Adjuvant Nivolumab in Resected Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer.

BACKGROUND: No adjuvant treatment has been established for patients who remain at high risk for recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. METHODS: We conducted CheckMate 577, a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial to evaluate a checkpoint inhibitor as adjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Adults with resected (R0) stage II or III esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or matching placebo. The maximum duration of the trial intervention period was 1 year. The primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 24.4 months. Among the 532 patients who received nivolumab, the median disease-free survival was 22.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.6 to 34.0), as compared with 11.0 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 14.3) among the 262 patients who received placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% CI, 0.56 to 0.86; P<0.001). Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple prespecified subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were considered by the investigators to be related to the active drug or placebo occurred in 71 of 532 patients (13%) in the nivolumab group and 15 of 260 patients (6%) in the placebo group. The trial regimen was discontinued because of adverse events related to the active drug or placebo in 9% of the patients in the nivolumab group and 3% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, disease-free survival was significantly longer among those who received nivolumab adjuvant therapy than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 577 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02743494.).

Caregiver survey in glioblastoma focused on cognitive dysfunction: development and results from a multicenter study.

Aim: To develop a cognitive dysfunction (CD) focused questionnaire to evaluate caregiver burden in glioblastoma. Materials & methods: The survey was developed from stakeholder consultations and a pilot study, and disseminated at eight US academic cancer centers. Caregivers self-reported caring for an adult with glioblastoma and CD. Results: The 89-item survey covered demographics, CD symptoms and caregiver burden domains. Among 185 caregivers, most were white, educated females and reported memory problems as the most common CD symptom. An exposure-effect was observed, with increase in number of CD symptoms significantly associated with greater caregiver burden. Conclusion: This questionnaire could guide caregiver interventions and be adapted for use longitudinally, in community cancer settings, and in patients with brain metastases.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a very aggressive brain cancer. People who have GBM have trouble remembering things and are unable to do things they used to do. These changes can be very hard. Researchers are trying to better understand what it is like for people who take care of people with GBM (or caregivers). In this study, researchers created a new survey for caregivers. The survey included questions about what caregivers see happening in their loved one with GBM. Caregivers said that memory problems were common. Also, when the patient had more problems the caregiver had a harder time, too. Researchers hope to improve the survey and use it in the future for more studies.

Caregiver burden by treatment and clinical characteristics of patients with glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is an incurable disease with a poor prognosis. For caregivers of people with glioblastoma, the burden of care can be high. Patients often present with different clinical characteristics, which may impact caregiver burden in different ways. This study aimed to evaluate associations between patient clinical characteristics and caregiver burden/quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Caregiver-patient dyads were enrolled at 7 academic cancer centers in the United States. Eligible caregiver participants were self-reported as the primary caregiver of an adult living with glioblastoma and completed a caregiver burden survey. Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years at glioblastoma diagnosis and alive when their respective caregiver entered the study, with the presence of cognitive dysfunction confirmed by the caregiver. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: The final cohort included 167 dyads. Poor patient performance status resulted in patient difficulty with mental tasks, more caregiving tasks, and increased caregiving time. Language problems were reported in patients with left-sided lesions. Patient confusion was negatively associated with all caregiver domains: emotional health, social health, general health, ability to work, confidence in finances, and overall QoL. Better caregiver QoL was observed in patients with frontal lobe lesions versus non-frontal lobe lesions. CONCLUSION: This study reinforced that patient performance status is a critical clinical factor that significantly affects caregiver burden, caregiving tasks, and caregiver time. Additionally, patient confusion affects multiple facets of caregiver burden/QoL. These results could be used to support guided intervention for caregiver support, customized to the patient experience.

