32.8%). Patients were willing to pay more for treatments with proven cardiovascular benefit and for the risk reduction of hospitalization from heart failure. On the other hand, they would pay less for treatments with higher gastrointestinal side effects. Patients were willing to pay the most for sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist agents and the least for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information to better align patient, provider, and payer preferences in both benefit design and value-based formulary strategy for diabetes treatments. A preferred placement of treatments with cardiovascular benefits and lower adverse gastrointestinal side effects may lead to increased adherence to medications and improved clinical outcomes at a lower overall cost to both patients and their health plan. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by a grant from the PhRMA Foundation.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduce community-acquired pneumonia hospitalization and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is a global disorder and a common reason for prolonged hospitalization. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) have pleiotropic effects that support a role in modulating pneumonia, but results have been controversial. OBJECTIVES: The present study was conducted to elucidate an ACEi-induced pneumonia benefit in at-risk neurologically impaired population and to determine whether a mortality benefit exists. METHODS: A cohort study using a large health-system of 29,011 unique ACEi users and 1635 case patients 65 years of age or older without neurological disorders affecting swallowing who were admitted with community-acquired pneumonia hospitalization and followed up from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019 (5 years). The association between ACEi use and pneumonia hospitalization and mortality were determined after propensity score matching using Cox and logistic regression. RESULTS: The experimental cohort was 74.9 ± 7.3 years and 51% were male. ACEi users had lower odds of acquiring pneumonia versus ACEi non-users (odds ratio) 0.72 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.99]; p = 0.048. The risk of short-term mortality (<30 days) (HR) 0.42, p < 0.001 and long-term mortality (≥30 day) (HR) 0.83, p < 0.002 was significantly lower for ACEi users compared with the ACEi non-users. CONCLUSIONS: ACEi use in patients at risk of pneumonia without neurological swallowing disorders is associated with reduction in hospitalization and lowering of short- and long-term mortality. Given the high incidence of morbidity and mortality associated with pneumonia, and the susceptibility in older populations with underlying cardiovascular or renal disease or social dependencies, our data support the prescribing of ACEi in these populations to reduce pneumonia hospitalization risk as well as short- and long-term mortality.

Metolazone Versus Intravenous Chlorothiazide for Decompensated Heart Failure Sequential Nephron Blockade: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Metolazone and intravenous (IV) chlorothiazide are commonly used diuretics for sequential nephron blockade (SNB) in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Previous studies suggest metolazone may be comparable with chlorothiazide in terms of efficacy and safety. The objective of this study was to determine whether IV chlorothiazide is superior to metolazone in increasing net urine output (UOP) of hospitalized patients with ADHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study included hospitalized patients with ADHF and evidence of loop diuretic resistance in a tertiary academic medical center. The primary end point was the change in net 24-hour UOP in patients treated with IV chlorothiazide compared with metolazone. The relative cost of chlorothiazide doses and metolazone doses administered during SNB was a notable secondary end point. The median change in net 24-hour UOP in the IV chlorothiazide group was -1481.9 mL (interquartile range -2696.0 to -641.0 mL) and -1780.0 mL (interquartile range -3084.5 to -853.5 mL) in the metolazone group (P = .05) across 220 hospital encounters. The median cost of chlorothiazide and metolazone doses used during SNB was $360 and $4, respectively (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Chlorothiazide was not superior to metolazone in changing the net 24-hour UOP of patients with ADHF and loop resistance. Preferential metolazone use in SNB is a potential cost-saving measure.

Applying diagnosis support systems in electronic health records to identify wild-type transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy risk.

Aim: Wild-type transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTRwt-CM) is frequently misdiagnosed, and delayed diagnosis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. At three large academic medical centers, combinations of phenotypic features were implemented in electronic health record (EHR) systems to identify patients with heart failure at risk for ATTRwt-CM. Methods: Phenotypes/phenotype combinations were selected based on strength of correlation with ATTRwt-CM versus non-amyloid heart failure; different clinical decision support and reporting approaches and data sources were evaluated on Cerner and Epic EHR platforms. Results: Multiple approaches/sources showed potential usefulness for incorporating predictive analytics into the EHR to identify at-risk patients. Conclusion: These preliminary findings may guide other medical centers in building and implementing similar systems to improve recognition of ATTRwt-CM in patients with heart failure.

