Experimental and Computational Investigation of Microbubble Formation in a Single Capillary Embedded T-junction Microfluidic Device.

In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the interest toward microfluidic devices for microbubble synthesis. The upsurge can be primarily attributed to the exceptional control these devices offer in terms of both the size and the size distribution of microbubbles. Among various microfluidic devices available, capillary-embedded T-junction microfluidic (CETM) devices have been extensively used for the synthesis of microbubbles. One distinguishing feature of CETM devices from conventional T-junction devices is the existence of a wall at the right-most end, which causes a backflow of the continuous phase at the mixing zone during microbubble formation. The back flow at the mixing zone can have several implications during microbubble formation. It can possibly affect the local velocity and shearing force at the mixing zone, which in turn can affect the size and production rate of the microbubbles. Therefore, in this work, we experimentally and computationally understand the process of microbubble formation in CETM devices. The process is modeled using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) with the volume-of-fluid approach, which solves the Navier-Stokes equations for both the gas and liquid phases. Three scenarios with a constant liquid velocity of 0.053 m/s with varying gas velocity and three with a constant gas velocity of 0.049 m/s at different liquid velocities were explored. Increase in the liquid and gas velocity during microbubble formation was found to enhance production rates in both experiments and simulations. Additionally, the change in microbubble size with the change in liquid velocity was found to agree closely with the findings of the simulation with a coefficient of variation of 10%. When plotted against the time required for microbubble generation, the fluctuations in the pressure showed recurrent crests and troughs throughout the microbubble formation process. The understanding of microbubble formation in CETM devices in the presence of backflow will allow improvement in size reduction of microbubbles.

Discrete-Choice Experiment to Understand the Preferences of Patients with Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in the USA, Canada, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have broadened, and treatment decisions can have a long-lasting impact on patients' quality of life. Data on patient preferences can improve therapeutic decision-making by helping physicians suggest treatments that align with patients' values and needs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify patient preferences for attributes of chemohormonal therapies among patients with mHSPC in the USA, Canada, and the UK. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment survey instrument was developed and administered to patients with high- and very-high-risk localized prostate cancer and mHSPC. Patients chose between baseline androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and experimentally designed, hypothetical treatment alternatives representing chemohormonal therapies. Choices were analyzed using logit models to derive the relative importance of attributes for each country and to evaluate differences and similarities among patients across countries. RESULTS: A total of 550 respondents completed the survey (USA, 200; Canada, 200; UK, 150); the mean age of respondents was 64.3 years. Treatment choices revealed that patients were most concerned with treatment efficacy. However, treatment-related convenience factors, such as route of drug administration and frequency of monitoring visits, were as important as some treatment-related side effects, such as skin rash, nausea, and fatigue. Patient preferences across countries were similar, although patients in Canada appeared to be more affected by concomitant steroid use. CONCLUSION: Patients with mHSPC believe the use of ADT alone is insufficient when more effective treatments are available. Efficacy is the most significant driver of patient choices. Treatment-related convenience factors can be as important as safety concerns for patients.

Enzalutamide and Quality of Life in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Enzalutamide and Quality of Life in Prostate CancerFreedland et al. present the health-related quality of life outcomes for patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to enzalutamide plus leuprolide, enzalutamide monotherapy, or leuprolide alone (EMBARK trial). The key objectives were to determine differences in time to first and confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in pain and time to first and confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in functional status. There were no differences among the key outcomes among all three groups.

The impact of enzalutamide on quality of life in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on prior therapy, risk, and symptom subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in ARCHES (NCT02677896). While health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was generally maintained in the intent-to-treat population, we further analyzed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in defined subgroups. METHODS: ARCHES was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with mHSPC received enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT (n = 574) or placebo plus ADT (n = 576). Questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), were completed at baseline, Week 13, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. PRO endpoints were time to first confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (TTFCD) in HRQoL or pain. Subgroups included prognostic risk, pain/HRQoL, prior docetaxel, and local therapy (radical prostatectomy [RP] and/or radiotherapy [RT]). RESULTS: There were several between-treatment differences in TTFCD for pain and functioning/HRQoL PROs. Enzalutamide plus ADT delayed TTFCD for worst pain in the prior RT group (not reached vs. 14.06 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.94]) and pain interference in low-baseline-HRQoL group (19.32 vs. 11.20 months; HR: 0.64 [0.44-0.94]) versus placebo plus ADT. In prior/no prior RP, prior RT, prior local therapy, no prior docetaxel, mild baseline pain, and low-risk subgroups, TTFCD was delayed for the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide plus ADT provides clinical benefits in defined patient subgroups versus ADT alone, while maintaining lack of pain and high HRQoL, with delayed deterioration in several HRQoL measures.