Real-world study of the impact of recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) on quality of life and productivity in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Although current therapy for patients with early-stage squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is potentially curative, the recurrence rate is high. Patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) SCCHN have a poor prognosis and substantial disease burden, including impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), productivity loss and indirect costs, such as need for caregiver support. The aim of this study was to characterize the impact of R/M SCCHN and its first-line treatment on patient and caregiver quality of life, daily activities and work productivity using real-world evidence from Europe. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study of patients with R/M SCCHN in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom incorporating patient and caregiver surveys, and a physician-reported medical chart review, conducted between January and May 2019. Patients aged 18 or over with a physician confirmed diagnosis R/M SCCHN completed four validated measures of disease activity and its impact on quality of life and work productivity, while caregivers also completed questionnaire to assess the burden of providing care. Physicians provided data for clinical characteristics, patient management, testing history and treatment patterns. RESULTS: A total of 195 medical/clinical oncologists provided data for 937, predominantly male (72%) patients, with almost half of patients aged over 65 years. The most frequently reported symptoms were fatigue (43%), weight loss (40%), pain (35%) and difficulty swallowing (32%). The EXTREME regimen was the most common first line therapy in over half of patients, who reported moderate or extreme pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression, and problems with self-care resulting in a diminished health status compared with the general population. Only 14% were employed with high absenteeism or presenteeism, and over half of patients had a caregiver for whom the burden of care was substantial. CONCLUSION: Our results provide real-world insight into the multi-faceted burden associated with R/M SCCHN. The combination of poor HRQoL and the impairment in daily activities, social life and employment illustrates the wider impact of R/M SCCHN on patients and their caregivers, and highlights a need for novel 1 L treatment regimens to improve the humanistic and productivity burdens of this cancer.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Nivolumab for Patients with Resected Esophageal Cancer or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer in France.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer (EC/GEJC) is a poor prognosis disease with a high risk of recurrence even in patients curatively resected. Adjuvant nivolumab is currently used for patients with completely resected (R0) EC/GEJC who have residual pathologic disease following prior neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. This study aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of nivolumab in this indication in France according to the collective perspective excluding indirect costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A simplified four-health-state semi-Markov model was developed to model EC/GEJC patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by R0 over a 15-year time horizon, comparing adjuvant nivolumab versus surveillance, which was the recommended French clinical practice before immunotherapy arrival. Time-to-recurrence (TTR) from CheckMate 577 was used to inform transition from disease-free to post-recurrence health state; patients who recurred were split according to the distribution of type of recurrence observed during the trial. Post-recurrence survival (PRS) according to the type of recurrence was derived from a real-world registry. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab led to an incremental survival gain of 1.19 years (+ 34%), mostly in the disease-free state, an incremental cost of €48,634 and QALY of 0.98 resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of €49,572/QALY with limited uncertainty. 'Cure assumption' at 5 years had an important impact on the results (€41,115/QALY; - 17%), as that tends to increase life-years and QALYs while costs remain the same. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed reference ICUR (€52,542/QALY) with 80% probability of nivolumab being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €75,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that adjuvant nivolumab is cost effective in the treatment of EC/GEJC patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant CRT followed by R0 resection. Compared with previously evaluated cost-effectiveness analyses for other immune-checkpoint inhibitors indicated in metastatic settings, ICUR appears particularly low in this early setting thanks to the important impact on health outcomes and capped treatment duration.

Disease-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in adults with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer: A correlation meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) using aggregate-level data from resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (EC/GEJC) trials assessing therapies in (neo)adjuvant and perioperative settings. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials reporting OS and DFS, or compatible progression-free survival (PFS). Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate correlation between the treatment effects on DFS/PFS and OS, and weighted linear regression models assuming trial sample sizes as weights were used to estimate surrogacy equations. The primary analysis consisted of trials across all treatment settings, and secondary analysis consisted of trials only in the adjuvant setting. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) was performed to measure the stability and predictive accuracy of the surrogacy equations while surrogate threshold effects (STE)-the minimum treatment effect on DFS/PFS that would translate into a positive OS benefit-were derived to measure their usefulness. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 26 trials. The estimated correlation coefficient between the hazard ratio (HR) of DFS/PFS (HRDFS/PFS) and HR of OS (HROS) was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.90). The estimated surrogacy equation was log(HROS) = 0.80 × log(HRDFS/PFS) with a corresponding STE of 0.82. Reported HROS was within the 95% prediction interval of the predicted HROS from the model for more than 95% of the trials in the LOOCV, indicating a valid model. Secondary analysis included 7 trials with an estimated correlation coefficient of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.18-0.95). Through LOOCV, the surrogacy equation in the adjuvant setting was deemed valid. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that HRDFS/PFS -where DFS/PFS is defined as time from resection to disease recurrence (local, locoregional, or distant) or death-is correlated to HROS, and a valid and useful surrogate predictor for HROS in the neoadjuvant, perioperative, or adjuvant settings.

Treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: a retrospective cohort study.

Aim: Investigate real-world outcomes and healthcare utilization of patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) related to O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter testing and methylation. Patients & methods: US Oncology Network data were analyzed for patients receiving first-line (1L) treatment for GBM. Results: Most patients received 1L radiation with temozolomide. Unadjusted median overall survival (OS) was higher in tested versus untested (median:18.1 vs 11.8 months) and in methylated versus unmethylated (median: 25.5 vs 12.4 months). Untested status, unmethylated MGMT and older age were associated with reduced OS and longer 1L treatment with increased OS. Similar findings were observed for progression-free survival. Utilization was similar between cohorts. Conclusion: In community oncology practices, MGMT methylation and testing were predictive of better survival in GBM.

Lay abstract We studied the characteristics and survival of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) in community-based oncology practices. These patients had received temozolomide and radiotherapy with surgery, which is the standard of care for GBM. We were interested in how patient survival was related to methylation of the O⁶-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter. The study showed that patients with methylated versus unmethylated MGMT GBM survived longer. However, patients who were tested for methylation, whether MGMT was methylated or not, also survived longer. This may be because patients who get tested also get better care in general.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: Point-in-Time Survey of Oncologists in Italy and Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (SCCHN) account for approximately 4% of all malignancies and are associated with high morbidity and poor prognosis. For patients who are not eligible for surgery or radiotherapy, treatment options are limited, especially for those with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) disease. Current European guidelines recommend first-line (1L) treatment with palliative chemotherapy, using biologic or platinum-based regimens. In the absence of new clinical trials in SCCHN, the use of real-world data has facilitated the assessment of treatment patterns and outcomes in different healthcare systems. This study reports on the 1L treatment of platinum-eligible patients with R/M SCCHN in Italy and Spain. METHODS: A point-in-time survey of the management of patients with R/M SCCHN was completed by clinical oncologists in Italy and Spain between October 2018 and February 2019. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were obtained by retrospective chart review, whilst participating patients self-reported the impact of their disease on their quality of life (QoL) and well-being. RESULTS: A total of 436 patients were recruited from Italy (216) and Spain (220). Patient demographics for both countries comprised mostly male patients, aged 65 years in Italy and 63 in Spain on average. The primary site for the SCCHN was the pharynx and 36% of patients had metastatic disease overall. EXTREME or cetuximab-based regimens were the most common treatments administered at 1L (52% in Italy and 78% in Spain). Scores on the FACT-G in both countries were substantially lower than those of the general and other advanced cancer populations, while scores on the EQ-5D were clinically meaningfully lower than local population norms. CONCLUSION: Despite 1L treatment of platinum-eligible patients with R/M SCCHN in Italy and Spain following current European guidelines, patients' QoL remains poor, which highlights the need for alternative treatments that could improve clinical outcomes.

Pooled analysis of nivolumab treatment in patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the United States and Germany.

BACKGROUND: In the Phase-III clinical trial, CheckMate 141, nivolumab significantly improved survival versus standard of care in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). METHODS: This pooled analysis investigated the real-world effectiveness of nivolumab, following prior platinum-based therapy, in patients with R/M SCCHN from the United States (US) Flatiron Health database and German HANNA prospective observational study. RESULTS: Overall, 782 patients (56% US; 44% Germany) were included. Median overall survival (OS) was 8.71 months, and progression-free survival was 4.11 months. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0 or 1, platinum sensitivity, and older age were associated with longer OS, in which number of prior lines of therapy had no significant effect. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate survival benefits of nivolumab in patients with R/M SCCHN in the real-world setting. The observed real-world effectiveness of nivolumab aligns with the efficacy of nivolumab in CheckMate 141.

Treatment Patterns and Economic Burden by Lines of Therapy Among Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Systemic Cancer Therapy.

