Economic and clinical burden of managing transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia in the United States.

AIMS: To describe clinical complications, treatment use, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among patients with transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia (TDT) in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Merative MarketScan Databases were used to identify patients with ß-thalassemia between 1 March 2010, and 1 March 2019. Patients were eligible for inclusion with ≥1 inpatient claim or ≥2 outpatient claims for ß-thalassemia and ≥8 red blood cell transfusions (RBCTs) during any 12-month period after and including the date of the first qualifying ß-thalassemia diagnosis code. Matched controls consisted of individuals without ß-thalassemia. Clinical and economic outcomes of patients were assessed during ≥12 months of follow-up, defined as the period from the index date (i.e. the first RBCT) to either the end of continuous enrollment in benefits, inpatient death, or 1 March 2020. RESULTS: Overall, 207 patients with TDT and 1035 matched controls were identified. Most patients received iron chelation therapy (ICT) (91.3%), with a mean of 12.1 (standard deviation [SD] = 10.3) ICT claims per-patient-per-year (PPPY). Many also received RBCTs, with a mean of 14.2 (SD = 4.7) RBCTs PPPY. TDT was associated with higher annual ($137,125) and lifetime ($7.1 million) healthcare costs vs. matched controls ($4183 and $235,000, respectively). Annual costs were driven by ICT (52.1%) and RBCT use (23.6%). Patients with TDT had 7-times more total outpatient visits/encounters, 3-times more prescriptions, and 33-times higher total annual costs than matched controls. LIMITATIONS: This analysis may underestimate the burden of TDT, as indirect healthcare costs (e.g. absenteeism, presenteeism, etc.) were not included. Results may not be generalizable to patients excluded from this analysis, including those with other types of insurance or without insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with TDT have high HCRU and direct healthcare costs. Treatments that eliminate the need for RBCTs could reduce the clinical and economic burden of managing TDT.

Economic and Clinical Burden of Managing Sickle Cell Disease with Recurrent Vaso-Occlusive Crises in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical complications, treatment use, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) with recurrent vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) in the US. METHODS: Merative MarketScan Databases were used to identify patients with SCD with recurrent VOCs from March 1, 2010, to March 1, 2019. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 1 inpatient or ≥ 2 outpatient claims for SCD and ≥ 2 VOCs per year in any 2 consecutive years after the first qualifying SCD diagnosis. Individuals without SCD in these databases were used as matched controls. Patients were followed for ≥ 12 months, from their second VOC in the 2nd year (index date) to the earliest of inpatient death, end of continuous enrollment in medical/pharmacy benefits, or March 1, 2020. Outcomes were assessed during follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 3420 patients with SCD with recurrent VOCs and 16,722 matched controls were identified. Patients with SCD with recurrent VOCs had a mean of 5.0 VOCs (standard deviation [SD] = 6.0), 2.7 inpatient admissions (SD 2.9), and 5.0 emergency department visits (SD 8.0) per patient per year during follow-up. Compared to matched controls, patients with SCD with recurrent VOCs incurred higher annual ($67,282 vs. $4134) and lifetime ($3.8 million vs. $229,000 over 50 years) healthcare costs. CONCLUSION: Patients with SCD with recurrent VOCs experience substantial clinical and economic burden driven by inpatient costs and frequent VOCs. There is a major unmet need for treatments that alleviate or eliminate clinical complications, including VOCs, and reduce healthcare costs in this patient population.

Rate of Lung Function Decline in People with Cystic Fibrosis Having a Residual Function Gene Mutation.

INTRODUCTION: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disease caused by mutations in the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. Approximately 5% of people with CF have residual function (RF) CFTR mutations that result in partially retained CFTR activity. Published literature on disease trajectory among those with RF mutations is limited. In this retrospective study, we characterized lung function decline across different age groups in CFTR modulator-untreated people with CF heterozygous for F508del and an RF mutation (F/RF). METHODS: Rate of decline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1) was analyzed using data from the US CF Foundation Patient Registry (2006-2014) in F/RF (all), F/RF (excluding R117H), and F508del homozygous (F/F) cohorts. Annual rates of ppFEV1 decline were estimated over 2-year periods based on calendar year. Subgroup analyses by age [6-12 (children), 13-17 (adolescents), 18-24 (young adults), and ≥ 25 years (adults)] were performed. RESULTS: The estimated annualized rate of ppFEV1 decline was - 0.70 percentage points per year (95% CI -1.09, -0.30) in the F/RF (all) cohort (N = 1242) versus -1.91 percentage points per year (95% CI -2.01, -1.80) in the F/F cohort (N = 11,916) [difference, 1.29 percentage points per year (95% CI 0.88, 1.70); P < 0.001]. In the F/RF (all) cohort, all age groups demonstrated lung function decline ranging from -0.30 to -1.38. In the F/RF (excluding R117H) cohort, the rate of decline was -1.05 percentage points per year (95% CI -1.51, -0.60) [difference versus F/F cohort, 0.95 percentage points per year (95% CI 0.48, 1.41; P < 0.001); not statistically significant in children and young adults]. CONCLUSION: Progressive lung function decline was observed in people with F/RF genotypes across all assessed age groups, reinforcing the importance of early intervention and clinical monitoring to preserve lung function in all people with CF.

