Aim: To estimate treatment patterns and healthcare costs among triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Materials & methods: Eligible patients had ≥1 line of therapy (LOT) each of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and daratumumab in December 2015–September 2018 and received a new LOT. Results: A total of 154 patients were included with a median follow-up of 6.2 months. Median time from diagnosis to new LOT was 41.0 months. Kaplan–Meier estimate of median time to therapy discontinuation was 4.2 months. Mean per-patient, per-month MM-related costs were 35,657 US dollars. Most frequently observed regimens were lenalidomide or pomalidomide + daratumumab (18.2%), lenalidomide or pomalidomide + proteasome inhibitors (15.6%) and lenalidomide or pomalidomide monotherapy (11.0%). Conclusion: Triple-class exposed RRMM patients receive heterogeneous treatments for a short duration with high healthcare resource utilization and costs.
Background Real-world studies of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) have reported suboptimal adherence. Objective We aimed to describe treatment patterns, relapses, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in MS patients experiencing their first observed DMT switch. Methods In this retrospective, claims database study, adult patients were selected if they had an MS diagnosis and DMT claim during the study period (1 January 2009-31 March 2019). Patients who switched to a new DMT between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2018 were included. Adherence, persistence, relapses, and all-cause and MS-related healthcare utilization and costs were reported pre-and post-index. Results In total, 1554 MS patients were identified; the mean age was 46 years and most (74%) were female. The majority of patients switched from an injectable DMT (n = 1116; 71.8%), and patients generally switched to an oral DMT (n = 878; 57%). Among patients who switched DMTs, 46.0% (n = 715) were nonadherent, 42% (n = 645) were nonpersistent, and 21.5% (n = 334) relapsed in the 12 months post-switch. An increase in all-cause and MS-related healthcare costs was observed pre-to post-index for all patients. Cost drivers included outpatient visit costs and pharmacy prescriptions. Compared with patients who switched to an injectable DMT, those who switched to an oral DMT had significantly higher persistence and adherence. No significant difference was observed in post-index relapse or all-cause and MS-related total cost of care. Conclusion Low adherence and poor persistence remain following an initial DMT switch; however, patients who switched to oral DMTs had higher persistence and adherence. Plain Language SummaryMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a disabling disease that is treated with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Little is known about how patients with MS take their medication, how disease progression may change with treatment, or what the impact of switching to a new DMT is on the cost of care. In an analysis of commercially insured individuals, patients with MS were examined before and after switching to a new DMT. Results showed that the patients most often switched from an injectable medication to an oral DMT; however, a large proportion of patients did not take the prescription as directed by their physician. Additionally, a large proportion of patients did not stay on their new therapy. Nearly one-third of patients experienced an MS relapse after they switched to a new treatment, and healthcare costs increased following the treatment switch. A higher proportion of patients switching to an oral DMT took their medication as prescribed by their physicians, stayed on therapy, and incurred smaller increases in cost compared with patients switching to injectable medications. Despite such improvements, additional treatments are needed for patients with MS.
Background This study analyses treatment patterns, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) and a subgroup treated with ruxolitinib (RUX). Materials and Methods Treatment patterns, all-cause and MF-related HCRU, and costs were analyzed in adults with MF with continuous enrollment in a commercial or the Medicare Advantage health plan in the pre-index period, defined as the 12 months immediately prior to the index date (date of primary or secondary MF diagnosis), and the post-index period, defined as ≥6 months following the index date. In a subgroup analysis, outcomes were analyzed in patients treated with optimal RUX (OPT RUX, ≥30 mg) and suboptimal RUX (SUB RUX, <30 mg) in the pre-index RUX period, defined as the 3 months immediately prior to the index RUX date (first date for an RUX claim), and the post-index RUX period, defined as ≥6 months following the index RUX date. Results Of 2830 patients with an MF diagnosis, 1191 met eligibility requirements. The median age of patients was 72 years, 54% were male, and comorbidities were frequent. Sixty percent of patients received ≥1 line of therapy (LOT), of which 46% (n = 331) had ≥2 LOTs during the post-index MF period. Costs increased considerably 6-month pre-index to 6-month post-index (all-cause: cause ($24,216 to $48,966) and MF-related ($16,502 to $39,383), driven by inpatient stays and pharmacy costs. In the subgroup analysis, patients treated with RUX (n = 495) experienced significant disease burden and high costs, regardless of dose. A shorter duration of therapy and a higher rate of discontinuation were observed in patients treated with SUB RUX (n = 191) versus OPT RUX (n = 304). Conclusion These findings suggest a significant disease and economic impacts associated with MF patients that persists with RUX therapy, highlighting the need for additional therapeutic options for MF.
e18035 Background: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) captures patient costs in a 6-month episode triggered by administration of systemic therapy. Most breast cancer (BC) patients will receive systemic therapy, with variations depending on stage and hormonal status, which makes BC an ideal indication to study costs in the OCM. Practices earn performance based payments (PBP) if aggregate episodic expenditures are managed below set target prices. We investigated predictors for episodic expenditures exceeding target prices, thus reducing potential for PBP. Methods: We identified BC episodes with non-decedent beneficiaries attributable to our academic medical center from OCM Reconciliation Reports during 7/1/16-6/30/17. Cohorts were defined as episodes whose costs were above target (Cohort 1) and those below (Cohort 2). The Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test was used to compare actual and target episode expenditure between cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess association of maintaining costs below target due to various predictors. Results: A total of 369 episodes were included in the study, with 124 episodes in Cohort 1 and 245 in Cohort 2. Median actual and target episode expenditures were higher in Cohort 1 (actual: $23,466 vs. $2,691, p < 0.0001; target: $8,425 vs. $5,870, p < 0.0001). In multivariable logistic regression, episodes were more likely to be below target if novel therapies, Part B drugs, or inpatient admissions were not utilized, controlling for other predictors (see Table). Conclusions: Large disparities exist for both actual expenditures and target prices for BC episodes in the OCM. Novel therapies, Part B drugs, and inpatient admissions are negatively associated with maintaining episode expenditures below target. Risk-adjustments for these expenditures need to be overhauled in OCM to accurately capture costs associated with management of cancer patients, and provide practical target prices for institutions to continue delivery of value based care. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.