Costs associated with adverse events in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Objective:

To estimate adverse event (AE) costs in patients receiving targeted therapies for the first line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods:

Retrospective study based on healthcare claims data for patients with mRCC, aged ≥18 years, receiving first-line treatment with targeted therapies. AEs of interest comprised of abdominal pain, back pain, diarrhea, dyspnea, extremity pain, fatigue/asthenia, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, lymphopenia, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia, proteinuria, and thrombocytopenia. Healthcare encounters for AEs were based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis/procedure codes on healthcare claims. AE costs were examined over a 30-day period, beginning with the date of first mention of AE, and were estimated based on the difference in total costs between patients with and without events. Drug costs of targeted agents were excluded from the analysis. Multivariate generalized linear models with a log-link function and gamma response probability distribution were utilized to control for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without evidence of AEs.

Results:

A total of 533 patients were included in this analysis: 418 patients with AE and 115 patients without AE. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between patients in the two groups. The GLM-based estimate of incremental 30-day post-event costs among patients with evidence of any adverse events was $9807 (95% CI?=?$4386–$22,947). For all types of adverse events examined, the estimated difference in costs between evented and non-evented patients was positive; the 95% CI did not include zero for all of the adverse events considered, except hypertension and proteinurea. Study limitations include errors of commission/omission, especially as they may affect case-finding methods that rely on ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes, as was the case in the current study.

Conclusion:

Costs associated with AEs of first-line targeted therapies are substantial in patients with mRCC. Efforts to prevent and/or better manage these events may reduce overall healthcare costs.     

Healthcare costs associated with bevacizumab and cetuximab in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the health care costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received second-line treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab) versus Erbitux (cetuximab), from the third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were selected from the PharMetrics claims database if they received second-line therapy containing either bevacizumab (second-line bevacizumab cohort) or cetuximab (second-line cetuximab cohort). Six-month costs following second-line therapy start date and average monthly healthcare costs while on second-line therapy (in 2009 US$) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results:

A total of 2188 patients with mCRC who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis, including 1808 patients receiving bevacizumab and 380 patients receiving cetuximab in second-line treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients’ mean age was 61 years and 56% were males. In second-line treatment, bevacizumab was commonly used with oxaliplatin (43.5%) and irinotecan-based regimens (40.4%), whereas cetuximab was commonly used with irinotecan-based regimens (68.2%). Bevacizumab patients had significantly lower total all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients (adjusted difference: –$10,231, p?=?0.020), and lower medical costs (–$10,796, p?=?0.012) during the 6 months following second-line therapy initiation. Approximately half of the difference in total all-cause healthcare costs was attributable to the lower chemotherapy and targeted therapy costs (–$5635, p?=?0.032) of bevacizumab patients than those of cetuximab patients. While on second-line therapy, bevacizumab patients also had lower average monthly all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients.

Limitations:

Second-line treatment in the current study was defined based on changes in mCRC medications, not based on disease progression due to the limited clinical information available in claims.

Conclusion:

The use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in mCRC patients, compared to the use of cetuximab.     

Comparative net cost impact of the utilization of panitumumab versus cetuximab for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Canada

Objective:

Clinical practice guidelines support the use of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors panitumumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after failure of other chemotherapy regimens, based on significant clinical benefits in patients with wild-type KRAS. The purpose of the analysis was to compare provincial hospital costs when using panitumumab vs cetuximab with or without irinotecan in this patient population using a Net Impact Analysis (NIA) approach.