Payer perceptions on the use of patient-reported outcomes in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, US payers appreciate all evidence that can help support formulary decision making, including evidence beyond traditional safety and efficacy data from clinical trials. Research suggests payers incorporate patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence in their decision making and expect the importance of PRO evidence to grow. Greater understanding on payers' use of PRO information in oncology is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use of PRO evidence in informing oncology formulary decision making. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving a measurement specialist, health economics and outcomes research experts, and payers developed a survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists who were invited to discuss and contextualize the survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Two-tailed values are reported and a P value less than or equal to 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers (45.9%) completed the survey; 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% of all respondents indicating their job was pharmacy administrator. The majority of payers (60.0% of small health plans and 57.8% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from clinical trials is useful. Similarly, the majority of payers (57.8% of small plans and 51.9% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from real-world studies is useful. Almost half (47.1%) suggested formulary review would be influenced by a lack of PRO evidence from oncology clinical trials either somewhat, much, or a great deal. Most payers (78.2%) thought PRO evidence is useful for providing additional context for safety of oncology therapies. More than one-third of payers (34.3%) valued PRO evidence when comparing 2 similar therapies, and 51.5% felt PRO evidence may help in measuring value for value-based agreements. Panelists indicated PRO evidence can be useful for developing treatment pathways for addressing health-related quality of life, informing provider-patient dialogues, and defining progression-free survival length and quality. CONCLUSIONS: US payers view PRO evidence from both clinical trials and real-world studies as useful for supplementing traditional clinical trial data when making oncology formulary decisions and for refining treatment pathways and care delivery models. Manufacturers of oncology therapies should collect and consider leveraging PRO evidence from both settings when engaging with US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer contributed to the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the interpretation of the data, and contributed to the discussion and output as authors. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Arondekar, Deal, and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer and own Pfizer stock. Qwek was an employee of Pfizer at the time of this project and owns Pfizer stock.

Clinical burden of relapses in aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: A single center cohort analysis.

A retrospective, observational analysis of 47 patients with aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (AQP4-IgG+ NMOSD) enrolled at the University of Utah healthcare system was conducted. Visual acuity, neurological disability, and pain medication use were compared in relapsing versus non-relapsing patients. The median observation period was 3.6 years (range: 0.0-11.4 years); the annual relapse rate was 0.1376 (95% confidence interval: 0.0874, 0.191). Relapsing patients (n = 14) exhibited diminished visual acuity, clinically meaningful worsening of neurological disability, and greater pain medication use than non-relapsing patients (n = 33). Therapies that reduce the risk of relapses should be considered when making treatment decisions.

Positive Association between Peri-Surgical Opioid Exposure and Post-Discharge Opioid-Related Outcomes.

