Economic burden during remission and after relapse among older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia without hematopoietic stem cell transplant: A retrospective study using the SEER-Medicare database.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with a substantial clinical and economic burden. This study characterized the magnitude of this burden following initial treatment with standard or less intensive therapies (hypomethylating agents [HMAs]) and throughout different treatment phases post-remission. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry (2007-2016) linked with Medicare beneficiary claims (2007-2015) was analyzed. Patients were ≥ 65 years old with AML who initiated chemotherapy or HMAs and achieved remission. Outcomes included baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and costs (2019 United States dollar). Economic impacts were stratified by treatment phase (initial treatment, early post-remission, late post-remission, and post-relapse). Early and late post-remission were defined as treatment initiated ≤ 60 days and > 60 days following initial treatment, respectively. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving only HMAs as initial treatment was also conducted. Overall, 530 patients were included (mean age: 74.1 years; 53.6 % male). In the overall analysis, 68.1 % of patients received post-remission treatment; 31.9% had no post-remission treatment. Mean monthly per patient healthcare costs by treatment phase were $45,747 (initial treatment), $30,248 (early post-remission), $23,173 (late post-remission), and $37,736 (post-relapse), driven predominantly by inpatient visits. The HMA subgroup analysis comprised 71 patients (mean age: 78.8 years; 50.7 % male); mean monthly per patient healthcare costs were highest post-relapse. The economic burden of AML among older patients is substantial across all treatment phases. AML treatments that induce and prolong remission may reduce HRU and the economic burden of disease.

The implementation of value-based frameworks, clinical care pathways, and alternative payment models for cancer care in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment is a significant driver of rising health care costs in the United States, where the annual cost of cancer care is estimated to reach $246 billion in 2030. As a result, cancer centers are considering moving away from fee-for-service models and transitioning to value-based care models, including value-based frameworks (VBFs), clinical care pathways (CCPs), and alternative payment models (APMs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the barriers and motivations for using value-based care models from the perspectives of physicians and quality officers (QOs) at US cancer centers. METHODS: Sites were recruited from cancer centers in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West regions in a 15/15/20/10 relative distribution. Cancer centers were identified based on prior research relationships and known participation in the Oncology Care Model or other APMs. Based on a literature search, multiple choice and open-ended questions were developed for the survey. A link to the survey was emailed to hematologists/oncologists and QOs at academic and community cancer centers from August to November 2020. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 136 sites were contacted; 28 (21%) centers returned completed surveys, which were included in the final analysis. 45 surveys (23 from community centers, 22 from academic centers) were completed: 59% (26/44), 76% (34/45), and 67% (30/45) of physicians/QOs respondents had used or implemented a VBF, CCP, and APM, respectively. The top motivator for VBF use was "producing real-world data for providers, payers, and patients" (50% [13/26]). Among those not using CCPs, the most common barrier was a "lack of consensus on pathway choices" (64% [7/11]). For APMs, the most common difficulty was that "innovations in health care services and therapies must be adopted at the site's own financial risk" (27% [8/30]). CONCLUSIONS: The ability to measure improvements in cancer health outcomes was a large motivator for implementing value-based models. However, heterogeneity in practice size, limited resources, and potential increase in costs were possible barriers to implementation. Payers need to be willing to negotiate with cancer centers and providers to implement the payment model that will most benefit patients. The future integration of VBFs, CCPs, and APMs will depend on reducing the complexity and burden of implementation. DISCLOSURES :Dr Panchal was affiliated with the University of Utah at the time this study was conducted and discloses current employment with ZS. Dr McBride discloses employment with Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Huggar and Dr Copher report employment, stock, and other ownership interests in Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors have no competing interests to disclose. This study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from Bristol Myers Squibb to the University of Utah.

Indirect treatment comparison of oral versus injectable azacitidine as maintenance therapy for acute myeloid leukemia.

Aim: Evaluate the relative efficacy of oral versus injectable azacitidine (AZA) maintenance therapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after complete remission. Materials & methods: Systematic literature review identified QUAZAR AML-001, HOVON 97 AML, UK NCRI AML16 and QoLESS-AZA-AMLE (sensitivity analysis) trials. Network meta-analysis and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons assessed survival outcomes. Results: In the network meta-analysis, combining the HOVON 97 and UK NCRI trials, oral AZA (QUAZAR) was associated with significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus injectable AZA (hazard ratio: 0.744; 95% credible interval: 0.557-0.998). After matching-adjusted indirect comparisons, to address differences in patient characteristics across trials, OS improvements were maintained with oral versus injectable AZA (hazard ratio: 0.753; credible interval: 0.563-0.998). Conclusion: In AML, maintenance therapy with oral AZA was associated with improved OS versus injectable AZA.