Methods:

The NIA determined the total per patient cost of the reimbursed regimens of panitumumab vs cetuximab in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Utilization of healthcare resources related to EGFR inhibitor infusions, follow-up monitoring, and treatment of adverse events (AEs) were also included. Healthcare resource use including drugs, medical supplies, laboratory testing, oncology infusion time, and healthcare professionals’ time was obtained through expert consultation and the use was then multiplied by the province-specific cost of each resource. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Based on the dosing regimens in place in each province, the total annual per patient cost of panitumumab ranged from $22,203–$32,600, while the total annual per patient cost of cetuximab treatment varied from $30,321–$40,908. Treatment with panitumumab resulted in lower costs in all cost categories including drug acquisition, infusion preparation/administration, patient monitoring, and AE management. Per patient savings with panitumumab ranged from a low of $3815 in British Columbia to a high of $10,603 in Ontario. In sensitivity analyses, panitumumab remained cost saving in all scenarios where the savings ranged from $150–$16,006 per patient.

Conclusions:

Treating chemorefractory mCRC patients with panitumumab rather than cetuximab reduced healthcare resource costs. Provincial healthcare savings achieved with the use of panitumumab could potentially be re-allocated to other cancer treatments, although further study would be needed to validate this assumption.     

Real-world incidence and burden of adverse events among non-metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with secondary hormonal therapies following androgen deprivation therapy

Abstract

Aims: To describe the incidence and identify prognostic factors of central nervous system (CNS) adverse events (AEs) and any AEs (CNS, skin rash, or fracture) and evaluate the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), direct medical costs, and therapy discontinuation associated with these AEs among non-metastatic prostate cancer (nmPC) patients who received secondary hormone therapies.

Methods and results: nmPC patients who had initiated secondary hormonal therapy with enzalutamide, bicalutamide, or abiraterone ≥1?year after androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were identified in the MarketScan database. Survival analyses were used to describe the incidence of CNS or any AEs. Annual HCRU and costs were compared across patient groups (CNS AE vs no CNS AE; any AE vs no AE) using propensity score weighted generalized linear models. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify AE predictors and compare risks of discontinuation.

Results: The analysis included 532 patients who initiated secondary hormonal therapies, among whom 201 (38%) and 244 (46%) experienced a CNS AE and any AE, respectively. Median times to CNS AE and any AE from therapy initiation were 17.90 and 11.00?months, respectively. Predictors of any AE were any AE in the baseline period (≤6?months before starting therapy), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score (1 vs 0), surgical castration, and older age. Predictors of CNS AEs were CNS AE in the baseline period and CCI score (1 vs 0). CNS and any AEs were associated with significantly higher HCRU. CNS AEs were associated with significantly higher incremental total medical costs ($18,522). CNS AEs and any AEs significantly increased therapy discontinuation risk by 48% and 38%, respectively.

Conclusions: AEs increase the economic burden and therapy discontinuation among nmPC patients receiving secondary hormonal therapies subsequent to ADTs. These patients should be carefully evaluated for AEs to reduce therapy discontinuation, HCRU, and direct medical costs.     

Economic burden of selected adverse events in patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate the costs of adverse events (AEs) in patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods:

Retrospective study using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Medicare database. Study subjects consisted of persons in SEER-Medicare, aged ≥65 years, with evidence of newly diagnosed mRCC between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007. Adverse events of interest consisted of Grade 3 or 4 toxicities that have been reported with frequency ≥5% in randomized controlled trials of sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, and pazopanib (i.e., targeted therapies for mRCC), and included abdominal pain, back pain, diarrhea, dyspnea, extremity pain, fatigue/asthenia, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, lymphopenia, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia, proteinuria, and thrombocytopenia. Patients in SEER-Medicare with these events were identified based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes on Medicare claims. For each AE of interest, costs were tallied among evented patients over 30 days, beginning with the date of each patient’s first mention of the AE, and were compared with those of non-evented patients over a similar 30-day period beginning with an identical ‘shadow’ index date. Total costs were compared on an unadjusted basis and with adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics using a generalized linear model.