US Population Reference Values for Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires Based on Demographics of Patients with Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The patient experience with prostate cancer differs throughout the disease continuum, with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms worsening as the disease progresses. To understand the prostate cancer experience, it is important to understand the experience of same-aged men without prostate cancer as a basis for comparison. This study provides the US population reference values for six patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey, including several PRO questionnaires, was administered in 2019 to a representative sample of US adults. The male sample (N = 876) was raked by age to have similar characteristics of men in key advanced prostate cancer trials (mean/median age: 67.5/70.0 years), with the majority being white and non-Hispanic. RESULTS: Results from six PRO questionnaires (Brief Pain Inventory; Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders 2.0 Cognitive Short Form; PRO Measurement Information System Fatigue-Short Form; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30; and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Prostate Cancer Module) indicated that the US representative sample of men have good role, physical, and emotional functioning but slightly impaired social, functional, and overall well-being. In addition, they have normal cognitive function, few financial problems, minimal pain and fatigue, minimal urinary and bowel symptoms, and limited use of incontinence aids. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of the reference values for these PRO questionnaires will enable researchers to compare the HRQoL of patients with advanced prostate cancer in the US with that of the general US population and allow for a better interpretation of those scores. Registration numbers of advanced prostate cancer trials: NCT02677896, NCT02003924, NCT01212991, NCT00974311.

Cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide versus apalutamide versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in Canada.

AIMS: There are no direct comparisons of the relative cost-effectiveness of second-generation anti-androgens (enzalutamide and apalutamide) used in managing metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) in Canada. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide versus apalutamide versus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone (standard of care) in patients with mCSPC from the Canadian public payer perspective using a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Efficacy data for enzalutamide and ADT alone were informed by the ARCHES and ENZAMET clinical trials, while a Bayesian network meta-analysis enabled comparison with apalutamide and ADT alone. RESULTS: Over the 15-year period, enzalutamide achieved the highest number of life-years (LY, 7.6) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY, 5.62) compared with apalutamide (LY, 6.1; QALY, 4.59) and ADTs (LY, 4.9; QALY, 3.61). Enzalutamide incurred the most costs ($349,345) compared with apalutamide ($294,349) and ADT ($162,550). Sequential analysis showed that enzalutamide lies on the cost-effectiveness frontier with ADT alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $92,868/QALY), with apalutamide extendedly dominated through enzalutamide and ADT alone. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the heterogeneity of the studies included in the network meta-analysis and the validations for the treatment sequencing assumptions in the modeling. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide was the most effective treatment option for mCSPC in the Canadian market, with the greatest LYs and QALYs, and incurred the most costs.

Impact of enzalutamide on patient-reported fatigue in patients with prostate cancer: data from the pivotal clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a multifactorial symptom commonly reported by patients with prostate cancer as a result of disease and treatment. This study assesses the impact enzalutamide has on patient-reported fatigue ("fatigue") by using patient-reported outcomes from four pivotal, placebo-controlled trials of enzalutamide (ARCHES (NCT02677896), PROSPER (NCT02003924), PREVAIL (NCT01212991), and AFFIRM (NCT00974311)). METHODS: Fatigue was assessed in the individual studies using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate item GP1 at baseline, weeks 13 or 17, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. Longitudinal changes were assessed using mean scores and mixed-model repeated measures. RESULTS: The fatigue rates at baseline were higher in patients with later-stage disease (metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)) and among patients who had already received prior treatment lines; rates ranged between 58% in PROSPER (nonmetastatic CRPC) and 86% in AFFIRM (post-docetaxel metastatic CRPC). Irrespective of disease state, initiation of enzalutamide or placebo resulted in an early increase of fatigue (by weeks 13 or 17), with fatigue levels stabilizing thereafter. At last assessment, ≥55% of patients reported fatigue improvement or stabilization in all trials compared to baseline. More patients reported fatigue worsening by ≥1 or ≥2 units with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) than with placebo plus ADT in ARCHES, PROSPER, and PREVAIL, but the between-group difference was <10% in all trials. CONCLUSIONS: The levels of fatigue were greater in mCRPC and lower in earlier states of disease. In all trials, patients reported a small increase in fatigue for the first 13-17 weeks after starting enzalutamide or placebo, with slightly greater fatigue with enzalutamide in all studies except AFFIRM, but fatigue stabilized or improved thereafter. This suggests a role for clinical management of fatigue to help patients cope early in treatment.

