Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/farmacologia , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Idoso , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Estudos Transversais , Aprovação de Drogas , Interações Medicamentosas , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologia , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug AdministrationRESUMO
BACKGROUND: An estimated 10-15% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases present with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm). While EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) such as osimertinib have become first-line (1L) standard of care for these patients, limited chemotherapy use still occurs in real-world practice. Studies of healthcare resource use (HRU) and cost of care provide a means by which the value of various treatment regimens, healthcare efficiency, and disease burden can be assessed. These studies are important for population health decision makers and health systems that prioritize value-based care to drive population health. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to descriptively assess HRU and costs among patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC initiating 1L therapy in the United States. METHODS: IBM MarketScan Research Databases (January 1, 2017 to April 30, 2020) were used to identify adult patients with advanced NSCLC, based on a diagnosis for lung cancer (LC) and initiation of 1L therapy or diagnosis of metastases within 30 days of the first LC diagnosis. All patients had ≥ 12 months of continuous insurance eligibility prior to the first LC diagnosis and initiated (in 2018 or after) an EGFR-TKI during any line of therapy to proxy EGFRm status. Per-patient-per-month all-cause HRU and costs were described during 1L for patients initiating 1L osimertinib or chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients with advanced EGFRm NSCLC were identified (mean age at 1L initiation: 60.9 years; 69.0% female). In 1L, 66.2% initiated osimertinib, 21.1% chemotherapy, and 12.7% another regimen. Mean 1L therapy duration was 8.8 months (osimertinib) and 7.6 months (chemotherapy), respectively. Among osimertinib recipients, 28% had an inpatient admission, 40% an emergency room (ER) visit, and 99% an outpatient visit. Among chemotherapy recipients, these proportions were 22%, 31%, and 100%. Mean monthly all-cause healthcare costs among osimertinib and chemotherapy patients were US$27,174 and US$23,343, respectively. Among osimertinib recipients, drug-related costs (including pharmacy and outpatient antineoplastic drug and administration costs) made up 61% (US$16,673) of total costs, inpatient costs 20% (US$5462), and other outpatient costs 16% (US$4432). In chemotherapy recipients, 59% (US$13,883) of total costs were drug-related, 5% (US$1166) were inpatient costs, and 33% (US$7734) other outpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Higher mean total cost of care was observed among patients receiving 1L TKI (osimertinib) than 1L chemotherapy in EGFRm advanced NSCLC. However, descriptive differences in type of spending and HRU were identified: higher inpatient costs and inpatient days for osimertinib versus higher outpatient costs for chemotherapy. Findings suggest that significant unmet needs may remain for 1L treatment of EGFRm NSCLC, and despite significant advances in targeted care, further individualized therapies are needed to balance benefits, risks, and total cost of care. Furthermore, observed descriptive differences in inpatient admissions may have implications for quality of care and patient quality of life, for which additional research is warranted.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory diseases (CIDs; ankylosing spondylitis [AS], psoriatic arthritis [PsA], psoriasis [PsO], or rheumatoid arthritis [RA]) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis) are associated with substantial economic burden. The relative increased costs among patients with CIDs and concomitant IBD compared to those without IBD is an important consideration when deciding on the clinical management of patient symptoms. Given the increasing use of novel agents for the treatment of CIDs, including those that may increase the risk of IBD in patients with CIDs, the objective of the study was to describe the incidence of IBD and to quantify healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with IBD among patients with CIDs. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan® Research Databases (1/2010-7/2017) were used to identify adult patients with ≥2 claims with a diagnosis of either AS/PsA/PsO/RA (index date was a random claim for AS/PsA/PsO/RA). The one-year incidence rate of IBD was calculated following the index date. HRU and healthcare costs were compared between patients developing and not developing IBD in the year following the index date, adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 537,450 patients with CIDs (mean age = 54.0 years; 63.1% female) were included in the study. The 1-year incidence rate of IBD was 0.52% (range = 0.39% in patients with PsO but without PsA to 1.73% in patients with AS). Patients who developed IBD (N = 2778) had significantly higher rates of inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room visits (incidence rate ratios [IRR] = 2.91, 1.35, 1.81; all P < 0.0001), compared to patients without IBD (N = 534,672). Patients who developed IBD had $18,500 (P < 0.0001) higher total costs per year, including $15,121 (P < 0.0001) higher medical costs and $3380 higher pharmacy costs (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Higher HRU and costs were observed in patients with concomitant CID and IBD compared to patients with CID alone. Consideration should be given to treatment decisions that adequately manage CID and IBD to ensure optimal clinical and economic outcomes.