Results:

A total of 881 patients with mRCC met study entry criteria; 60% of these patients had Medicare claims with mention of one or more AEs of interest. Events occurring with frequency >20% included abdominal pain, dyspnea, and fatigue/asthenia; 10–20% of study subjects had encounters for back pain, extremity pain, and nausea/vomiting. Mean (standard deviation) total cost of care over 30 days was substantially higher among patients with AEs ($13,944 [$14,529]) compared with those without mention of these events ($1878 [$5264]). Adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the mean (95% confidence interval) difference in costs between evented and non-evented patients was $12,410 ($9217–$16,522). Study limitations include problems in event ascertainment due to inaccuracies in ICD-9-CM coding on Medicare claims data, and restriction of the study population to patients with metastatic involvement at initial diagnosis of RCC.

Conclusions:

Costs of care are substantially higher in patients aged ≥65 years with mRCC who experience AEs commonly associated with sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, and pazopanib. Efforts to prevent and/or better manage these events potentially can reduce healthcare costs.     

Healthcare and economic burden of adverse events among patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia treated with BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Objectives: BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are established treatments for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML); however, they are associated with infrequent, but clinically serious adverse events (AEs). The objective of this analysis was to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with AEs, previously identified using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in another study, among TKI-treated patients.

Methods: Adult patients with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes for CML and ≥1 claim for a TKI treatment between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2012 were identified from the Commercial and Medicare MarketScan databases. The first claim for a TKI was designated as the index event. Patients were required to have no TKI treatment during a 12-month baseline period. Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with select AEs having the strongest association with TKI treatment (femoral arterial stenosis [FAS], peripheral arterial occlusive disease [PAOD], intermittent claudication, coronary artery stenosis [CAS], pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, malignant pleural effusion, conjunctival hemorrhage) were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period.

Results: The study sample included 2,005 CML patients receiving TKI therapy (mean age?=?56 years; 56% male). Among all evaluated AEs, the highest mean inpatient healthcare costs were observed for FAS ($16,800 per patient) and PAOD ($14,263 per patient), which had total mean medical costs (inpatient?+?outpatient) of $17,015 and $15,154 per patient, respectively. Mean outpatient healthcare costs were highest for CAS ($1,861 per patient), followed by intermittent claudication ($947 per patient), PAOD ($891 per patient), and pleural effusion ($890 per patient). Total mean medical costs for fluid retention-related AEs, including pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, were $2,797 and $1,908 per patient, respectively.

Conclusions: The healthcare costs of AEs identified in the FAERS as having the strongest association with TKI treatment are substantial. Vascular stenosis-related AEs, including FAS and PAOD, have the highest cost burden.     

Adverse event-related costs for systemic metastatic breast cancer treatment among female Medicaid beneficiaries

Objective: This retrospective study compared the real-world incidence and costs of systemic treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a Medicaid population.

Methods: Insurance claims data for adult women who received biologic or chemotherapy (± hormonal therapy) for metastatic breast cancer between 2006–2013 were extracted from the Truven Health MarketScan^® Multi-State Medicaid database. Incidence of AEs (per 100 person years) and average monthly AE-related healthcare costs (per-patient-per-month) during each line of therapy (first or later lines) were estimated. The association between AEs and total all-cause healthcare costs was estimated using multivariable regression.

Results: A total of 729 metastatic breast cancer patients were analyzed. Hematological (202.3 per 100 person years) and constitutional AEs (289.6 per 100 person years) were the most common class of AEs reported. Unadjusted per-patient-per-month AE-related expenditure by class were highest for hematological AEs ($1524), followed by gastrointestinal ($839) and constitutional AEs ($795), with anemia ($942), nausea/vomiting ($699), and leukopenia/neutropenia ($550) having incurred the highest total AE-related costs. Adjusted total all-cause monthly costs increased with the number of AEs ($19,701 for >7 AEs, $16,264 for 4???6 AEs, and $13,731 for 1???3 AEs) compared to no AEs ($5908) (all p?Conclusions: Among metastatic breast cancer patients treated with systemic therapy in a Medicaid population, AEs were associated with significant increases in costs, which increased with the number of AEs experienced. Therapies associated with a lower incidence of AEs may reduce cost burden and improve patient outcomes.     