The Impact of Enzalutamide on the Prostate Cancer Patient Experience: A Summary Review of Health-Related Quality of Life across Pivotal Clinical Trials.

This review examines the impact of treatment with enzalutamide on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in prostate cancer patients across the disease continuum based on pivotal clinical trials. We assessed the effect of enzalutamide on pain, symptom burden and overall HRQoL from randomized controlled trials. Patient experience was evaluated in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) (pre-chemotherapy and post-chemotherapy). Patients across the disease continuum reported a generally positive status at baseline, with relatively low levels of pain and impairment due to cancer-related symptoms and high HRQoL. For patients with earlier-state prostate cancer, pain and symptom-related burden were low at study entry and remained so, regardless of whether patients received enzalutamide or control treatment. Patients with more advanced disease reported mitigation in pain and symptom burden while receiving treatment with enzalutamide. Enzalutamide was observed to slow deterioration of overall HRQoL most for patients with nmCRPC or mCRPC (statistical significance for between-group difference in median time to deterioration: mHSPC (confirmed) p = 0.2998; nmCRPC (confirmed) p = 0.0044; mCRPC (unconfirmed) p < 0.0001). Across the prostate cancer continuum, enzalutamide is well-tolerated and delays the negative impact that disease progression has on quality of life.

Patient-reported outcomes from the phase II FAST trial of zolbetuximab plus EOX compared to EOX alone as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic CLDN18.2+ gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Zolbetuximab plus first-line EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, capecitabine; ZOL/EOX) significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in the FAST trial vs EOX alone. We report the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of FAST in patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients were randomized to ZOL/EOX or EOX alone. Patients could receive ≤ 8 EOX cycles and remained on zolbetuximab until disease progression. PROs were collected using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-STO22 before drug administration at day 1/cycle 1, day 1/cycle 5, end of EOX treatment, and q12w thereafter until disease progression. Time to deterioration (TTD), defined as the first meaningful worsening from baseline, in the individual QLQ-C30/QLQ-STO22 scores was analyzed. Longitudinal changes in scores from baseline were analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). RESULTS: The per protocol population included 143 (ZOL/EOX: 69; EOX: 74) patients. Baseline QLQ-C30 and STO22 scores were comparable between arms and denoted intermediate-to-high quality of life (QoL), intermediate-to-low global health status (GHS) and low symptom burden. Descriptive analyses showed no differences between arms until end of EOX but maintenance therapy with zolbetuximab was associated with better QoL and less symptom burden thereafter. TTD for most scores favored ZOL/EOX over EOX and reached statistical significance for GHS (p = 0.008). MMRM results support TTD findings; no statistically significant differences were observed between arms in any score except for nausea and vomiting (p = 0.0181 favoring EOX). CONCLUSIONS: ZOL/EOX allowed patients to maintain good QoL and low symptom burden for longer than EOX alone.

Correction to: Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results from SELECT-NEXT.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Economic burden of fatigue or morning stiffness among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective analysis from real-world data.

