To evaluate treatment patterns of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients & methods: Firstline and relapsed/refractory treatment patterns and survival outcomes following first-line therapy in adult patients newly diagnosed with DLBCL were evaluated. Results: A total of 1436 DLBCL patients initiated treatment and mainly received a combination regimen versus monotherapy (92.1 vs 7.9%). Patients who received monotherapy were older with more comorbidities and had shorter progression-free survival than patients receiving combination therapy (median: 31.3 vs 55.8 months). In the second-line setting (n = 164), rituximab-based combination regimens were most common; 25% underwent stem cell transplantation, and were younger with fewer comorbidities. Conclusion: These results illustrate the need for new treatment options for patients unable to tolerate initial combination therapy and transplant-ineligible patients who require salvage therapy.

The economic burden of treated DLBCL and FL is considerable, especially in the first year following diagnosis.

Few studies have evaluated real-world treatment patterns and survival in follicular lymphoma (FL). This study assessed these outcomes in newly diagnosed patients with FL and patients with FL with early disease progression. Rituximab-based regimens predominated across lines of therapy; however, utilization of rituximabbased regimens was lower among early versus non-early progressors. Early progressors also had worse overall survival compared with non-early progressors. Background: Few studies have evaluated real-world treatment patterns and survival in follicular lymphoma (FL). This study evaluated these outcomes among newly diagnosed patients with FL in routine clinical care. Patients and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in newly diagnosed patients with FL from Humedica, a large United States electronic medical record database, from January 1, 2008 to July 31, 2015. Patients were followed from treatment initiation until death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (September 30, 2015). Treatment patterns were assessed in the follow-up period. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 2 years were evaluated in the overall population using Kaplan-Meier analyses. OS was also compared between patients with and without evidence of disease progression within 2 years following first-line therapy (ie, early progressors vs. non-early progressors). Results: A total of 1346 patients were included in the study, with most patients receiving rituximabbased regimens. Fewer early progressors received rituximab-based regimens. Across all lines, combination therapies predominated, particularly bendamustine þ rituximab. Following first-line therapy, OS was 86.9% at 2 years, and median OS was not reached. Two-year PFS after first-line therapy was 64.6%, and median PFS was 48.1 months (95% confidence interval, 39.4-58.4 months). OS at 2 years was 76.8% among early progressors versus 90.4% among non-early progressors (P < .001); the median OS was not reached in both groups. Conclusion: In routine clinical practice, rituximab-based regimens predominated; however, utilization of these regimens differed among early and non-early progressors. The assessment of survival outcomes also highlights the negative impact of early progression on OS in the rituximab-era.

a b s t r a c tIntroduction: We characterized real-world treatment patterns in older (65-74 years) and oldest (75-85 years) patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) receiving initial therapy (R-CHOP, non-R-CHOP regimens). Impact of comorbidities on treatment choice, and overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS) were assessed by age. Patients and Methods: Using the Humedica database, we identified 1436 newly diagnosed patients with DLBCL who received frontline therapy from 1/07-9/15. The 885 patients ≥65 years of age were further evaluated for baseline demographics, comorbidities, initial therapy, and PFS/OS. Results: Of 885 patients, 406 (45.9%) were age 65-74, and 479 (54.1%) age 75-85, years. First line therapy was R-CHOP (61.8%) or non-R-CHOP (38.2%). Although Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores were similar at baseline, congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction were more common in those receiving non-R-CHOP regimens. Survival outcomes were superior for those receiving initial R-CHOP, versus non-R-CHOP, therapy (median PFS 53.9 versus 27.8 months; two-year PFS 71.2% versus 51.6%, p b .0001; median OS not reached versus 45 months; two-year OS 81.3% versus 62.9%, p b .0001, respectively). Only 10.4% (R-CHOP) and 12.1% (non-R-CHOP) of patients received second line therapies. Two-year OS by age (65-74, 75-85 years) was 66.4% and 39.1%, respectively with R-CHOP (p = .0045), and 74.3% and 54.5%, respectively with non-R-CHOP (p = .004), therapy. Age ≥ 75 years and CCI of 2+ were associated with shorter OS and PFS. Conclusions: This study identified real-world first line treatment patterns for older patients with DLBCL. Our findings support the feasibility of administering standard R-CHOP therapy, even to oldest patients with DLBCL.

Background Emerging trial data for treatment of COVID-19 suggest that in addition to improved clinical outcomes, these treatments reduce length of hospital stay (LOS). However, the economic value of a shortened LOS is unclear. Objective To estimate incremental costs per day of hospitalization for a patient with influenza or viral pneumonia, as a proxy for COVID-19; ICU costs associated with invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) were also determined. Methods Retrospective analysis of claims-based data was conducted using the IBM MarketScan ® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Care and the Medicare Fee-for-Service claims databases for hospitalizations due to influenza/viral pneumonia between January 2018 and June 2019. Cases were stratified as uncomplicated hospitalizations or with ICU. Ordinary least squares regression, excluding LOS or costs exceeding the 99th percentile (base case), was used to estimate incremental costs per day; a sensitivity analysis included all qualified hospitalizations. Additional sensitivity analyses used weighting methodology. Results Among 6055 and 118,419 hospitalizations in the commercially insured and Medicare databases, respectively, 5958 and 116,552 hospitalizations, respectively, represented the base case. Estimated incremental base case costs per additional inpatient day were $2158 and $3900 in the commercial population for uncomplicated hospitalizations and hospitalizations with ICU, respectively, and $475 and $668, respectively in the Medicare population. Estimated incremental base case costs per additional ICU day were $5254 and $608 for Commercial and Medicare populations, respectively. Higher absolute costs were estimated in the sensitivity analysis on all qualified hospitalizations; the weighted sensitivity analyses generally showed that estimates were stable. Use of iMV increased costs by $35,482 and $13,101 in the commercial and Medicare populations, respectively. Conclusion The incremental daily cost of a hospitalization is substantial for US patients with commercial insurance and for Medicare patients. These findings may help quantify the economic value of COVID-19 treatments that reduce LOS.