PURPOSE: This study examined clinical and economic outcomes among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with systemic agents by line of therapy. METHODS: Adults with ≥ 2 medical claims for primary diagnosed HCC (from January 1, 2008, through September 30, 2015) and ≥ 1 claim for systemic HCC-related therapy were identified in the IBM MarketScan® Research Databases. Continuous enrollment was required 6 months before and 1 month after diagnosis. Patients were categorized into first- (1L) and second-line (2L) treatment cohorts; those receiving sorafenib as 1L were evaluated. Treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization, costs, and survival during 1L and 2L therapy were measured. Survival was assessed for patients linked to the Social Security Administration Master Death File. RESULTS: 1459 patients, 758 with death data, met the 1L cohort criteria; 163 patients, 87 with death data, later received 2L therapy. 77.1% had 1L sorafenib, alone or in combination. Median 1L treatment duration was 3.0 months; median survival time from start of 1L to death or censor was 6.8 months. There was no predominant 2L agent. Median 2L treatment duration was 3.0 months; median survival time from start of 2L was 9.3 months. Median total healthcare costs per patient per month were $13,297 for 1L (all), $13,471 for 1L (sorafenib), and $11,786 for 2L. CONCLUSIONS: Findings confirm high 1-year mortality for advanced HCC, suggesting a high cost burden. While no 2L therapy was available during this analysis, recently approved 2L agents have the potential to improve survival after sorafenib failure or intolerance.

Real-world treatment patterns, cost of care and effectiveness of therapies for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck pre and post approval of immuno-oncology agents.

Aims: In 2016, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were approved for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) following progression after initial platinum-based therapy. We sought to explore the uptake, effectiveness, and impact on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and total costs of care pre and post introduction of immuno-oncology (IO) agents.Materials and Methods: Recurrent/metastatic SCCHN patients were identified from a healthcare claims clearinghouse by selecting patients with a claim for distant metastases or who initiated systemic therapy at least 120 days following discontinuation of platinum-based therapy. Two cohorts were created according to the date of post-platinum therapy (PPT) initiation: pre-IO = 08/01/2014-07/31/2015; post-IO = 08/01/2016-07/31/2017. Treatment patterns and effectiveness (duration of treatment, time to next treatment) during first-line (1 L) PPT, HRU, and costs were compared between propensity-score matched patients from each cohort.Results: Of 716 patients identified (pre-IO = 265, post-IO = 451) 46.3% of post-IO patients received IO post-platinum. In 229 matched patients 20.0% of the post-IO compared to 10.7% of the pre-IO (p=.02) had at least a 6 month duration of 1 L PPT. Inpatient admissions during 1 L PPT: 34.1% post-IO versus 48.0% pre-IO (p= <.01). PPPM total costs of care in 1 L PPT were significantly greater post-IO ($11,535) compared to pre-IO ($9,054, p=.002). Time to next treatment (from 1 L PPT start) was 6.1 months pre-IO versus 7.4 months post-IO (p=.046).Limitations: Recurrent SCCHN patients were identified using a validated claims-based algorithm but misclassification may occur. Requiring patients to have received 1 L PPT the pre-IO cohort may be systematically different that the post-IO cohort as pre-IO patients were more likely to have not received further treatment beyond 1 L PPT.Conclusions: The significant uptake of IO therapy resulted in longer durations of therapy, lower rates of hospitalizations although higher treatment costs. The results suggest IO treatment provides additional clinical benefits to recurrent/metastatic SCCHN patients.