Objective: Determine healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with fatigue and stiffness among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: A retrospective claims analysis compared RA patients with fatigue or stiffness to matched RA control patients with neither. Claims from a large US commercial insurance database identified new cases of stiffness/fatigue among newly diagnosed patients. Study patients had ≥2 medical claims for RA ≥45 days apart, continuous insurance coverage ≥12 months before RA index (baseline period) and ≥12 months after fatigue/stiffness index (follow-up period). Controls had no diagnosis of fatigue or stiffness ≥12 months before index. Cases had ≥1 claim of fatigue/stiffness after RA index; the first such claim was the index date. Multivariate logistic regressions, adjusting for baseline demographics, comorbidities, medication use and HCRU, were used to predict the propensity of having a fatigue/stiffness diagnosis. Controls were propensity-score matched to cases. Generalized linear models estimated all-cause and RA-specific costs associated with resource use as well as prescription drugs, adjusting for any unbalanced covariates after propensity-score matching.Results: Approximately 32% of newly diagnosed RA patients suffer from fatigue/stiffness. Matched cohorts were analyzed: fatigue vs. control; stiffness vs. control; fatigue and stiffness vs. control. After RA diagnosis, hospitalizations increased: 83% for fatigue, 117% for stiffness and 148% for both; total office visits increased 63%, 113% and 135%, respectively. Greater HCRU yielded significantly greater (all p < .001) per-patient-per-year hospitalization costs vs. matched controls: fatigue ($2554 vs. $1293); stiffness ($2792 vs. $892); fatigue and stiffness ($3322 vs. $1033). Per-patient-per-year costs of office visits increased significantly (all p < .001) vs. matched controls: fatigue ($1373 vs. $908); stiffness ($1580 vs. $761); fatigue and stiffness ($1989 vs. $921).Conclusions: RA patients with fatigue and/or stiffness report more HCRU and incur significantly higher medical costs than RA patients without them.

Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results from SELECT-NEXT.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to csDMARDs. METHODS: Patients in SELECT-NEXT, a randomised controlled trial, were on a background of csDMARDs and received upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg or placebo daily for 12 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration and severity of morning (AM) joint stiffness, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and Work Instability Scale for RA (RA-WIS). Least squares mean (LSM) changes were based on mixed-effect repeated measure models. Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values and number needed to treat (NNT) were determined; group comparisons used chi-square tests. RESULTS: Data from 661 patients were analysed. Compared with placebo, patients receiving upadacitinib reported statistically significant improvements (both doses, P < 0.05) in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, duration and severity of AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 6/8 domains), and RA-WIS at week 12. Significantly, more upadacitinib-treated patients (both doses, P < 0.05) reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 7/8 domains), and RA-WIS and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 5/8 domains). For most PROs, the incremental NNT with upadacitinib to report clinically meaningful improvement from baseline ranged from 4 to 8 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg daily for 12 weeks resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in global disease activity, pain, physical function, fatigue, duration and severity of AM stiffness, HRQOL, and work instability among csDMARD-IR patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02675426. Retrospectively registered 5 February 2016.

Effects of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes: results from SELECT-BEYOND, a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important when evaluating treatment benefits in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared upadacitinib, an oral, selective JAK-1 inhibitor, with placebo to assess clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in patients with RA who have had inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR). METHODS: PRO responses between upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg and placebo were evaluated at week 12 from the SELECT-BEYOND trial. Improvement was determined by measuring Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), duration and severity of morning (AM) stiffness, and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Least squares mean changes and percentage of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores greater than or equal to normative values were determined. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve clinically meaningful improvements was calculated. RESULTS: In 498 patients, both upadacitinib doses resulted in statistically significant changes from baseline versus placebo in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 6 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), and AM stiffness duration and severity. Compared with placebo, more upadacitinib-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 5 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), AM stiffness duration and severity, and ISI (30 mg) and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 domains. Across most PROs, NNTs to achieve MCID with upadacitinib ranged from 4 to 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In bDMARD-IR RA patients, upadacitinib (15 mg or 30 mg) improved multiple aspects of quality of life, and more patients reached clinically meaningful improvements approaching normative values compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847), registered 6 March 2016.