RESUMO
Objectives: (1) To assess the real-world incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in patients with or without other chronic inflammatory diseases (CIDs), and (2) to understand whether IBD incidence differs in CID patients receiving interleukin-17a signaling antagonists (anti-IL-17a) or phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors (PDE4i) versus patients using a biologic not indicated for IBD or biologic-naïve patients. Methods: The MarketScan Research Databases (January 2010-July 2017) were used. A CID population was created from patients with ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The CID population was stratified into different cohorts based on the baseline treatments received: (1) anti-IL-17a, (2) PDE4i, (3) biologic-naïve, and (4) non-IBD-indicated biologic (i.e. biologics not indicated for the treatment of IBD and excluding anti-IL-17a and PDE4i); a non-CID cohort was also created. The 1 year incidence rate (IR) of IBD was compared between cohorts using a logistic regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results: CID cohorts included older patients than the non-CID cohort (mean age range: 48.4-54.4 versus 46.3 years). The 1 year IR of IBD was 1.41% in the anti-IL-17a cohort (N = 355), 0.68% in the PDE4i cohort (N = 2195), 0.47% in the biologic-naïve cohort (N = 424,767), 0.51% in the non-IBD-indicated biologic cohort (N = 56,317) cohort and 0.25% in the non-CID cohort (N = 1,008,436). After 1 year of follow-up, the odds of having IBD were 2.85 (p = .0213) and 1.42 (p = .1891) times higher in the anti-IL-17a and PDE4i cohorts, respectively, compared to the biologic-naïve cohort, and 2.86 (p = .0253) and 1.21 (p = .4978) times higher compared to the non-IBD-indicated biologic cohort. Similar results were observed in sensitivity analyses where patients with RA only were excluded (since anti-IL-17a and PDE4i agents are not indicated for RA). Conclusions: Anti-IL-17a treatment was associated with a nearly three-fold higher risk of IBD in CID patients. Treatment decisions for patients with CIDs should take into account the risk of developing of IBD.
Assuntos
Artrite Psoriásica/tratamento farmacológico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/epidemiologia , Interleucina-17/antagonistas & inibidores , Inibidores da Fosfodiesterase 4/uso terapêutico , Psoríase/tratamento farmacológico , Espondilite Anquilosante/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Doença Crônica , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare treatment patterns and infusion-related health care resource expenditures for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating golimumab for intravenous use (GLM-IV) and infliximab (IFX) therapy and to assess cost implications from the commercial perspective. METHODS: Adult RA patients with a new episode of GLM-IV or IFX treatment between Janu-ary 1, 2014 and March 31, 2016 were identified from MarketScan databases and evaluated for maintenance infusion intervals and related costs of treatment. IFX and GLM-IV patients were matched 1:1 on index medication treatment duration, gender, payer type, prior biologic use, and post-index methotrexate use. Paid amounts for drugs and associated administration costs were applied to treatment group dosing patterns. RESULTS: Final matched treatment groups included 547 GLM-IV and 547 IFX patients (mean age = 55-56 years). Mean (SD) follow-up was 609 (161) days for GLM-IV and 613 (163) days for IFX. Treatment duration was 396 (240) days for GLM-IV and 397 (239) days for IFX. Overall, 80% of GLM-IV and 39% of IFX maintenance infusions were given approximately every 8 weeks; and 6% of GLM-IV and 53% of IFX maintenance infusions occurred more frequently than every 8 weeks (P<0.001). When weighting of the maintenance infusion interval was applied, the mean number of induction plus maintenance infusions during the first year of treatment was estimated at 7.03 for GLM-IV and 9.48 for IFX. From the commercial perspective, drug plus administration costs per infusion were $5,846 for GLM-IV and $5,444 for IFX with total annual cost of therapy for GLM-IV patients costing $10,507 less than that for IFX patients in the first year and $6,774 less than that for IFX patients in subsequent years. CONCLUSION: Annual GLM-IV drug plus administration costs for commercial health plans were significantly less than IFX in RA patients due to differences in real-world dosing and administration.