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.     

Healthcare utilization and costs among relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients on carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone

Aim: To compare monthly healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving second or subsequent line of treatment (LOT) with carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Methods and materials: Adult MM patients who received carfilzomib or pomalidomide as second/subsequent LOT between 2006 and 2014 were selected from the MarketScan databases. LOT was determined using Medical/pharmacy claims using a published algorithm. For each patient, first LOT with carfilzomib or pomalidomide was defined as index LOT. Patients with first LOT as index LOT, who received other chemotherapy in combination with carfilzomib or pomalidomide, or who underwent stem cell transplant (STC) during index LOT were excluded. Monthly HRU and costs during index LOT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity scores for receipt of carfilzomib estimated by logistic regression with LOT, patient demographics, Charlson index, comorbidities, pre-index healthcare cost, and receipt of prior SCT as covariates.

Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced among 114 carfilzomib and 144 pomalidomide patients. Mean (95% CI) numbers of outpatient visits per month were 7.1 (5.2–8.0) with carfilzomib and 4.7 (3.9–6.1) with pomalidomide (p?=?0.006). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in mean monthly HRU and costs or median time to therapy discontinuation. Mean (95% CI) monthly total healthcare costs were $19,776 (15,322–27,748) with pomalidomide and $17,321 (12,412–21,874) with carfilzomib (p?=?0.522).

Limitations: Comparison of carfilzomib vs pomalidomide may be biased if there are unobserved factors not balanced by IPTW. The relatively small sample size limits the power of analyses to detect potential differences between treatment groups.

Conclusions: Monthly HRU and costs are similar among patients with relapse or refractory MM patients receiving carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.     

A real-world analysis of healthcare costs and relative risk of hyperprolactinemia associated with antipsychotic treatments in the United States

Abstract

Aims: Antipsychotic medications are associated with an increased risk of hyperprolactinemia, but differ in their propensity to cause this complication. This study aimed to assess the economic burden of hyperprolactinemia, and to compare its risk among adult patients using atypical antipsychotics (AAs) with a mechanism of action associated with no/low vs high/moderate prolactin elevation.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on US Commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Healthcare costs were compared between matched hyperprolactinemia and hyperprolactinemia-free cohorts using a two-part model. Risk of hyperprolactinemia was compared between patients receiving AAs with a mechanism of action associated with no/low (no/low prolactin elevation cohort) vs high/moderate prolactin elevation (high/moderate prolactin cohort) using logistic regression.

Results: In the commercially insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort (n?=?499), the hyperprolactinemia cohort (n?=?499) was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $5,732 ($20,081 vs $14,349; p?=?.004), and incremental medical costs of $3,861 ($13,218 vs $9,357; p?=?.040), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related costs. In the Medicaid-insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort, the hyperprolactinemia cohort was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $10,773 ($30,763 vs $19,990; p?=?.004), and incremental medical costs of $9,246 ($20,859 vs $11,613; p?=?.004), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related and mental health-related costs. The odds of hyperprolactinemia in the no/low prolactin elevation cohort were 4–5-times lower than that in the high/moderate prolactin elevation cohort (odds ratio =0.21; p?<?.001).

Limitations: Hyperprolactinemia may be under-reported in claims data.

Conclusions: Hyperprolactinemia is associated with substantial healthcare costs. AAs associated with no/low prolactin elevation reduce the risk of hyperprolactinemia by 4–5-times compared to AAs associated with moderate/high prolactin elevation. Treatment options with minimal impact on prolactin levels may contribute to reducing hyperprolactinemia burden in AA-treated patients.     

Indirect costs associated with metastatic breast cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the indirect costs of productivity loss between metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and early stage breast cancer (EBC) patients, as well as their respective family members.

Methods:

The MarketScan® Health and Productivity Management database (2005–2009) was used. Adult BC patients eligible for employee benefits of sick leave and/or short-term disability were identified with ICD-9 codes. Difference in sick leave and short-term disability days was calculated between MBC patients and their propensity score matched EBC cohort and general population (controls) during a 12-month follow-up period. Generalized linear models were used to examine the impact of MBC on indirect costs to patients and their families.