Cost of adverse events during treatment with everolimus plus exemestane or single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer in Western Europe

Objective:

Treatment options for recurrent or progressive hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer include chemotherapy and everolimus plus exemestane (EVE?+?EXE). This study estimates the costs of managing adverse events (AEs) during EVE?+?EXE therapy and single-agent chemotherapy in Western Europe.

Methods:

An economic model was developed to estimate the per patient cost of managing grade 3/4 AEs for patients who were treated with EVE?+?EXE or chemotherapies. AE rates for patients receiving EVE?+?EXE were collected from the phase III BOLERO-2 trial. AE rates for single-agent chemotherapy, capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin were collected from published clinical trial data. AEs with at least 2% prevalence for any of the treatments were included in the model. A literature search was conducted to obtain costs of managing each AE, which were then averaged across Western European countries (when available). Per patient costs for managing AEs among patients receiving different therapies were reported in 2012 euros (€).

Results:

The EVE?+?EXE combination had the lowest average per patient cost of managing AEs (€730) compared to all chemotherapies during the first year of treatment (doxorubicin: €1230; capecitabine: €1721; docetaxel: €2390). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with EVE?+?EXE was anemia (on average €152 per patient). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin was lymphocytopenia (€861 per patient), neutropenia (€821 per patient), and leukopenia (€382 per patient), respectively.

Conclusions:

The current model estimates that AE management during the treatment of HR+ advanced breast cancer will cost one-half to one-third less for EVE?+?EXE patients than for chemotherapy patients. The consideration of AE costs could have important implications in the context of healthcare spending for advanced breast cancer treatment.     

Healthcare resource utilization and direct medical costs associated with index and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: a real-world data analysis

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate all-cause economic outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and costs in patients with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and recurrent CDI (rCDI) using commercial claims from a large database representing various healthcare settings.

Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of commercial claims data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database was conducted for patients aged 18–64 years with CDI episodes requiring inpatient stay with CDI diagnosis code or an outpatient medical claim for CDI plus a CDI treatment. Index CDI episodes occurred between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2017, including only those where patients were observable 6 months before and 12 months after the index episode. Each CDI episode was followed by a 14-d claim-free period. rCDI was defined as another CDI episode within an 8-week window following the claim-free period. HRU, all-cause direct medical costs and time to rCDI were calculated over 12 months and stratified by number of rCDI episodes.

Results: A total of 46,571 patients with index CDI were included. Mean time from one CDI episode to the next was approximately 1 month. In the 12-month follow-up period, those with no recurrence had 1.4 inpatient visits per person and those with 3 or more recurrences had 5.8. Most patients with 3 or more recurrences had 2 or more hospital admissions. The mean annual, total all-cause direct medical costs per patient were $71,980 for those with no recurrence and $207,733 for those with 3 or more recurrences.

Limitations: The study included individuals 18–64 years only. A stringent definition of rCDI was used, which may have underestimated the incidence of rCDI.

Conclusions: CDI and rCDI are associated with substantial healthcare resource utilization and direct medical costs. Timing of recurrences can be predictable, providing a window of opportunity for interventions. Prevention of multiple rCDI appears essential to reduce healthcare costs.     

Economic simulation of canagliflozin and sitagliptin treatment outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycemic control

Abstract

Objectives:

This study examines the association between changes in diabetes-related quality measures (QMs) (HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure [BP], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], and body weight) and healthcare costs in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. It also performs an economic simulation that evaluates the cost implications of the changes in QMs and of the incidence rates (IRs) of adverse events (AEs) associated with canagliflozin (CANA) and sitagliptin (SITA) treatments in a real-world setting.