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To assess real-world infusion times for golimumab (GLM-IV) and infliximab (IFX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and factors associated with treatment satisfaction. METHODS: An observational study assessed infusion time including: clinic visit duration, RA medication preparation and infusion time, and infusion process time. Satisfaction was assessed by a modified Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (patient) and study-specific questionnaires (patient and clinic personnel). Comparative statistical testing for patient data utilized analysis of variance for continuous measures, and Fisher's exact or Chi-square test for categorical measures. Multivariate analysis was performed for the primary time endpoints and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients were enrolled from six US sites (72 GLM-IV, 78 IFX). The majority of patients were female (80.0%) and Caucasian (88.7%). GLM-IV required fewer vials per infusion (3.7) compared to IFX (4.9; p = .0001). Clinic visit duration (minutes) was shorter for GLM-IV (65.1) compared to IFX (153.1; p < .0001), as was total infusion time for RA medication (32.8 GLM-IV, 119.5 IFX; p < .0001) and infusion process times (45.8 GLM-IV, 134.1 IFX; p < .0001). Patients treated with GLM-IV reported higher satisfaction ratings with infusion time (p < .0001) and total visit time (p = .0003). Clinic personnel reported higher satisfaction with GLM-IV than IFX specific to medication preparation time, ease of mixing RA medication, frequency of patients requiring pre-medication, and infusion time. LIMITATIONS: Findings may not be representative of care delivery for all RA infusion practices or RA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter overall clinic visit duration, infusion process, and RA medication infusion times were observed for GLM-IV compared to IFX. A shorter duration in infusion time was associated with higher patient and clinic personnel satisfaction ratings.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Infliximab/uso terapêutico , Satisfação do Paciente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anticorpos Monoclonais/administração & dosagem , Antirreumáticos/administração & dosagem , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Infliximab/administração & dosagem , Infusões Intravenosas , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
PURPOSE: Biosimilar IFX (CT-P13) received marketing approval in Turkey for treatment of rheumatologic diseases, including ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and psoriasis. Population data on real-world treatment patterns of CT-P13 following marketing approval in European countries are largely unreported. This study examined the prescribing and medication utilization patterns of innovator infliximab (IFX) and CT-P13 in Turkey for patients with RA or IBD naïve to either IFX. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with ≥1 diagnosis claim for RA or IBD and ≥1 claim for IFX or CT-P13 were identified in the Turkish Ministry of Health database during the following identification periods: 1 Oct 2014-30 May 2015 (RA) and 1 Oct 2014-31 Dec 2015 (IBD). Continuous medical and pharmacy coverage for ≥12 months before and after the date of the first dose (index) IFX or CT-P13 was also required. Separate analyses were done for each population. RESULTS: Seven hundred and seventy nine adult RA and 581 IBD patients met the selection criteria. The majority of RA (74%; n=575) and IBD patients (87%; n=504) were initiated on IFX. The average study observation period was 16 months for the RA and 12 months for the IBD population. Over the observation periods, discontinuation among RA patients occurred in 42% of IFX and 63% of CT-P13 while discontinuation in the IBD cohort occurred in 38% of IFX; and 62% of CT-P13. CONCLUSION: In this population-based study, more IFX-naïve RA and IBD patients were initially treated with IFX than CT-P13. Discontinuation and switching were observed more often and earlier among patients treated with CT-P13 regardless of disease state. Further studies are needed to understand the reasons for these observed differences.