Results:

A total of 139 MBC, 432 EBC, and 820 controls were eligible for sick leave and 432 MBC, 1552 EBC, and 4682 controls were eligible for short-term disability (not mutually exclusive). After matching, no statistical difference was found in sick leave days and the associated costs between MBC and EBC cohorts. However, MBC patients had significantly higher short-term disability costs than EBC patients and controls (MBC: $6166?±?$9194 vs EBC: $3690?±?$6673 vs Controls: $558?±?$2487, both p?<?0.001). MBC patients had more sick leave cost than controls ($2383?±?$5539 vs $1282?±?$2083, p?<?0.05). Controlling for covariates, MBC patients incurred 47% more short-term disability costs vs EBC patients (p?=?0.009). Older patients (p?=?0.002), non-HMO payers (p?<?0.05), or patients not receiving chemotherapy during follow-up (p?<?0.001) were associated with lower short-term disability costs. MBC patients’ families incurred 39.7% (p?=?0.06) higher indirect costs compared to EBC patients’ families after controlling for key covariates.

Conclusion:

Productivity loss and associated costs in MBC patients are substantially higher than EBC patients or the general population. These findings underscore the economic burden of MBC from a US societal perspective. Various treatment regimens should be evaluated to identify opportunities to reduce the disease burden from the societal perspective.     

One-year follow-up healthcare costs of patients hospitalized for transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke and discharged with aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole or clopidogrel

Abstract

Objective:

To examine healthcare costs among patients hospitalized for transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke (TIA/stroke) and prescribed aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole (ASA-ERDP) or clopidogrel (CLOPID) within 30 days post-discharge using a retrospective claims database from a large US managed care organization.

Methods:

Adult patients with ≥1 hospitalizations for TIA/stroke between January 2007–July 2009 and ≥1 claims for an oral anti-platelet (OAP) were observed for 1 year before and after the first TIA/stroke hospitalization or until death, whichever came first. Cohorts were defined by the first claim for ASA-ERDP or CLOPID within 30 days post-discharge. A generalized linear model, adjusting for demographics, baseline comorbidities and costs, compared total follow-up costs (medical?+?pharmacy) between ASA-ERDP and CLOPID patients.

Results:

Of 6377 patients (2085 ASA-ERDP; 4292 CLOPID) who met the selection criteria, mean (SD) age was 69 (13) years and 50% were male. Unadjusted mean total follow-up costs were lower for ASA-ERDP than CLOPID ($26,201 vs $30,349; p?=?0.002), of which average unadjusted medical and pharmacy costs were $22,094 vs $26,062 (p?=?0.003) and $4107 vs $4288 (p?=?0.119), respectively. Multivariate modeling indicated that the following were associated with higher total costs (all p?<?0.05): higher baseline Quan-Charlson comorbidity score, history of atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction, index stroke hospitalization, death post-discharge, and index CLOPID use. Adjusted mean total follow-up costs for CLOPID were 9% higher than ASA-ERDP (cost ratio: 1.09; p?=?0.038).

Conclusion:

In this study, compared to CLOPID patients, ASA-ERDP patients were observed to have lower total costs 1 year post-discharge TIA/stroke hospitalization, driven primarily by lower medical costs. Further research into the real-world impact of OAP therapies on clinical and economic outcomes of patients with stroke/TIA is warranted. The findings of this study should be considered within the limitations of an administrative claims analysis, as claims data are collected for the purpose of payment.     

Economic outcomes of exenatide vs liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in the United States: results from a retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Objective:

The safety and efficacy of the GLP-1 receptor agonists exenatide BID (exenatide) and liraglutide for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been established in clinical trials. Effective treatments may lower overall treatment costs. This study examined cost offsets and medication adherence for exenatide vs liraglutide in a large, managed care population in the US.

Methods:

This was a retrospective cohort analysis comprising adult patients with T2DM who initiated exenatide or liraglutide between 1/1/2010 and 6/30/2010 and had 6 months pre-index and post-index continuous eligibility. Patients were propensity score-matched to controls for baseline differences. Medication adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-test and McNemar’s test were used to compare outcomes.

Results:

Matched exenatide and liraglutide cohorts (n?=?1347 pairs) had similar average total 6-month follow-up costs ($6688 vs $7346). However, exenatide patients had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($2925 vs $3272, p?<?0.001). Among liraglutide patients, patients receiving the 1.8?mg dose had significantly higher average total costs compared to those receiving the 1.2?mg dose ($8031 vs $6536, p?=?0.026), with higher mean pharmacy costs in the 1.8?mg cohort ($3935 vs $3146, p?<?0.001). There were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient costs or medication adherence between groups (mean PDC: exenatide 56% vs liraglutide 57%, p?=?0.088).