Background: Multiple studies have investigated the epidemic of persistent opioid use as a common postsurgical complication. However, there exists a knowledge gap in the association between the level of opioid exposure in the peri-surgical setting and post-discharge adverse outcomes to patients and healthcare settings. We analyzed the association between peri-surgical opioid exposure use and post-discharge outcomes, including persistent postsurgical opioid prescription, opioid-related symptoms (ORS), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). Methods: A retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing cesarean delivery, hysterectomy, spine surgery, total hip arthroplasty, or total knee arthroplasty in an academic healthcare system between January 2015 and June 2018. Peri-surgical opioid exposure was converted into morphine milligram equivalents (MME), then grouped into two categories: high (>median MME of each surgery cohort) or low (≤median MME of each surgery cohort) MME groups. The rates of persistent opioid use 30 and 90 days after discharge were compared using logistic regression. Secondary outcomes, including ORS and HCRU during the 180-day follow-up, were descriptively compared between the high and low MME groups. Results: The odds ratios (95% CI) of high vs. low MME for persistent opioid use after 30 and 90 days of discharge were 1.38 (1.24−1.54) and 1.41 (1.24−1.61), respectively. The proportion of patients with one or more ORS diagnoses was greater among the high-MME group than the low-MME group (27.2% vs. 21.2%, p < 0.01). High vs. low MME was positively associated with the rate of inpatient admission, emergency department admissions, and outpatient visits. Conclusions: Greater peri-surgical opioid exposure correlates with a statistically and clinically significant increase in post-discharge adverse opioid-related outcomes. The study findings warrant intensive monitoring for patients receiving greater peri-surgical opioid exposure.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Payer perceptions on the use of economic models in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: To support oncology formulary decisions, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, payers desire data beyond what regulators review. Economic models showing financial impact of treatments may help, but data on payers' use of economic models in oncology are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess payer perceptions regarding use of economic models in informing oncology formulary decisions. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving health economists and payers developed a survey containing singleanswer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists, who were invited to discuss survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Two-tailed values were reported and an alpha level of 0.05 or less was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers completed the survey (45.9%); 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), and 55.6% indicated that their job was pharmacy administrator. Payers indicated moderate/most interest in cost-effectiveness models (CEMs; 85.3%) and budget impact models (BIMs; 80.4%). Overall, 51.6% of respondents claimed oncology expertise on their pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Large plans were more likely to have expertise in reviewing oncology economic models than small plans (55.6% vs 31.1%, P = 0.015). The most common reasons for not reviewing economic models included "not available at time of review" (44.1%) and "potential bias" (38.2%). Overall, 43.1% of payers conduct analyses using their own data after reviewing a manufacturer-sponsored economic model. To inform formulary decisions, 62.7% of payers use BIMs and 66.7% use CEMs sometimes, often, or always. When comparing therapies with similar safety/efficacy profiles, 68.6% of payers reported economic models as helpful a moderate amount, a lot, or a great deal. Over one-third of payers (37.3%) were willing to partner with manufacturers on economic models using their plans' data. Payers valued preapproval information, data on total cost of care, and early access to models. Concerns remained regarding model transparency and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Most US payers reported interest in using economic models to inform oncology formulary decision making. Opportunities exist to educate payers in assessing economic models, especially among small health plans. Ensuring model availability at launch, transparency in model assumptions, and payer-manufacturer partnership in model development may increase the utility of oncology economic models among US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and Pfizer employees led the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employed by Pfizer. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project.

Payer perceptions of the use of real-world evidence in oncology-based decision making.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the gold standard of safety and efficacy evidence, are conducted in select patients that may not mirror real-world populations. As a result, healthcare decision makers may have limited information when making formulary decisions, especially in oncology, given accelerated regulatory approvals and niche patient populations. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies may help address these knowledge gaps and help inform oncology formulary decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use and relevance of RWE in informing oncology formulary decisionmaking. METHODS: A national survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions evaluated 4 key areas: (1) the value of RWE, (2) barriers to RWE, (3) sources of RWE, and (4) use of RWE in outcomes-based contracting. The survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights program in February 2020. Ten additional respondents were invited to discuss the survey results. The survey results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and were evaluated by the respondent's plan size, type, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in responses for categorical data were compared using a Pearson Chi-Square or a Fisher's Exact test. Two-tailed values are reported and a level of ≤ 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: The national survey had a 45.9% response rate, with 106 payers responding. Most were from managed care organizations (MCOs; 47.5%) and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs; 37.4%), with 54.5% from large plans (≥ 1 million lives) and 45.5% from small plans (< 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% overall indicating their job was a pharmacy administrator. Most (84.9%) used RWE to inform formulary decisions in oncology to support comparative effectiveness in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials (4.1 on a scale of 1 = Not At All Useful to 5 = Extremely Useful) and validation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations (4.0). Almost half (41.5%) used RWE results to inform off-label usage decisions. Payers valued RWE pre-launch to inform formulary and contracting decisions and desired real-world comparative effectiveness data post-launch to validate coverage decisions. However, the majority of payers (54.7%) did not conduct their own real-world studies. Commonly considered RWE sources included claims data (79.2%), medical records (68.9%), prospective cohort studies (60.4%), patient registries (36.8%), and patient outcome surveys (33.0%). Barriers to conducting internal RWE studies included the lack of resources and personnel, analytic capabilities, appropriate in-house data, and perceived value in conducting analyses. Payers expressed interest in using outcomes-based contracting in oncology; few have direct experience, and operationalizing through value measurement is challenging. CONCLUSIONS: RWE providing comparative treatment data, validation of NCCN treatment recommendations, and information on off-label usage are appreciated pre launch with post launch validation. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer led the development of the survey and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer; Oderda, Biskupiak, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Malone was paid by Millcreek Outcomes as a consultant on this project.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Therapeutic Options in Resectable and Advanced/Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Indirect Comparison.