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: This study compared treatment patterns of Turkish patients with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were treated with innovator Remicade® (infliximab [IFX]) and either continued IFX or switched to CT-P13. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult RA patients with ≥1 IFX claim were identified from the Turkish Ministry of Health database. Eligible patients initiated and continued IFX treatment (continuers cohort [CC]) or initiated IFX and switched to CT-P13 (switchers cohort [SC]) during the study period. The initial IFX claim date was defined as the index date. The switch/reference date was defined as the CT-P13 switch date for the SC or a random IFX date during the period of CT-P13 availability for the CC. Cohorts were matched by age, sex, and number of IFX prescriptions during baseline. Patient demographics, discontinuation, and switching were summarized. The baseline period was defined as the period from the index date to the switch/reference date. The follow-up period ranged from the switch/reference date to the end of data availability. RESULTS: After matching, 697 patients were selected: 605 patients for the CC and 92 patients for the SC. Mean IFX duration for the baseline period was 422 days in the CC and 438 days in the SC. Median time on any infused tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist therapy was 1,080 days in the CC and 540 days in the SC during the study period. During the follow-up period, discontinuation was lower in the CC (CC=33.9% vs SC=87.5%; P<0.001). The mean time to discontinuation was longer in the CC (CC=276 days vs SC=132 days; P<0.001). A switch to another biologic medication during the follow-up period was observed in 19.0% of patients in the CC (n=115) and 81.5% of patients in the SC (n=75; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Treatment patterns differed between patients prescribed IFX and CT-P13. In Turkey, RA patients maintained on IFX had greater treatment persistence (ie, fewer and later discontinuations) than those who initiated IFX and switched to CT-P13.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patient perceptions of treatment success, including satisfaction/preference, may complement clinical efficacy assessments. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate satisfaction with subcutaneous golimumab and its auto-injector in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate adalimumab/etanercept response. METHODS: In the multicenter, assessor-blinded GO-SAVE study, 433 patients with active RA (28-joint Disease Activity Score incorporating erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≥ 3.6 and six or more swollen and six or more tender joints) despite methotrexate and past adalimumab/etanercept treatment received open-label subcutaneous golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (q4w) through week 12. Week 16 responders (DAS28-ESR improvement from baseline > 1.2 and score ≤ 3.2) continued therapy through week 52; nonresponders were randomized (1:2) to double-blind subcutaneous golimumab 50 mg q4w or intravenous golimumab 2 mg/kg [weeks 16, 20, every 8 weeks (q8w)]. Patients rated satisfaction with their injection experience on a 5-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied) at screening, week 8 (all enrolled patients), and week 44 (for patients continuing open-label subcutaneous golimumab 50 mg q4w). Discomfort, pain, stinging, burning, and redness related to injection were assessed (none, mild, moderate, severe). RESULTS: Similar proportions of patients (N = 433) had most recently received adalimumab (50.3%) or etanercept (49.7%) prior to golimumab. Overall satisfaction (somewhat/very) with the golimumab injection experience was reported by 84.4% of patients at week 8 versus 63.4% of patients who were satisfied with prior adalimumab/etanercept. Patients receiving open-label subcutaneous golimumab through week 44 (N = 75) reported much less discomfort (60.9%), redness (60.9%), pain (59.4%), stinging (67.2%), and burning (65.6%) with the golimumab injection than with their previous tumor necrosis factor antagonist medication injection. CONCLUSION: Most patients with RA receiving golimumab following adalimumab/etanercept inadequate response were satisfied with their overall golimumab experience, including its auto-injector versus their previous injection device. CLINICAL TRIALS.GOV: NCT01004432; EudraCT 2009-010582-23.