Methods:

Health-insurance claims and electronic medical records from the Reliant Medical Group database (2007–2011) were used to identify adult patients with T2DM receiving metformin and sulfonylurea who did not achieve adequate glycemic control. The association between the changes in QMs and healthcare costs was evaluated using multivariate regression and non-parametric bootstrap methods. AE-related costs were taken from the literature. The cost impact of CANA and SITA outcomes was evaluated using the aforementioned costs and the changes in QMs and the IRs of AEs observed in a recent phase 3 trial comparing CANA and SITA as third oral agent (DIA3015).

Results:

Eight hundred and fifty-six T2DM patients were identified (mean age?=?65.8; female 45.4%). The regression analysis found that increases of 1 percentage point in HbA1C and 1% in systolic and diastolic BP, LDL-C, or weight were associated with a per patient per year (PPPY) cost increase of $4476 (p?=?0.028) and $566 (p?=?0.006), a decrease of $362 (p?=?0.070) and $7 (p?=?0.817), and an increase of $241 (p?=?0.481), respectively. The economic simulation showed that changes in QMs and IRs of AEs equivalent to those reported in DIA3015 would be associated with a reduction in PPPY healthcare costs of $6061 (p?=?0.036) for CANA and $2190 (p?=?0.098) for SITA.

Conclusions:

This study suggests that integrated approaches that manage to control a combination of quality measures are most successful at reducing downstream healthcare costs.     

Healthcare costs associated with skeletal-related events in breast cancer patients with bone metastases

Background:

Patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer are pre-disposed to skeletal-related events (SREs), including spinal cord compression (SCC), pathologic fracture (PF), surgery to bone (SB), and radiotherapy to bone (RT).

Objective:

To document current patterns of healthcare utilization and costs of SREs in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases.

Methods:

This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 9/2002 to 6/2011. Study subjects included all persons with claims for breast cancer and for bone metastases, and ≥1 claims for an SRE. Unique SRE episodes were identified based on a gap of at least 90 days without an SRE claim, and classified by treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) and SRE type (SCC, PF, SB, or RT).

Results:

Of 17,266 patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, 9142 (53%) had one or more SRE episodes. Among 5809 patients who met all other criteria, there were 7617 SRE episodes over mean (SD) follow-up of 17.2 (15.2) months. The percentage of episodes that required inpatient treatment ranged from 11% (RT) to 76% (SB). On average, inpatient SCC episodes (n?=?83 episodes) were most costly; while outpatient PF episodes (n?=?552 episodes) were least costly. Of the total SRE costs (mean [SE] $21,072 [$36,462]/episode), 36% were attributable to outpatient RT (n?=?5265 episodes) and 31% to inpatient PF (n?=?838 episodes).

Limitations:

The administrative claims data used in this study may lack sensitivity and specificity for identification of clinical events and may not be generalizable to other populations. Also, for some SRE episode categories, the number of events was small and cost estimates may lack precision.

Conclusion:

In patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, SREs are associated with high costs and hospitalizations.     

Corroboration of claims algorithm for second-line costs of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment with targeted agents

Abstract

Objective:

To refine a claims algorithm for identifying second-line systemic regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on clinical evidence and to compare costs during second-line treatment by targeted therapy administered.

Methods:

This retrospective analysis of a large US managed care database identified patients diagnosed with mCRC during 1 July 2007–30 June 2011. A claims-based algorithm was developed to identify patients with at least two lines of therapy (LOT) and the second LOT contained one targeted agent: bevacizumab or any anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Medical chart data from 92 patients were used to corroborate and refine the LOT algorithm. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the initial algorithm and refined algorithm for identification of second LOT are presented. The final algorithm was applied to claims data and two mutually exclusive second-line cohorts were examined: patients with bevacizumab- or cetuximab-containing regimens. Second-line healthcare costs were analyzed with generalized linear models adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results:

The PPV increased from 50.0% (95% CI?=?39.4–60.6) for the initial algorithm to 72.1% (95% CI?=?59.2–82.9) for the final algorithm. Mean age in the cohorts (n?=?569) was 61 years; 58% were men. Days of therapy were similar for the bevacizumab (n?=?450) vs cetuximab (n?=?119) cohorts, respectively: 131 vs 148 in first LOT and 123 (both cohorts) in second LOT (p?≥?0.27). Total costs during second-line treatment in the bevacizumab cohort were lower by $12,318 (p?=?0.02) and medical costs were lower by $13,809 (p?=?0.01). Monthly total and medical costs were lower by $2728 (p?=?0.03) and $3133 (p?=?0.01), respectively. Results are based on commercially or Medicare-insured patients and may not be generalizable to Medicaid or uninsured patients.