Further content validation of the 18-item NCCN/FACT Ovarian Symptom Index and its Disease Related Symptom-Physical (DRS-P) subscale for use in advanced ovarian cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated pre-defined aspects of content validity of the 18-item NCCN FACT-Ovarian Symptom Index (NFOSI-18) and its Disease-Related Symptoms-Physical (DRS-P) subscale, as clinical trial outcome tools for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: Twenty-one women (mean age 59.5 years) diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer completed the NFOSI-18 and participated in a cognitive interview to explore: (1) whether 'pain' and 'cramps' are considered redundant; (2) whether 'fatigue' and 'lack of energy' are overlapping concepts; (3) whether patients consider severity when responding to the item "I am bothered by constipation;" and (4) factors considered when responding to the item "I am sleeping well." Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Pain was associated with discomfort, hurt, and life interference; 'cramps' was associated with pain, muscle tightening, and menstrual or digestive issues. Most (81%) considered the items "I have pain" and "I have cramps in my stomach area" to be more different than similar. Participants associated 'fatigue' with intense tiredness and 'lack of energy' with motivation and capability to complete daily activities. Item comparisons revealed a majority (65%) considered the items to be more different than similar. When responding to "I am bothered by constipation," patients indicated constipation severity was related to bother. Finally, patients considered disease, treatment, and other factors when responding to "I am sleeping well." CONCLUSIONS: Findings support content validity of the NFOSI-18 and its DRS-P as originally constructed. We propose an alternative scoring option that excludes the item "I am sleeping well" from the DRS-P when used as a symptom-focused index for clinical research in a regulatory context.

Participation in an innovative patient support program reduces prescription abandonment for adalimumab-treated patients in a commercial population.

PURPOSE: Nonadherence to indicated therapy reduces treatment effectiveness and may increase cost of care. HUMIRA Complete, a Patient Support Program (PSP), aims to reduce nonadherence in patients prescribed adalimumab (ADA). The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between participation in the PSP and prescription abandonment rates among ADA-treated patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This longitudinal study using patient-level data from AbbVie's PSP linked with medical and pharmacy claims data included patients ≥18 years with an ADA-approved indication, ≥1 pharmacy claim for ADA, and available data ≥3 months before and ≥6 months after the index date (defined as the initial ADA claim [01/2015 to 02/2017]). Abandonment was defined as reversal of initial ADA prescription with no paid claim during 3-month follow-up. Abandonment rates were compared between PSP and non-PSP cohorts using multivariable logistic regression controlling for potentially confounding baseline characteristics. RESULTS: In 17,371 patients (9,851 PSP; 7,520 non-PSP), the overall abandonment rate was 10.8-16.8% across indications. The odds of ADA abandonment were 70% less for PSP vs non-PSP patients (5.6% vs 20.4%, odds ratio [OR]=0.30, [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.27-0.33] P<0.001), 38% less for patients using specialty vs retail pharmacy (OR=0.62, 95% CI=0.56-0.69, P<0.001), 20% less for those with income of $50-99K vs $0-49K (OR=0.80, 95% CI=0.69-0.92, P<0.01), and 78% greater for those with copayment of $26-100 vs $0-25 (OR=1.78, 95% CI=1.55-2.05, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Participation in the PSP, higher income, and using a specialty pharmacy were associated with lower odds of abandoning ADA therapy, whereas increased copayments were associated with greater abandonment. PSPs should be considered to improve initiation of ADA therapy.