Older people with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may have remission with or without blood count recovery, after first-line chemotherapy; however, remission is short lived and overall survival is limited (7­12 months). Ongoing treatment (maintenance therapy) after response to initial chemotherapy may prolong remission. Maintenance therapy with azacitidine (AZA) given by injection beneath the skin (subcutaneous) or into a vein (intravenous) can extend disease-free survival compared with no further treatment and best supportive care. However, treatment with intravenous AZA may only extend overall survival in certain patients. ONUREG^® is a novel formulation of AZA that can be taken by mouth (orally), remains in the body for longer periods and has the potential for significant clinical benefits compared with intravenous AZA. Presently, there are no studies directly comparing outcomes of maintenance therapy with oral and injectable AZA in older people with AML. In this analysis, we used an indirect treatment comparison method including four clinical trials to explore the survival benefit associated with ONUREG and injectable AZA when used as maintenance therapies after response to initial chemotherapy in older people with AML. Findings showed ONUREG significantly improved overall survival compared with injectable AZA, with an almost 26% reduction in the risk of death. These results suggest that maintenance therapy with ONUREG significantly improves overall survival compared with injectable AZA in older people with AML who may have remission with or without blood count recovery, after first-line chemotherapy.

Economic burden in US patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia receiving intensive induction chemotherapy.

Aim: This retrospective, observational study assessed healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients receiving intensive induction chemotherapy. Materials & methods: Adult AML patients with inpatient hospitalization or hospital-based outpatient visit receiving intensive induction chemotherapy (CPX-351 or 7 + 3 treatments) were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database (US). Results: All 642 patients had inpatient hospitalizations (median number = 2; median length of stay = 16 days); 22.4% had an ICU admission. Median total outpatient hospital cost was US$2904 per patient, inpatient hospital cost was $83,440 per patient, and ICU cost was $16,550 per patient. Discussion: In the US hospital setting, substantial HCRU and costs associated with intensive induction chemotherapy for AML were driven by inpatient hospitalizations.

The impact of remission duration on the long-term economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia among patients without hematopoietic stem cell transplant in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) prognosis is poor, with sustained remission occurring in <35% of young adults and <15% of older adults. This descriptive study examined the potential benefit of prolonged remission on the economic burden of AML. METHODS: Using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, we identified newly diagnosed patients with AML without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018; AML diagnosis was the index date. Patients had 6 months of pre-index eligibility and were followed until the end of continuous eligibility, study data, or death. Active treatment and supportive care cohorts were defined; duration-of-remission subgroups (0 to <3, 3 to <6, 6 to <12, and ≥12 months) were established among active treatment patients with remission. Healthcare service utilization and costs were reported over follow-up and mutually exclusive treatment, remission, and post-relapse periods. RESULTS: This study included 1,558 active treatment and 1,127 supportive care patients who were followed for a median of 232 and 62 days, respectively. Over follow-up, active treatment and supportive care patients incurred mean ± standard deviation all-cause healthcare costs of $55,723 ± $61,994 and $68,596 ± $100,375 per-patient-per-month (PPPM), respectively. Decreasing PPPM costs were observed with increased remission duration (0 to <3 months: $71,823 ± $62,635; 3 to <6 months: $54,262 ± $44,734; 6 to <12 months: $35,287 ± $23,699; and ≥12 months: $15,615 ± $10,560). Although median follow-up varied by up to 5-fold, total costs were largely similar across duration-of-remission subgroups (0 to <3 months: $438,569 ± $332,675; 3 to <6 months: $590,411 ± $598,245; 6 to <12 months: $482,902 ± $369,115; and ≥12 months: $448,867 ± $316,133). CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of AML is substantial, even among untreated patients. Further, among patients with remission, longer durations in remission are associated with reduced PPPM healthcare costs, suggesting that remission-prolonging treatments could help mitigate healthcare costs.