Survival, costs, and health care resource use by line of therapy in US Medicare patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is associated with poor prognosis, large morbidity burden, and limited treatment options. This analysis evaluated real-world treatment patterns, overall survival, resource use, and costs among Medicare patients with GBM. METHODS: This retrospective observational study evaluated Medicare patients age 66 years or older with newly diagnosed GBM using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data from 2007 through 2013. Patients were followed from diagnosis to death or end of follow-up. An algorithm defined treatment patterns as lines of therapy (LOTs). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival for the full sample as well as by LOT, surgical resection, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), tumor size, and age. Resource use and costs during the follow-up period were reported in terms of total and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) estimates. RESULTS: A total of 4308 patients with GBM were identified (median age, 74 years; CCI of 0, 52%). The most commonly used first LOT was temozolomide (82%), whereas chemotherapy + bevacizumab was most prevalent for second-line (42%) and third-line (58%) therapy. The median overall survival was 5.9 months for resected patients and 3 months for unresected patients, with considerable heterogeneity depending on patient characteristics. A great proportion of patients had claims for an ICU admission (86.2%), skilled nursing facility (76.9%), and home health (56.0%) in the postdiagnosis period. The cumulative mean cost was $95 377 per patient and $18 053 PPPM, mostly attributed to hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Limited treatment options, poor survival, and economic burden emphasize the need for novel interventions to improve care for Medicare patients with GBM.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the United States.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in the US.Methods: We constructed a cohort-based partitioned survival model for three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death). Using overall survival and progression-free survival data from the nivolumab and investigator's choice (IC) arms of the CheckMate 141 study, the proportion of patients in each health state was estimated by parametric modeling over a 25-year period. Cost, utility, adverse event, and disease management data inputs were obtained from relevant literature and applied to patients in each health state. A scenario analysis was conducted assuming increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of variation in multiple parameters. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which probabilistic distributions were applied to each input during 1,000 model iterations was also conducted.Results: Total costs incurred were higher with nivolumab ($101,552) than with IC ($38,067). Nivolumab was associated with a higher number of life-years (LY; 1.21) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 0.89), compared with IC (0.68 and 0.42, respectively). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab compared with IC was $134,438 per QALY, and this remained qualitatively similar when increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies was assumed ($129,603 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings.Conclusions: These results suggest that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, nivolumab is a cost-effective option for therapy of SCCHN in the US.

A Real-World Claims Analysis of Costs and Patterns of Care in Treated Patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have a poor prognosis and high likelihood of recurrence. Routine care for incident cases in the United States involves surgical resection, followed by radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Real-world data reporting the treatments and health care burden associated with GBM are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess patterns of care, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs associated with treatment of GBM in the United States. METHODS: This study is a retrospective claims database analysis. Adult patients with a GBM diagnosis (index date) between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2016, who had undergone brain surgery within 90 days of the index date, had received temozolomide and/or RT up to 90 days after index date, and had at least 6 months of continuous enrollment before the index date, were identified. Patients were excluded if they had (a) another primary cancer within 6 months pre-index, (b) secondary brain metastases, or (c) received temozolomide and/or RT pre-index. Baseline characteristics, treatments, HCRU, and costs were reported. First-line therapy began upon first receipt of RT and/or temozolomide after index date; second-line therapy began when a new drug was added > 28 days after initiation of first-line therapy or when there was a treatment gap > 90 days. Treatment regimens, duration of treatment (corrected group prognosis method), HCRU, and costs were reported descriptively in the 0- to 6-month and 7- to 12-month periods following initiation of first-line and second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between patients receiving temozolomide and/or RT. Patients receiving RT without chemotherapy tended to be older, be retired, and have more baseline comorbidities. Of the 4,071 patients receiving first-line therapy for GBM, most (73.0%) received temozolomide + RT; 24.4% received RT; and 2.5% received temozolomide monotherapy. Of those receiving first-line therapy, 1,283 (31.5%) patients subsequently received second-line therapy: 39.4% received bevacizumab monotherapy; 28.9% received bevacizumab combination therapy (temozolomide, 45.2% of patients; irinotecan, 24.3%; and temozolomide + lomustine, 15.4%); 15.5% received temozolomide monotherapy; and 13.7% received other systemic cancer therapies. The proportion of patients with hospitalizations increased from 2.9% (4-6 months pre-index) to 20.8% in the 3 months before the index date (likely due to diagnostic procedures) and 28.1% in the first 6 months after index (likely due to surgery) and then decreased to 13.3% in the 7- to 12-month period after index. Mean total per-patient costs at 6 and 12 months were $117,325 and $162,550 (first line) and $126,128 and $243,833 (second line). Costs in all time periods were largely driven by costs of RT/systemic cancer therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with newly diagnosed GBM received treatment according to recommendations. However, relatively few patients received second-line therapy, and the HCRU burden and costs associated with both lines of therapy were substantial. Novel therapies for GBM are required to improve treatment options and outcomes in these patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (Princeton Pike, NJ). Neither honoraria nor payments were provided for authorship. Norden received consultancy fees relating to this study from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dastani, Korytowsky, Le, Singh, and You are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dastani and Korytowsky are shareholders of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bobiak was an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of this study. Preliminary data from this study were previously presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 22nd Annual International Meeting in Boston, MA, May 20-24, 2017.