Limitations:

The study assumed that all information needed for case classification and matching of cohorts was present and not differential across cohorts. The study did not control for covariates that were unavailable, such as HbA1c and duration of diabetes.

Conclusions:

Patients initiating exenatide vs liraglutide for T2DM had similar medication adherence and total healthcare costs; however, exenatide patients had significantly lower total pharmacy costs. Patients prescribed 1.8?mg liraglutide had significantly higher costs compared to those on 1.2?mg.     

Impact of a step-therapy protocol for pregabalin on healthcare utilization and expenditures in a commercial population

Abstract

Objective:

To compare changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs among members with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), or fibromyalgia (FM) in a commercial health plan implementing pregabalin step-therapy with members in unrestricted plans.

Methods:

Retrospective study of outcomes associated with implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol using claims data from Humana (‘restricted’ cohort) and Thomson Reuters MarketScan (‘unrestricted’ cohort). Members aged 18–65 years receiving treatment for pDPN, PHN, or FM during 2008 or 2009 were identified; cohorts were matched on diagnosis and geographic region. Baseline to follow-up changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs were determined using difference-in-differences (DID) analysis. Statistical models adjusting for covariates explored relationships between restricted access and outcomes.

Results:

A total of 3876 restricted cohort members were identified and matched to 3876 unrestricted cohort members. FM was the predominant diagnosis (84.7%). The unrestricted cohort was older (mean?=?49.0 (SD?=?10.4) years vs 47.6 (SD?=?10.5) years; p?<?0.001), and had greater comorbidity (RxRisk-V score?=?5.4 (SD?=?3.2) vs 4.4 (SD?=?2.9), p?<?0.001) than the restricted cohort. Compared with the unrestricted cohort, the restricted cohort demonstrated a greater year-over-year decrease in pregabalin utilization (?2.6%, p?=?0.008), and greater increases in physical therapy and disease-related outpatient utilization (3.7%, p?=?0.010 and 3.6%, p?=?0.022, respectively). There were no statistically significant net differences in all-cause or disease-related total healthcare, medical, or pharmacy costs between cohorts. After adjusting for baseline compositional differences between cohorts, restricted plan membership was associated with a net increase in all-cause medical ($1222; p?=?0.016) and disease-related healthcare costs ($859; p?=?0.002). Limitations include use of a combined analysis for pDPN, PHN, and FM, especially since the observed results were likely driven by FM; an inability to link the prescribing of a medication with the condition of interest, which is common to claims analyses; and lack of pain severity information.

Conclusions:

Implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol resulted in lower pregabalin utilization, but this restriction was not associated with reductions in total healthcare costs, medical costs, or pharmacy costs.     

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US

Abstract

Aims: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Materials and methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US $135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled.

Limitations: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources.

Conclusions: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.     

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.     

The economic burden of common adverse events associated with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment in the United States

Aims: Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may compromise the course of treatment, impact quality-of-life, and increase healthcare resource utilization. This study assessed the direct healthcare costs of common AEs among mCRC patients in the US.

Methods: Adult mCRC patients treated with chemotherapy or targeted therapies were identified from administrative claims databases (2009–2014). Up to the first three mCRC treatment episodes per patient were considered and categorized as with or without the AE system/organ category during the episode. Total healthcare costs (2014 USD) were measured by treatment episode and reported on a monthly basis. Treatment episodes with the AE category were matched by treatment type and line of treatment to those without the AE category. Adjusted total cost differences were estimated by comparing costs during treatment episodes with vs without the AE category using multivariate regression models; p-values were estimated with bootstrap.

Results: A total of 4158 patients with ≥1 mCRC treatment episode were included (mean age?=?59 years; 58% male; 60% with liver and 14% with lung metastases; 2,261 [54%] with a second and 1,115 [27%] with a third episode). On average, two treatment episodes were observed per patient with an average length of 166 days per episode. Adjusted monthly total cost difference by AE category included hematologic ($1,480), respiratory ($1,253), endocrine/metabolic ($1,213), central nervous system (CNS; $1,136), and cardiovascular ($1,036; all p?Limitations: Claims do not include information on the cause of AEs, and potentially less severe AEs may not have been reported by the physician when billing the medical service. This study aimed to assess the association between costs and AEs and not the causation of AEs by treatment.