In people with cystic fibrosis, lung function typically decreases over time and is linked to the severity of the disease. How fast lung function decreases (referred to as the rate of lung function decline) in cystic fibrosis depends on the specific mutations (changes) in the CFTR gene (which causes the disease). Lung function decline has been well studied in some mutation groups, but not many previous studies have looked at lung function decline in people with one copy of the F508del-CFTR mutation (which is the most common CFTR mutation and results in little to no functional CFTR protein) and another CFTR mutation called a residual function mutation (referred to as people with F/RF genotypes). We used data from the US Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry (which collects information on the health of people in the USA who have cystic fibrosis), to look at the rate of lung function decline in people with F/RF genotypes. We found that people with cystic fibrosis who have F/RF genotypes experience lung function loss over time. We also found that this lung function loss occurred in people of all ages with F/RF genotypes. This finding supports the importance of early treatment to help prevent lung function loss in all people with cystic fibrosis, including people with F/RF genotypes.

Long-term safety and efficacy of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in individuals with cystic fibrosis aged 12 years or older who are homozygous or heterozygous for Phe508del CFTR (EXTEND): an open-label extension study.

BACKGROUND: Tezacaftor-ivacaftor is an approved cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator shown to be efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated over 8-24 weeks in phase 3 clinical studies in participants aged 12 years or older with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation (F/F; study 661-106 [EVOLVE]) or heterozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation and a residual function mutation (F/RF; study 661-108 [EXPAND]). Longer-term (>24 weeks) safety and efficacy of tezacaftor-ivacaftor has not been assessed in clinical studies. Here, we present results of study 661-110 (EXTEND), a 96-week open-label extension study that assessed long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in participants aged 12 years or older with cystic fibrosis who were homozygous or heterozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation. METHODS: Study 661-110 was a 96-week, phase 3, multicentre, open-label study at 170 clinical research sites in Australia, Europe, Israel, and North America. Participants were aged 12 years or older, had cystic fibrosis, were homozygous or heterozygous for Phe508del CFTR, and completed one of six parent studies of tezacaftor-ivacaftor: studies 661-103, 661-106, 661-107, 661-108, 661-109, and 661-111. Participants received oral tezacaftor 100 mg once daily and oral ivacaftor 150 mg once every 12 h for up to 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints were changes in lung function, nutritional parameters, and respiratory symptom scores; pulmonary exacerbations; and pharmacokinetic parameters. A post-hoc analysis assessed the rate of lung function decline in F/F participants who received up to 120 weeks of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in studies 661-106 (F/F) and/or 661-110 compared with a matched cohort of CFTR modulator-untreated historical F/F controls from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry. Primary safety analyses were done in all participants from all six parent studies who received at least one dose of study drug during this study. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02565914). FINDINGS: Between Aug 31, 2015, to May 31, 2019, 1044 participants were enrolled in study 661-110 from the six parent studies of whom 1042 participants received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the safety set. 995 (95%) participants had at least one TEAE; 22 (2%) had TEAEs leading to discontinuation; and 351 (34%) had serious TEAEs. No deaths occurred during the treatment-emergent period; after the treatment-emergent period, two deaths occurred, which were both deemed unrelated to study drug. F/F (106/110; n=459) and F/RF (108/110; n=226) participants beginning tezacaftor-ivacaftor in study 661-110 had improvements in efficacy endpoints consistent with parent studies; improvements in lung function and nutritional parameters and reductions in pulmonary exacerbations observed in the tezacaftor-ivacaftor groups in the parent studies were generally maintained in study 661-110 for an additional 96 weeks. Pharmacokinetic parameters were also similar to those in the parent studies. The annualised rate of lung function decline was 61·5% (95% CI 35·8 to 86·1) lower in tezacaftor-ivacaftor-treated F/F participants versus untreated matched historical controls. INTERPRETATION: Tezacaftor-ivacaftor was generally safe, well tolerated, and efficacious for up to 120 weeks, and the safety profile of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in study 661-110 was consistent with cystic fibrosis manifestations and with the safety profiles of the parent studies. The rate of lung function decline was significantly reduced in F/F participants, consistent with cystic fibrosis disease modification. Our results support the clinical benefit of long-term tezacaftor-ivacaftor treatment for people aged 12 years or older with cystic fibrosis with F/F or F/RF genotypes. FUNDING: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Quality of life in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients receiving liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin.