Patient Support Program Increased Medication Adherence with Lower Total Health Care Costs Despite Increased Drug Spending.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. health care system is currently evolving from a volume-based care to a value-based care approach, which is in part supported by the introduction of patient support programs (PSP). For patients treated with adalimumab (ADA), the addition of a dedicated, trained nurse to the PSP (HUMIRA Complete, rolled out nationally in 2015) provides further emphasis on value-based care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of the HUMIRA Complete PSP, including the Nurse Ambassador component, in a real-world setting for patients receiving ADA across a broad range of approved indications (rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, uveitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa). METHODS: A longitudinal retrospective study was conducted using patient-level data from the HUMIRA Complete PSP data linked to the real-world, patient-level Symphony Health Solutions administrative claims database. Commercially insured patients were included who were aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 2 diagnoses of an indicated disease who were biologically naive before initiating ADA or who had no claims for synthetic-targeted immune modulator therapy before their earliest ADA claim in the database between January 2015 and February 2017. The first claim had to have occurred in 2015 or later, and continuous medical and drug data coverage were required for ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 12 months after the first ADA claim and index date. PSP patients (with at least an initial and follow-up dedicated nurse call) were matched 1:1 to non-PSP patients based on pharmacy type, indication, and propensity score, estimated with covariates for age, sex, year of first ADA use, and baseline comorbidities. Adherence to ADA was compared using proportion of days covered along with discontinuation of ADA, defined as a gap in treatment greater than the previous days supply with no additional ADA claim, total costs, medical costs, and drug costs (2017 U.S. dollars) over 12 months. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized descriptively. Differences between cohorts were assessed using t-tests for adherence and costs and log-rank tests for discontinuation. RESULTS: 2,268 patients (1,134 per group) were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts after matching. Participation in the PSP was associated with 29.3% higher ADA adherence (64.8% vs. 50.1%; P < 0.0001) and 22.0% lower ADA discontinuation rate (51.4% vs. 65.9%; P < 0.0001). Disease-related medical costs and all-cause medical costs were significantly lower by 35% ($10,162 vs. $15,511; P = 0.005) and 29.2% ($25,074 vs. $35,419; P = 0.0004), respectively, for PSP versus non-PSP patients. Total costs were also lower by 9% ($62,421 vs. $68,706; P = 0.056), and drug costs were 12.2% higher ($37,347 vs. $33,287; P = 0.0016). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study demonstrates that participation in the PSP augments value-based care by improving outcomes for patients with chronic diseases by helping them not only manage a complex treatment regimen but also lower annual health care costs. DISCLOSURES: Design, study conduct, and financial support for this study were provided by AbbVie. AbbVie participated in the interpretation of data, review, and approval of the manuscript; all authors contributed to the development of the publication and maintained control over the final content. Brixner reports consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Becton Dickinson, Millcreek Outcomes Group, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma. Rubin reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Abgenomics, Allergan, Forward Pharma, Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Napo Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Shire, Takeda, and Target Pharmaceuticals and research support from AbbVie, Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Prometheus Laboratories, Shire, and Takeda. Mease reports grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB; and served on the speakers bureaus for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Mittal and Ganguli are employees and stockholders of AbbVie. Liu has no financial conflict of interest. Davis is an employee of Medicus Economics, which reports payment from AbbVie to participate in this research. Fendrick reports personal fees from Merck, AstraZeneca, Trizetto, Amgen, Lilly, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, and Sanofi; grants from the National Pharmaceutical Council, PhRMA, the Gary and Mary West Health Foundation, the states of New York and Michigan, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; and has equity in Zansors, Sempre Health, Wellth, and V-BID Health. Data from this study were presented in part at the Academy of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 25, 2018; Boston, MA.

Short-term costs associated with non-medical switching in autoimmune conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate short-term costs associated with non-medical switch (NMS) from originator biologics to biosimilars among stable patients with autoimmune conditions in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology from a US provider's and third-party payer's perspective. METHODS: An economic model was constructed to estimate switching costs related to physician time and healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) at the initial NMS visit and over 3 months. The proportion of patients with relevant conditions treated with originators and expected NMS rate, physician time, HRU, and payer reimbursement were derived from a physician survey. Switching costs were estimated for a practice of 1,000 patients with relevant conditions by therapeutic area and for an insurance plan with 1 million individuals by therapeutic area and all areas combined. Switching cost drivers were assessed with one-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Physicians expected extra 6 minutes for the NMS visit and 22 minutes over 3 months; NMS rates of 14.4%, 15.5%, and 17.7%; and 11.3%, 16.2%, and 33.2% of time not reimbursed for gastroenterology, rheumatology, and dermatology, respectively. The total switching costs for payer's were $771,460 (for n = 3,609 patients with an NMS rate of 16.6%), mostly due to follow-up visits and additional laboratory tests/procedures. In sensitivity analyses, the NMS rate was the main cost driver. Increasing the NMS rate to 25% and 50% increased payer's total switching costs to $1.19 and $2.39 million, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Originator-to-biosimilar NMS in stable patients with autoimmune conditions could result in considerable switching costs for both providers and payers.

Adverse Medical Conditions Across Treatment Options in Patients With Psoriasis: A Claims-Based Analysis