Assuntos
Adalimumab/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Etanercepte/uso terapêutico , Preferência do Paciente/psicologia , Preferência do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Injeções Subcutâneas , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of and overall survival associated with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) treatments rely on patients' consistent adherence to the recommended dosage regimens. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate treatment patterns and patient adherence to abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide therapy in real-world practice, and to examine the factors that may be associated with medication dose reduction in patients with metastatic CRPC. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan research databases among patients with metastatic CRPC who initiated treatment with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 2014 (index date). The patients were followed for up to 12 months, and their baseline characteristics were assessed during the 6 months before the index date. Medication adherence was measured at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postindex using medication possession ratios (MPRs), and dose reduction was measured using refill gaps and relative dose intensity over the entire observation period. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between the initial treatment and the risk for dose reduction. RESULTS: The study included 2591 and 807 patients who initiated treatment with abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide, respectively. At 6, 9, and 12 months postindex, the patients who initiated abiraterone acetate had higher MPRs than the patients who initiated enzalutamide. In addition, the patients who initiated abiraterone acetate had lower Kaplan-Meier rates of dose reduction across 4 measurements for dose reduction. All hazard ratios for treatment (abiraterone acetate vs enzalutamide) were significantly lower than 1 (range, 0.57-0.80), indicating a lower risk for dose reduction associated with abiraterone acetate. CONCLUSION: Patients who initiated abiraterone acetate therapy had higher medication adherence and lower risk for dose reduction than those who initiated enzalutamide therapy. Improved medication adherence may be associated with longer duration of treatment, which in turn may lead to better survival. Further research is needed to assess the potential effect of medication adherence on the overall survival of patients with metastatic CRPC.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Central nervous system (CNS) events are frequently reported among patients with advanced prostate cancer as a consequence of the treatments used in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of CNS events in patients with advanced prostate cancer who initiated treatment with abiraterone acetate, bicalutamide, enzalutamide, or chemotherapy. METHODS: The Truven Health MarketScan Research databases were used to retrospectively identify patients with prostate cancer who initiated treatment with abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, bicalutamide, or chemotherapy after September 1, 2012 (ie, the index date). The chemotherapy agents included cabazitaxel, docetaxel, mitoxantrone hydrochloride, and estramustine, and were used as monotherapy or as combination therapy. Patients were followed until December 31, 2014, the end of exposure to treatment, or until loss to follow-up. Kaplan-Meier rates and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the incidence of CNS events between the abiraterone acetate cohort and the other cohorts. A sensitivity analysis of patients with a diagnosis of metastasis was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 1067 patients receiving abiraterone acetate, 5524 receiving bicalutamide, 592 receiving enzalutamide, and 256 receiving chemotherapy were identified. After 12 months, patients who received abiraterone acetate were less likely to have a CNS event than patients who received enzalutamide (39.5% vs 46.0%, respectively; P = .0036) or chemotherapy (39.5% vs 51.1%, respectively; P = .0277), and were more likely to have a CNS event than patients who received bicalutamide (39.5% vs 34.2%, respectively; P = .0397). After multivariate adjustment, at 12 months, patients who initiated abiraterone acetate treatment had 20% (P = .0388) reduction in the risk for a CNS event compared with patients who initiated enzalutamide; 8% (P = .3622) versus bicalutamide; and 27% (P = .0456) versus chemotherapy. The sensitivity analysis yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: The results of this large observational study suggest that among patients with metastatic prostate cancer, treatment with abiraterone acetate is associated with a significantly lower likelihood of having a CNS event compared with treatment with enzalutamide or chemotherapy, but not with bicalutamide, even when controlling for metastatic disease.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ) are oral therapies offering survival benefit to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Despite the availability of multiple treatment options for mCRPC, there is a lack of information on the effect that being initiated on AA or ENZ has on the combined prostate cancer treatment duration. OBJECTIVE: To compare the combined duration of prostate cancer treatments of patients initiated on AA with that of patients initiated on ENZ. METHODS: Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases from March 2012 to December 2014 were used to identify males with prostate cancer initiated on AA or ENZ (index therapy). Baseline characteristics were assessed during the 6 months pre-index. Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) were used to reduce baseline confounding. Treatment duration spanned from the index date to the earliest of treatment discontinuation (defined as a > 60-day gap in treatment), 24 months post-index, health plan disenrollment, or end of data. Weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the combined duration of mCRPC treatments (AA, ENZ, chemotherapy, sipuleucel-T, and radium 223) and any prostate cancer treatments (mCRPC, hormonal, and corticosteroid treatments) between patients initiated on either AA or ENZ. RESULTS: A total of 2,591 patients initiated on AA and 807 patients initiated on ENZ were selected for the study. Patients' characteristics were generally well balanced after IPTW. At 3 months, patients initiated on AA were associated with fewer discontinuations of mCRPC treatments (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, P = 0.004) or of any prostate cancer treatments (HR = 0.61, P = 0.002), compared with patients initiated on ENZ. This result was maintained at 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months for mCRPC treatments (HR = 0.75, P < 0.001) and for any prostate cancer treatments (HR = 0.69, P < 0.001). Median duration of mCRPC treatments was 4.1 months longer for patients initiated on AA compared with those initiated on ENZ (18.3 vs. 14.2 months, P < 0.001) and similarly, the median duration of any prostate cancer treatment was longer for patients initiated on AA compared with those initiated on ENZ (not reached vs. 22.2 months, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients initiated on AA, compared with those initiated on ENZ, had a longer combined duration of mCRPC or prostate cancer treatments. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Pilon, Emond, and Lefebvre are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting company that has received research grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs. Behl and Ellis are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs and stockholders in Johnson & Johnson. Dawson is on the speakers bureau for Janssen, Astellas, and Sanofi Aventis. Emond reports grants from Regeneron, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Aegerion, Bayer, Novartis, Allergan, Millenium, and Genentech. Pilon reports grants from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Bayer. Lefebvre reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Bayer, Medtronic, Noven, and Novo Nordisk. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Pilon and Lefebvre, along with the other authors. Pilon, Emond, and Lefebre collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Behl, Lefebvre, and Dawson, along with Pilon, Ellis, and Emond, The manuscript was written by Pilon, Emond, and Lefebvre and revised by Behl, Ellis, and Dawson.
Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Acetato de Abiraterona/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Benzamidas , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nitrilas , Feniltioidantoína/administração & dosagem , Feniltioidantoína/análogos & derivados , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Estudos Retrospectivos , Extratos de Tecidos/administração & dosagem , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Although the monitoring of patients with advanced prostate cancer is essential to optimize treatment, little is known about adherence to guidelines. In this study we compared testing practices at an integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice with evidence-based guidelines and best practices. METHODS: Electronic medical records up to December 2014 from the integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice were queried to identify patients who received androgen deprivation therapy and in whom advanced disease was staged as androgen deprivation therapy sensitive, subcastration resistant (incompletely defined probable castration resistant prostate cancer) or castration resistant after April 2011 and for 6 months or more. Frequency of prostate specific antigen and testosterone level testing as well as imaging (magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography, positron emission tomography/computerized tomography, bone scan or x-ray) was evaluated, and compared to national guidelines and best practices. RESULTS: Overall 346 patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive prostate cancer, 90 with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and 102 with castration resistant prostate cancer met the study inclusion criteria. On average, prostate specific antigen was tested every 4.7, 3.7 and 3.3 months for patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive disease, subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively, compared with the 3 to 12 months and 3 months recommendations of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and RADAR (Prostate Cancer Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence) for patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive disease and nonmetastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively. Testosterone levels were assessed within 6 months of classification for 23% and 46% of patients with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively. Finally, 28% and 46% of patients with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively, underwent some type of imaging within 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study of patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy at a particular integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice demonstrated adherence to prostate specific antigen best practices. However, there was some room for improvement in terms of testosterone testing and imaging.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To calculate costs per median overall survival (OS) month in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA + P) or enzalutamide. METHODS: Median treatment duration and median OS data from published Phase 3 clinical trials and prescribing information were used to calculate costs per median OS month based on wholesale acquisition costs (WACs) for patients with mCRPC treated with AA + P or enzalutamide. Sensitivity analyses were performed to understand how variations in treatment duration and treatment-related monitoring recommendations influenced cost per median OS month. Cost-effectiveness estimates of other Phase 3 trial outcomes were also explored: cost per month of chemotherapy avoided and per median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) month. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that AA + P has a lower cost per median OS month than enzalutamide ($3231 vs 4512; 28% reduction), based on the following assumptions: median treatment duration of 14 months for AA + P and 18 months for enzalutamide, median OS of 34.7 months for AA + P and 35.3 months for enzalutamide, and WAC per 30-day supply of $8007.17 for AA + P vs $8847.98 for enzalutamide. Sensitivity analyses showed that accounting for recommended treatment-related monitoring costs or assuming identical treatment durations for AA + P and enzalutamide (18 months) resulted in costs per median OS month 8-27% lower for AA + P than for enzalutamide. Costs per month of chemotherapy avoided were $4448 for AA + P and $5688 for enzalutamide, while costs per month to achieve median rPFS were $6794 for AA + P and $7963 for enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that costs per median OS month, along with costs of other Phase 3 trial outcomes, were lower for AA + P than for enzalutamide. The findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. These results have important implications for population health decision-makers evaluating the relative value of therapies for mCRPC patients.