Treatment and discharge patterns among patients hospitalized with non-valvular atrial fibrillation transitioning from the inpatient to outpatient setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate inpatient oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment, discharge location, and post-discharge OAC treatment for patients hospitalized with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective study using claims data linked to hospital electronic health records (EHR). Patients (n = 2,484) were hospitalized with a primary (38%) or secondary (62%) diagnosis of AF without evidence of mitral valvular heart disease or valve replacement between January 2009 and September 2013. Inpatient OAC treatment was identified from EHR data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inpatient and post-discharge OAC treatment [direct OAC (DOAC; apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran), warfarin, no OAC] and discharge location (long-term care, home health-care, home self-care). RESULTS: Mean age was 72.6 years, 61.2% were male, and 89.5% had a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. Overall, 6.4% received a DOAC, 38.0% warfarin, and 55.6% no OAC during hospitalization. Compared to other treatment groups, patients receiving DOAC were younger and more likely to be male. The majority (72.2%) were discharged to home health-care, 13.2% home self-care, and 6.0% long-term care. Among patients who were treated with warfarin during hospitalization, 40.3% filled a warfarin prescription within 30 days post-discharge, whereas among patients who were treated with a DOAC, 52.4% filled a DOAC prescription within 30 days post-discharge. Some NVAF patients not treated with an OAC during hospitalization filled a prescription for warfarin (18.0%) or DOAC (1.9%) within 30 days post-discharge. Results were similar among patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients hospitalized for NVAF were discharged to home support, and the majority did not have OAC treatment during hospitalization or the 30 days post-discharge. Additional investigation should be conducted on trends beyond 30 days post-hospitalization, and the reasons for not receiving anticoagulation therapy in patients at moderate-to-severe risk of stroke or systemic embolism. Helping to avoid preventable strokes is an important goal for public health.

Warfarin Management and Outcomes in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Within an Integrated Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is a common treatment option to manage patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in clinical practice. Understanding current pharmacist-led anticoagulation clinic management patterns and associated outcomes is important for quality improvement; however, currently little evidence associating outcomes with management patterns exists. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe warfarin management patterns and (b) evaluate associations between warfarin treatment and clinical outcomes for patients with NVAF in an integrated health care system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among NVAF patients with warfarin therapy between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2011, using Kaiser Permanente Southern California data, and followed until December 31, 2013. Management patterns related to international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring, anticoagulation clinic pharmacist intervention (consultation), and warfarin dose adjustments were investigated along with yearly attrition rates, time-in-therapeutic ranges (TTRs), and clinical outcomes (stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding). Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine associations between TTR and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 32,074 NVAF patients on warfarin treatment were identified and followed for a median of 3.8 years. About half (49%) of the patients were newly initiating warfarin therapy. INR monitoring and pharmacist interventions were conducted roughly every 3 weeks after 6 months of warfarin treatment. Sixty-three percent of the study population had ≥ 1 warfarin dose adjustments with a mean (SD) of 6.7 (6.3) annual dose adjustments. Warfarin dose adjustments occurred at a median of 1 day (interquartile ranges [IQR] 1-3) after the INR measurement. Yearly attrition rate was from 3.3% to 6.3% during the follow-up, and median (IQR) TTR was 61% (46%-73%). Patients who received frequent INR monitoring (≥ 27 times per year), pharmacist interventions (≥ 24 times per year), or frequently adjusted warfarin dose (≥ 11 times per year) consistently showed poor TTRs (mean TTR for the highest quartiles was 45.3%-48.3%). A higher TTR was associated with a lower risk of clinical outcomes regardless of frequency of INR monitoring, pharmacist interventions, or number of dose adjustments. Patients whose TTRs were < 65%, even with frequent pharmacist interventions, had similar stroke or systemic embolism event rates, as compared with patients with TTRs < 65% and less frequent interventions (1.88 vs. 1.54 stroke or systemic embolism rates per 100 person-years, respectively, P = 0.78). The lowest TTR quartile (< 46%) was associated with a 3 times higher risk of stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.19, 95% CI = 2.71-3.77) and a 2 times higher risk of major bleeding (HR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.96-2.24) compared with the highest TTR quartile (≥ 73%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite close monitoring with timely warfarin dose adjustments, there were still a substantial number of challenging patients whose TTRs were suboptimal despite a higher number of pharmacist interventions. These patients eventually experienced more stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding events among NVAF patients managed by anticoagulation clinics. New individualized treatment or management strategies for patients who are not able to reach optimal therapeutic ranges are necessary to improve outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This research and manuscript were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer. Authors from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, review/revision of the manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. An received a grant for research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Niu, Rashid, and Zheng received a grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer to their institutions for salary reimbursement. Vo, Singh, and Aranda are employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bruno was employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of this study. Mendes and Dills are employed by Pfizer, and Mendes was a member of the Pfizer Cardiovascular and Metabolic Field Medical Team during the time of this study. Lang, Jazdzewski, and Le have no known conflicts of interest to report. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by An and Rashid, along with the other authors. Niu took the lead in data collection, along with Zheng, and data interpretation was performed by An, along with Mendes and Dills, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by An and revised by Mendes, Dills, Vo, Singh, Bruno, and Aranda, along with Lang, Le, and Jazdezewski. Part of this study's findings was presented at the CHEST 2015 Annual Meeting in Montreal, Canada, on October 28, 2015.