Conclusions:

Corroboration of claim-based algorithms with medical chart data improved algorithm performance. Second-line total and medical costs were lower for mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab compared with cetuximab.     

Differences in episode-based care costs for multidetector computed tomographic coronary angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease

Abstract

Background: Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is a novel method for diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). The opportunity costs that favour MDCT over other CAD diagnostic methods is currently unknown.

Methods: This study used an episodes of care cost model based on epidemiologic and economic data evaluating individuals without known CAD undergoing MDCT or myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS). It was a multicenter retrospective database review of medical and pharmacy-related claims linked by episodes of care from 2002 to 2005. CAD-related episodes of care costs were examined 1-year downstream for patients after initial MDCT that were matched to patients who underwent MPS.

Results: After adjustment for patient factors, 1-year total CAD-related episodes of care costs for MDCT were 16.4% lower than MPS, by an average of $682 (95% confidence interval $14, $1,350) per patient. While costs per CAD-related episode were similar between MDCT and MPS groups ($4,284 vs. $4,277, p=0.08).

Conclusions: Patients without known CAD who undergo MDCT as an initial diagnostic test, compared to MPS, incurred fewer CAD-related episodes of care and lower overall CAD-related costs.     

Costs of haematological adverse events in chronic myeloid leukaemia patients: a retrospective cost analysis of the treatment of anaemia,neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia

Abstract

Objective: The study aim was to assess costs of haematological adverse events (AE) related to pharmacologic treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using patient records of adults (n=91) with chronic-phase CML treated at a single university medical centre in the Netherlands. Occurrence of grade III/IV haematological AEs, defined according to CTC-NCI guidelines criteria, was derived from the laboratory registration. Mean age at time of diagnosis was 48 years; 56% male. A healthcare perspective was adopted. Cost estimates are presented in 2006 euros.

Results: Average cost of an episode of anaemia was €1,572, of thrombocytopenia €2,955, and of neutropenia €1,152. The mean cost of febrile neutropenia amounted to €2,462.

Conclusions: Treatment costs of AEs varied considerably. However, apart from the cost of anaemia, the results presented seem to be in line with information from the international literature. The key limitations of the study concern the relatively small cohort of patients at a single centre, the retrospective design and the various treatment regimens of CML during the follow-up.     

Major bleeding risk and healthcare economic outcomes of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly-initiated with oral anticoagulant therapy in the real-world setting

Aims: This study compared the risk for major bleeding (MB) and healthcare economic outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) after initiating treatment with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin.

Methods: NVAF patients who initiated apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin were identified from the IMS Pharmetrics Plus database (January 1, 2013–September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance differences in patient characteristics between study cohorts: patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, apixaban vs dabigatran, and apixaban vs warfarin. Risk of hospitalization and healthcare costs (all-cause and MB-related) were compared between matched cohorts during the follow-up.

Results: During the follow-up, risks for all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.2–1.7) and MB-related (HR?=?1.57, 95% CI?=?1.0–2.4) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with rivaroxaban vs apixaban. Adjusted total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban ($3,950 vs $4,333 per patient per month [PPPM], p?=?.002) and MB-related medical costs were not statistically significantly different ($100 vs $233 PPPM, p?=?.096). Risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR?=?1.98, 95% CI?=?1.6–2.4) was significantly greater for patients treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, although total all-cause healthcare costs were not statistically different. Risks for all-cause (HR?=?2.22, 95% CI?=?1.9–2.5) and MB-related (HR?=?2.05, 95% CI?=?1.4–3.0) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with warfarin vs apixaban. Total all-cause healthcare costs ($3,919 vs $4,177 PPPM, p?=?.025) and MB-related medical costs ($96 vs $212 PPPM, p?=?.026) were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs warfarin.