Assuntos
Acetato de Abiraterona/economia , Antineoplásicos/economia , Feniltioidantoína/análogos & derivados , Prednisona/economia , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Acetato de Abiraterona/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Benzamidas , Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Custos e Análise de Custo , Progressão da Doença , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Quimioterapia Combinada , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Metástase Neoplásica , Nitrilas , Feniltioidantoína/economia , Feniltioidantoína/uso terapêutico , Prednisona/uso terapêutico , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Health care quality problems are reflected in the underuse, overuse, and misuse of health care services. There is evidence suggesting that the quality of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient care is suboptimal, which has spurred the development of a number of systematic quality improvement metrics. OBJECTIVE: To investigate a quality process measurement set in a sample of commercially insured RA patients. METHODS: Medical, pharmacy, and laboratory claims for members with an RA diagnosis (ICD-9-CM 714.x) during calendar years 2008 through 2012 were extracted from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database. Eight process quality measures focused on RA patient response and tolerance to therapy were examined in the claims database. Measures were calculated for individual calendar years from 2009 to 2012, inclusive. RESULTS: The majority of adult RA patients received at least 1 prescription for a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) across the 4 measurement years: range = 78.5%-81.6%. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein testing were also evident in the majority of the sample, with 67.1%-72.2% of newly diagnosed RA patients receiving baseline testing, and 56.0%-58.7% of existing RA patients receiving annual testing. Among methotrexate users, liver function tests were performed in 74.5%-75.7% of treated patients, serum creatinine tests in 70.1%-72.6% of patients, and complete blood count tests in 74.5%-76.0% of patients. Additionally, most patients initiating a new DMARD had a claim for a baseline serum creatinine test (68.0%-70.3%) and baseline liver function test (69.3%-71.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that a majority of RA patients are attaining patient quality process measures, although a considerable proportion of patients (approximately 25%) may be receiving suboptimal care. Further studies are warranted to understand whether attainment of these measures translates into better outcomes.
Assuntos
Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Avaliação de Processos em Cuidados de Saúde , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Adulto , Idoso , Sedimentação Sanguínea , Proteína C-Reativa/análise , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Metotrexato/uso terapêutico , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The approval of new therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), including the oral agents abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide, has altered the standard of care for patients with mCRPC. Little information exists regarding the sequences in which new therapies for mCRPC with evidence of survival benefits are used. OBJECTIVE: To describe the sequence of medication use for patients with mCRPC as observed in 3 healthcare data sets. METHODS: Three healthcare claims data sets were used to identify patients with mCRPC who had no previous use of and were newly initiating 1 of the 2 oral study drugs (ie, abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide). The index date was the first study drug claim after September 1, 2012. Patients were followed until the data cutoff or until being lost to follow-up. Descriptive statistics summarized the proportion of patients receiving 1 line of therapy versus ≥2 lines of therapy. The use of a corticosteroid and the mean monthly pharmacy costs of abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide during the follow-up period were compared between the cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 3525 patients with mCRPC were identified from data set 1, 499 patients from data set 2, and 1949 patients from data set 3. The first-line use of abiraterone acetate was observed in 74%, 82%, and 80% of data sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and the first-line use of enzalutamide was seen in 26%, 18%, and 20%, respectively, of these same populations. The concomitant use of corticosteroids was observed in patients receiving first-line abiraterone acetate and in patients receiving first-line enzalutamide in all 3 data sets. After September 2012, abiraterone acetate was the most frequently administered therapy for mCRPC among the 2 oral agents, abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide. The monthly pharmacy costs associated with abiraterone acetate were significantly lower than those associated with enzalutamide in all 3 data sets. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data used in this study, abiraterone acetate was more frequently administered for patients with mCRPC than enzalutamide. The concomitant use of corticosteroids was common in patients receiving first-line abiraterone acetate or first-line enzalutamide therapy. Patients receiving abiraterone acetate had significantly lower monthly pharmacy costs than patients receiving enzalutamide. These findings may facilitate the estimation of the budgetary impact of a treatment mix for population health and for managed care stakeholders.