OBJECTIVES: FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem-nab/P), and gemcitabine-capecitabine (gem-cap) demonstrated superiority over gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic cancer (PC). It is still unclear which chemotherapy regimen is the most optimal. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review (SR) and indirect comparison to compare safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX versus gem-nab/P and gem-cap in PC. METHODS: An SR was conducted in several databases from inception to November 2020. RCTs investigating resectable or advanced PC were included. Primary outcomes including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS)/progression-free survival (PFS)/relapse-free survival (RFS), and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were pooled using a random effects model. Indirect comparisons were done to compare FOLFIRINOX versus gem-cap and gem-nab/P. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified involving 6,564 patients. Indirect comparisons showed FOLFIRINOX had significantly better OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-0.99]; advanced: HR 0.71 [0.60-0.85]) and RFS/DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.67 [0.55-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.65 [0.57-0.74]) compared to gem-cap as well as OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-1.00]; advanced: HR 0.73 [0.54-0.98]) and DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.66 [0.53-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.64 [0.49-0.83]) compared to gem-nab/P. FOLFIRINOX increased grade 3/4 AE risk compared to gem-cap and gem-nab/P. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFIRINOX is associated with significant survival benefits compared to gem-nab/P and gem-cap. However, it is important to consider the increased grade 3/4 AE risk associated with FOLFIRINOX.

Statin use and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis: an incident user cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have higher rates of mortality attributed to the inflammatory nature and the associated burden of cardiovascular complications. Previous research indicates that treatment with statin therapy may play a role in reducing the mortality rate of RA patients, but similar evidence in U.S. patients is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between statin use and overall mortality among RA patients in the United States. METHODS: A population-based study of RA patients with incident statin use was conducted. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of RA between January 2007 and December 2015 were included and reviewed for the use of statin medication. Time stratified propensity score matching was used to adequately balance the comparison groups. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association. RESULTS: 19,614 people fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the study out of which 2,089 were statin users. There were 1,883 statin users that were matched to 1,883 statin nonusers. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across the 2 groups after matching. The hazards ratio for all-cause mortality in patients with RA for statin users was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.56-0.91; P = 0.008) compared with statin nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no use of statins, current statin use is associated with 28% lower risk of mortality in RA patients. Decision makers and providers should consider and support integration of these results into the current clinical guidelines for delivering quality health care to RA patients. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or nonfinancial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Estimation of healthcare-related charges in women with BRCA mutations and breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer costs were estimated at $16.5 billion in 2010 and were higher than other cancer costs. There are limited studies on breast cancer charges and costs by BRCA mutations and receptor status. We examined overall health care and breast cancer-related charges by BRCA status (BRCAm vs. BRCAwt), receptor status (HER2+ vs. HER2-), and treatment setting (neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of charge data from 1995-2014 in an academic medical center. Facilities, physician, pharmacy, and diagnosis-related charges were presented as mean and median charges with standard deviation (SD) and interquartile ranges (25%-75%). Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess statistically significant differences in charges between comparators. RESULTS: Total median breast-cancer related charges were $65,414 for BRCAm and $54,635 for BRCAwt (p=0.19); however all-cause charges were higher for BRCAm patients ($145,066 vs. $119,119, p<0.001). HER2+ status was associated with higher median breast cancer charges ($152,159 vs. $44,087, p<0.0001) that was driven by the charges for biological agents. Patients initially seen in the neoadjuvant setting had higher mean breast cancer charges than in the adjuvant setting ($117,922 vs. $80,061, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: BRCA mutation status was not associated with higher breast cancer charges but HER2+ status had significantly higher charges, due to charges for biological agents. Patients who initially received neoadjuvant treatment had significantly higher overall treatment charges than adjuvant therapy patients. With the advent of novel therapies for BRCAm, the economic impact of these treatments will be important to consider relative to their survival benefits.