Conclusions: The most costly AEs among mCRC patients were hematologic, followed by respiratory, endocrine/metabolic, CNS, and cardiovascular.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism in cancer patients treated with anticoagulants

Abstract

Objective: The standard of care for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but oral anticoagulants are also widely prescribed. This study compared VTE-related healthcare resource utilization and costs of cancer patients treated with anticoagulants.

Methods: Claims data from Humana Database (January 1, 2013–May 31, 2015) were analyzed. Based on the first anticoagulant received, patients were classified into LMWH, warfarin, or rivaroxaban cohorts. Characteristics were evaluated during the 6 months pre-index date (i.e. the first VTE); VTE-related resource utilization and costs were evaluated during follow-up. Cohorts were compared using rate ratios, and p-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Healthcare costs were evaluated per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and compared using mean cost differences.

Results: A total of 2,428 patients (LMWH: n?=?660; warfarin: n?=?1,061; rivaroxaban: n?=?707) were included. Compared to patients treated with LMWH, patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly fewer VTE-related hospitalizations, hospitalization days, and emergency room and outpatient visits, resulting in an increase of $12,000 VTE-related healthcare costs PPPY with LMWH vs rivaroxaban. Patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly lower VTE-related resource utilization compared to patients treated with warfarin; however, VTE-related costs were similar between cohorts. The higher drug costs ($1,519) were offset by significantly lower outpatient (?$1,039) and hospitalization costs (?$522) in rivaroxaban relative to the warfarin cohort.

Conclusions: Healthcare resource use and costs associated with VTE treatment in cancer patients are highest with LMWH relative to warfarin and rivaroxaban.     

Switching of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real world setting

Objectives:

This study examined total healthcare costs and rates of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switch biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy in a real world setting.

Methods:

A retrospective longitudinal analysis was conducted in patients with RA using IMS PharMetrics Plus database from 1/1/2004 to 3/31/2010. The first-line cohort included patients newly initiated on abatacept or the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNFs) adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab, with 12 months of continuous follow-up. The second-line cohort included patients initiating a bDMARD with evidence of a different bDMARD within the previous 2 years and with 12 months of continuous follow-up. Switching was defined as a different bDMARD claim within a 200% gap in days supply from the previous bDMARD claim. Non-switchers stayed on their bDMARD in the follow-up period. Monthly total healthcare costs for switchers and non-switchers and rates of bDMARD switching were examined. Switch rates for each bDMARD were also compared.

Results:

First-line switchers had significantly higher monthly total healthcare costs after the switch than non-switchers ($3759 vs $2343; p?p?Limitations:

There are no clinical data available in this database and, therefore, this study did not examine the clinical drivers of healthcare costs and switch rates.

Conclusions:

Monthly total healthcare costs were higher for bDMARD switchers following the switch compared to non-switchers. Patients on abatacept switched less frequently than patients on anti-TNFs. This study highlights the need to identify patients who are likely to switch in order to ensure they receive the appropriate therapy which may improve outcomes and decrease healthcare costs.     

Overall survival,costs, and healthcare resource use by line of therapy in Medicare patients with newly diagnosed metastatic urothelial carcinoma

Aims: Medicare patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma (mUC) often receive platinum-based chemotherapy as first line of therapy (LOT), but invariably progress, requiring additional LOTs and healthcare resource use (HCRU). To better understand the evolving mUC treatment landscape, the economic burden of chemotherapy-based mUC treatments among US Medicare patients was estimated.

Methods: Newly diagnosed Medicare patients with mUC were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were followed from diagnosis to death, disenrollment, or end of study to characterize LOTs (first [LOT1], second [LOT2], and third or greater [LOT3+]). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS) by LOT. HCRU and mean costs were reported over the follow-up period, LOT duration, and maximum LOT received.

Results: Among 1,873 eligible patients with mUC (median age?=?77?years; median follow-up?=?7.5?months), 1,035 (55%) received no chemotherapy. Among chemotherapy-treated patients, 61% had LOT1 only, 25% had LOT1 and LOT2 only, and 14% had LOT3+. Median OS was 8.1?months, range was 4.3 (untreated) to 29.8 (LOT3+) months. HCRU frequency increased with additional LOTs. Mean cumulative per-patient cost was $82,912 for all patients, increasing with additional LOTs (untreated?=?$57,207; LOT1?=?$99,213; LOT2?=?$125,190; LOT3+?=?$163,884). Mean per patient per month cost was $18,827 for all patients, decreasing with increasing number of LOTs received (untreated?=?$27,211; LOT1?=?$9,601; LOT2?=?$7,325; LOT3+?=?$6,017).