Comparison of hospital length of stay and hospitalization costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with apixaban or warfarin: An early view.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify and compare hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs between hospitalized non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients treated with either apixaban or warfarin via a large claims database. METHODS: Adult patients hospitalized with AF were selected from the Premier Perspective Claims Database (01JAN2013-31MARCH2014). Patients with evidence of valvular heart disease, valve replacement procedures, or pregnancy during the index hospitalization were excluded. Patients treated with apixaban or warfarin during hospitalization were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for baseline imbalances between patients treated with apixaban or warfarin. Primary outcomes were hospital LOS (days), post-medication administration LOS, and index hospitalization costs, and were compared using paired t-tests in the matched sample. RESULTS: Before PSM, 2894 apixaban and 124,174 warfarin patients were identified. Patients treated with warfarin were older and sicker compared to those treated with apixaban. After applying PSM, a total of 2886 patients were included in each cohort, and baseline characteristics were balanced. The mean (standard deviation [SD] and median) hospital LOS was significantly (p = 0.002) shorter for patients treated with apixaban for 5.1 days (5.7 and 3) compared to warfarin for 5.5 days (4.8 and 4). The trend appeared consistent in the hospital LOS from point of apixaban or warfarin administration to discharge (4.5 vs 4.7 days, p = 0.051). Patients administered apixaban incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs compared to those administered warfarin ($11,262 vs $12,883; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among NVAF patients, apixaban treatment was associated with significantly shorter hospital LOS and lower costs when compared to warfarin treatment.

Warfarin time in therapeutic range and its impact on healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is efficacious for reducing stroke risk among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, the efficacy and safety of warfarin are influenced by its time in therapeutic range (TTR). OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in healthcare resource utilization and costs among NVAF patients with low (<60%) and high (≥60%) warfarin TTRs in an integrated delivery network (IDN) setting. METHODS: Patients with NVAF were identified from an electronic medical record database. Patients were required to have ≥6 international normalized prothrombin time ratio (INR) tests. NVAF patients were grouped into two cohorts: those with warfarin TTR <60% (low TTR) and those with warfarin TTR ≥60% (high TTR). Healthcare resource utilization and costs were evaluated during a 12 month follow-up period. Multivariable regressions were used to assess the impact of different warfarin TTRs on healthcare costs. RESULTS: Among the study population, greater than half (54%, n = 1595) had a low TTR, and 46% (n = 1356) had a high TTR. Total all-cause healthcare resource utilization was higher among patients in the low TTR cohort vs. the high TTR cohort (number of encounters: 70.2 vs. 56.1, p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient characteristics, total all-cause healthcare costs and stroke-related healthcare costs were $2398 (p < 0.001) and $687 (p = 0.02) higher, respectively, for patients in the low TTR cohort vs. the high TTR cohort. LIMITATIONS: In this retrospective study, we were only able to evaluate the association and not the causality between healthcare resource utilization and costs with the different warfarin TTRs. CONCLUSION: Many warfarin-treated NVAF patients have a low warfarin TTR. NVAF patients with low vs. patients with high warfarin TTR used healthcare resources to a greater extent, which was reflected in higher healthcare costs.