Objective: To assess the real-world risk of developing adverse medical conditions (AMCs) among patients with psoriasis treated with biologic therapies or conventional systemic/topical therapies (CST/topical). Methods: Adult patients with psoriasis were identified from the Truven MarketScan US claims database (2008 Q3­2015 Q3) and classified into cohorts based on treatment initiated on the index date (adalimumab [ADA], etanercept [ETN], ustekinumab [UST], infliximab [IFX], or CST/topical). Incident AMCs were identified while on treatment from diagnoses recorded in medical claims and included abnormal test results, infections, mental disorders, cardiovascular disease, malignancies (skin and non-skin), and respiratory disease. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare AMC risk for (1) ADA, ETN, and UST (separately) vs CST/topical, and (2) ADA vs other biologic therapies (ETN, UST, and IFX combined). Regressions were adjusted for age, gender, region, insurance plan type, year, Charlson comorbidity index, and prior AMCs; and based on stepwise selection, comorbidities, specialist encounters, and frequently prescribed treatments. Results: A total of 42,981 patients were identified (ADA: 5,197; ETN: 3,311; UST: 1,370; IFX: 187; CST/topical: 32,916). Across cohorts, median age was 46­50 years, 46.2%­53.1% were female, and median follow-up duration was 3.3­7.9 months. For all cohorts, infection was the most frequent AMC (28.7%­41.8%). Compared with CST/topical, ADA, ETN, and UST were associated with a lower risk of infections (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.93, 0.92, and 0.86, respectively, all P<0.05). ADA was associated with a lower risk of malignancies (aHR: 0.71, P<0.05), and ETN was associated with a lower risk of respiratory disease (aHR: 0.80, P<0.05). Compared with biologic therapies, ADA was not associated with higher risk of AMCs. Conclusions: Compared to CST/topical, biologic therapies were associated with similar or lower risk of AMCs. Comparison between ADA and other biologic therapies suggests a similar safety profile with respect to the studied AMCs.

The Comorbidity Burden of Hidradenitis Suppurativa in the United States: A Claims Data Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies have reported that hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is accompanied by a myriad of physical and mental conditions. However, given the small sample sizes and the limited number of pre-selected comorbidities, these studies do not provide a complete picture of the comorbidity burden of HS in the USA. Moreover, the relationship between HS severity and comorbidity burden has yet to be characterized. Using a large US claims database, we estimated the comorbidity burden associated with HS, stratified by disease severity. METHODS: A retrospective matched cohort design was used. Patients with HS were classified into two severity cohorts (milder and more severe) using an empirical algorithm based on treatments received. The comorbidity burden was compared between each HS cohort and their matched HS-free cohort, and between patients with milder vs. those with more severe forms of HS. RESULTS: Several physical and mental comorbidities were found to be more prevalent in both cohorts of patients with milder and more severe forms of HS than in their matched HS-free cohorts. The comorbidity burden also increased greatly as the disease progressed to more severe forms. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight the complexity of the comorbidity burden of HS patients and the need for a multidisciplinary approach to optimize the management of HS and its numerous associated comorbidities. FUNDING: AbbVie, Inc.

Comparison of US patient, rheumatologist, and dermatologist perceptions of psoriatic disease symptoms: results from the DISCONNECT study.

BACKGROUND: The perceived bother of skin and joint-related manifestations of psoriatic disease may differ among patients, rheumatologists, and dermatologists. This study identified and compared the patient and dermatologist/rheumatologist-perceived bother of psoriatic disease manifestations. METHODS: Online surveys were administered to patients with both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and to dermatologists and rheumatologists. Object-case best-worst scaling was used to identify the most and least bothersome items from a set of five items in a series of questions. Each item set was drawn from 20 items describing psoriatic disease skin and joint symptoms and impacts on daily activities. Survey responses were analyzed using random-parameters logit models for each surveyed group, yielding a relative-bother weight (RBW) for each item compared with joint pain, soreness, or tenderness. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 200 patients, 150 dermatologists, and 150 rheumatologists. Patients and physicians agreed that joint pain, soreness, and tenderness are among the most bothersome manifestations of psoriatic disease (RBW 1.00). For patients, painful, inflamed, or broken skin (RBW 1.03) was more bothersome, while both rheumatologists and dermatologists considered painful skin much less bothersome (RBW 0.17 and 0.22, respectively) than joint pain. Relative to joint pain, rheumatologists were more likely to perceive other joint symptoms as bothersome, while dermatologists were more likely to perceive other skin symptoms as bothersome. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified important areas of discordance both between patients and physicians and between rheumatologists and dermatologists about the relative bother of a comprehensive set of psoriatic disease symptoms and functional impacts. Both physician specialists should ask patients which manifestations of psoriatic disease are most bothersome to them, as these discussions may have important implications for drug and other patient management options.