Limitations: Potential for treatment misclassification when using the algorithm defining LOTs and non-generalizability of results to younger patients.

Conclusions: Over 50% of Medicare patients with mUC received no chemotherapy. Among chemotherapy-treated patients, most received only one LOT. Additional LOTs led to higher mean costs and HCRU, but as patients were followed longer, monthly costs decreased. As treatments evolve to include immuno-oncology agents, these findings provide a clinically relevant economic benchmark for mUC treatment across different traditional LOTs.     

Impact of completing chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment on post-therapy healthcare cost

Background:

Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with significant economic burden. This study evaluated the healthcare cost alleviation associated with treatment of CHC.

Methods:

Health insurance claims from 60 self-insured US companies were analyzed (01/2001–03/2012). Adult patients with ≥1 CHC diagnosis (ICD-9-CM: 070.44, 070.54), initiating interferon, and with ≥2 dispensings and with ≥48 weeks of follow-up were selected. Patients diagnosed with HIV or who completed only 24 weeks of interferon therapy (a surrogate for CHC genotypes 2 and 3) were excluded from the study. Interferon users were categorized into complete and discontinued therapy cohorts. During the post–48-week treatment period, cohorts were compared for healthcare resource utilization using rate ratios (RRs), as well as healthcare costs using per-patient per-year (PPPY) cost differences.

Results:

A total of 1017 patients who completed and 953 patients who discontinued interferon therapy were identified. Relative to the discontinued therapy cohort, the completed therapy cohort had significantly fewer hospitalizations (RR [95% CI]?=?0.74 [0.68, 0.81], p?p?p?=?0.039), which translated into significantly lower total healthcare costs PPPY (cost difference [95% CI]?=?$4540 [1570, 7680], p?=?0.004) and hospitalization costs (cost difference [95% CI]?=?$3039 [1140, 5248], p?=?0.002). Non–CHC-related costs accounted for 55% and CHC-related costs for 45% of the all-cause cost difference between cohorts.

Limitations:

Claims data may have contained inaccuracies, and genotypes of patients with CHC could not be confirmed. The study consisted of privately insured individuals and may not be generalizable to the entire CHC population.

Conclusion:

Compared to discontinued therapy patients, CHC patients who completed interferon therapy and presumably had a higher rate of achieving SVR were found to have lower levels of healthcare resource utilization and costs post-therapy. The reduction was primarily in costs associated with non–HCV-related comorbidities.     

Economic analysis of bevacizumab,cetuximab, and panitumumab with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

Abstract

Objective:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers). Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to human vascular endothelial growth factor. A sub-study confirmed its effectiveness in KRAS wild-type patients. Recent evidence has shown clinical benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor treatments cetuximab and panitumumab in these patients. The cost-effectiveness, to the Canadian healthcare system, of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (FBC) in combination with bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab was assessed for first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type mCRC patients.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed and calibrated to progression-free/overall survival, using separately reported trial survival and adverse event results for each comparator. Health-state resource utilization was derived from published data and oncologist input. Utilities and unit prices were obtained from published literature and standard Canadian sources.

Results:

Results per patient are over a lifetime horizon, to a maximum of 10 years, with 5% annual discounting. Comparators are ordered by total cost and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each is determined against the previous non-dominated therapy. Compared to FBC alone, bevacizumab?+?FBC has an ICER of $131,600 per QALY gained. Compared to bevacizumab?+?FBC, panitumumab?+?FBC is dominated and cetuximab?+?FBC has an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab?+?FBC had ～100%, ～100%, and 98.9% probabilities of being more cost-effective than both of the other combination treatments at thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $200,000/QALY, respectively.

Conclusion:

For first-line treatment of KRAS-WT mCRC, bevacizumab?+?FBC is associated with substantially lower costs as compared to panitumumab?+?FBC or cetuximab?+?FBC. Key limitations were that survival curves and adverse event rates were taken from separate clinical trials and that an indirect comparison was not included. Given these findings, bevacizumab is likely to offer the best value for money for this patient population.     

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.