BACKGROUND: The NAPOLI-1 study (NCT01494506) reported that liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (nal-IRI+5-FU/LV) improved overall survival vs 5-FU/LV with manageable toxicity in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy. Yet, clinicians need treatment strategies that also maintain the patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Here, we report the HRQOL data. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL core questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, every 6 weeks, and at 30 days after discontinuation of study treatment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were scored according to EORTC guidelines. nal-IRI+5-FU/LV HRQOL was compared with 5-FU/LV. The PRO population comprised intent-to-treat patients who completed baseline and at least one subsequent assessment on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Data were also analysed for missingness. RESULTS: Of 236 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 128 (54.2%) comprised the PRO population (71 in the nal-IRI+5-FU/LV arm; 57 the in 5-FU/LV arm). Of the remaining 108 patients (45.8%) not included in the PRO population, most progressed rapidly, making participation difficult. Median change from baseline was ≤10 points at weeks 6 and 12 in global health status or functional and symptom scale scores, except for fatigue, which deteriorated by 11.1 points with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV but did not change vs 5-FU/LV. The proportion of patients whose HRQOL improved or deteriorated was not significantly different between the arms. CONCLUSION: In the NAPOLI-1 study, HRQOL was maintained with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with a gemcitabine-based regimen, while survival was significantly extended.

Quality-adjusted survival with combination nal-IRI+5-FU/LV vs 5-FU/LV alone in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy: a Q-TWiST analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the NAPOLI-1 Phase 3 trial, nal-IRI+5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (5-FU/LV) significantly improved median overall survival (6.1 vs 4.2 months, P=0.012) and progression-free survival (3.1 vs 1.5 months, P=0.0001) vs 5-FU/LV alone in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy. This analysis evaluated between treatment differences in quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST). METHODS: Overall survival was partitioned into time with grade ⩾3 toxicity (TOX), disease progression (REL), and time without disease progression symptoms or grade ⩾3 toxicity (TWiST). Mean Q-TWiST was calculated by weighting time spent by a utility of 1.0 for TWiST and 0.5 for TOX and REL. In threshold analyses, utility for TOX and REL were varied from 0.0 to 1.0. RESULTS: Patients in nal-IRI+5-FU/LV (n=117) vs 5-FU/LV (n=119) had significantly more mean time in TWiST (3.4 vs 2.4 months) and TOX (1.0 vs 0.3 months) but similar REL (2.5 vs 2.7 months). In the base case, nal-IRI+5-FU/LV patients had 1.3 months (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; 5.1 vs 3.9) greater Q-TWiST (threshold analyses range: 0.9-1.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Within NAPOLI-1, nal-IRI+5-FU/LV resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful gains in quality-adjusted survival vs 5-FU/LV alone.

Post-gemcitabine therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer - A comparative review of randomized trials evaluating oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-containing regimens.

A systematic review and critical evaluation of randomized trial evidence for oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-containing regimens in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine has not yet been published. We conducted a comparative systematic review of randomized trials evaluating oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based therapies in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine to assess trial similarity and the feasibility of performing an indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Studies were identified through PubMed and key oncology conference abstracts. The following trials met our criteria: NAPOLI-1 (nanoliposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] or nal-IRI+5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/leucovorin [LV] vs 5-FU/LV), CONKO-003 (oxaliplatin+5-FU/LV [OFF] vs 5-FU/LV), PANCREOX (oxaliplatin+5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX6] vs 5-FU/LV), and Yoo et al. (2009) (irinotecan+5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI3] vs mFOLFOX). Fundamental differences were identified in study design (i.e., number of study sites, number of countries), patient (i.e., locally advanced vs metastatic disease, stratification variables, prior and subsequent treatments) and treatment (i.e., regimens, dose intensity) characteristics, and primary and secondary outcomes (i.e., primary vs secondary outcomes, overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS]) among the 4 included trials. Our comparative review demonstrated significant dissimilarity across trials, which precluded conducting an ITC. In the absence of head-to-head nal-IRI- and/or oxaliplatin-based therapy trials, clinicians are advised to interpret these studies separately within the context of their individual patient population.