Limitations: This retrospective database analysis does not establish causation.

Conclusions: In the real-world setting, compared with rivaroxaban and warfarin, apixaban is associated with reduced risk of hospitalization and lower healthcare costs. Compared with dabigatran, apixaban is associated with lower risk of hospitalizations.     

Comparison of medical costs and healthcare resource utilization of post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer receiving everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy: a retrospective claims database analysis

Objective:

To analyze medical costs and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy among post-menopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2-negative (HR+/HER2?) metastatic breast cancer (mBC).

Methods:

Patients with HR+/HER2? mBC who discontinued a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor and began a new line of treatment with everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy (index therapy/index date) between July 20, 2012 and April 30, 2014 were identified from two large claims databases. All-cause, BC-related, and adverse event (AE)-related medical costs (in 2014 USD) and all-cause HRU per patient per month (PPPM) were analyzed for both treatment groups across patients’ first four lines of therapies for mBC. Adjusted differences in costs and HRU between the everolimus and chemotherapy treatment group were estimated pooling all lines and using multivariable generalized linear models, accounting for difference in patient characteristics.

Results:

A total of 3298 patients were included: 902 everolimus-treated patients and 2636 chemotherapy-treated patients. Compared to chemotherapy, everolimus was associated with significantly lower all-cause (adjusted mean difference?=?$3455, p?<?0.01) and BC-related ($2510, p?<?0.01) total medical costs, with inpatient ($1344, p?<?0.01) and outpatient costs ($1048, p?<?0.01) as the main drivers for cost differences. Everolimus was also associated with significantly lower AE-related medical costs ($1730, p?<?0.01), as well as significantly lower HRU (emergency room incidence rate ratio [IRR]?=?0.83; inpatient IRR?=?0.74; inpatient days IRR?=?0.65; outpatient IRR?=?0.71; BC-related outpatient IRR?=?0.57; all p?<?0.01).

Conclusions:

This retrospective claims database analysis of commercially-insured patients with HR+/HER2? mBC in the US showed that everolimus was associated with substantial all-cause, BC-related, and AE-related medical cost savings and less utilization of healthcare resources relative to chemotherapy.     

The economic burden of end-of-life care in metastatic breast cancer

Objective: To assess end-of-life (EOL) total healthcare costs and resource utilization during the last 6 months of claims follow-up among patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who received systemic anti-neoplastic therapy.

Methods: Newly diagnosed females with MBC initiating treatment January 1, 2003–June 30, 2011 were identified in a large commercial claims database. Two cohorts were defined based on a proxy measure for EOL 1 month prior to the end of last recorded follow-up within the study period: patients who were assumed dead at end of claims follow-up (EOL cohort) and patients who were alive (no-end-of-life [NEOL] cohort). Proxy measures for EOL were obtained from published literature and clinical expert opinion. Cost and resource utilization were evaluated for the 6 months prior to end of claims follow-up. Baseline variables, resource utilization, and costs were compared between cohorts with univariate statistical tests. Adjusted relative risks were calculated for resource utilization measures. A covariate-adjusted generalized linear model evaluated 6-month total healthcare costs.

Results: Of the 3,878 females included, 18.5% (n?=?718) met the criteria for EOL. Mean observational time (MBC onset to end of claims follow-up) was shorter for the EOL cohort (EOL, 32 months vs NEOL, 35 months; p?p?2 times higher in the EOL cohort (p?Conclusions: Potential EOL presented a greater economic burden in the 6 months prior to death. EOL month-to-month costs increased precipitously in the last 2 months of life and were driven by acute inpatient care.