Economic analysis of alvimopan for prevention and management of postoperative ileus.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether alvimopan for prevention of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing small- or large-bowel resection by laparotomy is associated with lower total costs compared with standard care. DESIGN: Pharmacoeconomic analysis using a formal decision model. DATA SOURCE: Four phase III clinical trials, two pooled analyses, and one meta-analysis. PATIENT POPULATION: A cohort of patients who underwent bowel resection with primary anastomosis by laparotomy and received either standardized, accelerated postoperative care (usual care) or usual care plus alvimopan. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical outcomes, obtained from pooled analyses of published studies, were time to discharge order written, postoperative nasogastric tube insertion, postoperative ileus-related readmission within 7 days, and occurrence of nausea and vomiting. Cost inputs included drugs, nursing labor, readmissions, and hospitalizations. Costs were assessed by determining the net cost of alvimopan use and subsequent reduction in length of stay. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Costs for alvimopan were $570 based on an average of 9.5 doses. Given the 18.4-hour mean reduction in time to discharge order written, use of alvimopan reduced hospitalization costs by $2021. Mean difference in overall cost of care, as determined by Monte Carlo simulation, was $1168 (95% certainty interval -$437 to $5879), favoring the use of alvimopan. In the sensitivity analysis, association of alvimopan with lower costs was robust to several changes in key parameters including cost and number of doses of alvimopan, time to discharge order written, readmission rates, and hospitalization cost. In the scenario analyses, alvimopan use yielded a net cost of $226 when no difference in time to discharge order written was assumed. In the scenario analysis using data from a study that did not enforce opioid use, alvimopan resulted in a cost saving of $65/patient. CONCLUSION: Alvimopan was cost saving for prevention of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing bowel resection by laparotomy, although these potential cost savings were highly dependent on a difference in time to discharge order written. This finding is not applicable to the less-invasive laparoscopic surgical approach for which quality data on alvimopan use are lacking. Limitations of this analysis included use of time to discharge order written as a proxy for length of stay and difficulty interpreting study results due to inconsistent reporting and conduct of the clinical trials evaluating alvimopan. More research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of alvimopan.

Comparison of health-related quality of life measures in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were: (1) to compare the discriminative ability of a disease-specific instrument, the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) to generic instruments (i.e., EQ-5D and SF-36); and (2), to evaluate the strength of associations among clinical and health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We analyzed data collected from 120 COPD patients in a Veterans Affairs hospital. Patients self-completed two generic HRQL measures (EQ-5D and SF-36) and the disease-specific SGRQ. The ability of the summary scores of these HRQL measures to discriminate COPD disease severity based on Global Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage was assessed using relative efficiency ratios (REs). Strength of correlation was used to further evaluate associations between clinical and HRQL measures. RESULTS: Mean total scores for PCS-36, EQ-VAS and SGRQ were significantly lower for the more severe stages of COPD (p < 0.05). Using SGRQ total score as reference, the summary scores of the generic measures (PCS-36, MCS-36, EQ index, and EQ-VAS) all had REs of <1. SGRQ exhibited a stronger correlation with clinical measures than the generic summary scores. For instance, SGRQ was moderately correlated with FEV1 (r = 0.43), while generic summary scores had trivial levels of correlation with FEV1 (r < 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: The SGRQ demonstrated greater ability to discriminate among different levels of severity stages of COPD than generic measures of health, suggestive that SGRQ may provide COPD studies with greater statistical power than EQ-5D and SF-36 summary scores to capture meaningful differences in clinical severity.

Hospital policies and practices on prevention and treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

PURPOSE: The use of policies and practices regarding surveillance, decolonization, and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and the formulary status of various antimicrobial agents used to treat MRSA were characterized. METHODS: A 61-item questionnaire was sent to the director of pharmacy at each of 263 acute care hospitals that were members of a national group purchasing organization. RESULTS: Responses were received from 102 hospitals (38.8%). Active surveillance culture protocols were in place at 44 hospitals (44%). Nearly 75% engaged in key antimicrobial stewardship activities, while only 18% reported having a formal antimicrobial stewardship team. MRSA decolonization policies existed in approximately 25% of the respondent hospitals. Vancomycin was on the formulary in all hospitals with few restriction policies, while the newer anti-MRSA agents-linezolid, daptomycin, and tigecycline-were on the formulary in most hospitals but with restrictions. Vancomycin was the most commonly used antimicrobial for the treatment of various MRSA infections, followed by linezolid. Nearly 70% of the respondent hospitals reported having a vancomycinspecific dosing or monitoring guideline in place. Most specified the use of actual body weight for dosing and trough serum concentrations at steady state for therapeutic monitoring (84% and 91%, respectively). Most guidelines did not address the use of a loading dose to attain a high target trough or methods for choosing alternative agents. CONCLUSION: Acute care hospitals in the United States varied in their policies and practices of surveillance, decolonization, and treatment of MRSA infections, but most were consistent with national guideline recommendations.