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.     

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.     

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

Abstract

Objective: Patients with cancer are at high risk for developing primary but also recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study examined healthcare utilization (HRU) and costs related to VTE recurrence among cancer patients.

Methods: Medical and pharmacy claims from the Humana Database were used to compare HRU (outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and hospitalization days) and healthcare costs among cancer patients with a single VTE event (between 01/2013 and 06/2015) and those with recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (from initiation of anticoagulant therapy until end of eligibility or data availability). All-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs were evaluated using Poisson regression, and healthcare costs were compared using mean differences reported as per-patient-per-year (PPPY).

Results: Of 2,428 newly diagnosed cancer patients who developed VTE, 413 (17.1%) experienced recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (mean = 9 months). Patients with recurrent VTE had higher all-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs compared to those without recurrence. Patients with recurrent VTE also had over 3.19-times more VTE-related hospitalizations (RR [95% CI]?=?3.19 [2.93–3.47]), and 3.88-times more VTE-related hospitalization days (RR [95% CI]?=?3.88 [3.74–4.02]) than patients without a VTE recurrence. Total VTE-related healthcare costs were $39,641 PPPY among patients with recurrent VTE, $29,142 higher compared to those without recurrence ($10,499 PPPY). This difference was mainly driven by hospitalization costs.

Conclusion: Recurrent VTE among cancer patients is associated with significant HRU and healthcare costs, notably hospitalizations. Strategies to reduce VTE recurrence in patients with cancer can contribute to reducing healthcare cost.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of compensating surplus and budget reallocation with opportunity costs specified

The use of most nonmarket valuation techniques is predicated on respondents paying additional amounts of money for increased provision of a public good. However, in many circumstances this may not be appropriate. Treaty rights or the capacity of a government to raise and collect taxes in the context of a developing country may preclude the introduction of new taxes. Alternatively, there may be settings where respondents reject the notion of an additional payment and a different approach to estimating nonmarket values is needed. This article demonstrates a methodology for estimating compensating budget reallocation, which is the amount of expenditure on other public goods that respondents are willing to forego for the government to provide more of another public good. One of the main contributions of this article is a demonstration of how to improve the specification of the opportunity costs of budget reallocations. Second, using choice modelling for the estimation of budget reallocations is compared with the standard approach of estimating compensating surplus. The two approaches produce aggregate results that are of a similar magnitude, however the relative importance of the environmental attributes differs. We also investigate the similarity of value estimates across income groups, and similar to Swallow and McGonagle (2006), we find that budget reallocations produce a different set of preferences for lower income earners.     

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.     

Evaluation of the costs and resource use associated with adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in France

Abstract

Objectives:

There is a paucity of recent data on breast cancer costs, particularly on the burden of chemotherapy. The present study was designed to estimate resource use and costs associated with the current standard of care for adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Methods:

Costs and resource use were assessed by retrospective analysis of medical records at a single comprehensive cancer care center, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France. Data were extracted from files of female patients having undergone surgical resection of breast cancer between January–July 2010. Patients were included if they received chemotherapy at the hospital and had medical records available. Patients were followed from the start of adjuvant chemotherapy (including pre-chemotherapy) to the end of treatment. Costs were collected for each resource use item from a societal perspective using standard, published sources and expressed in 2011 Euros (€). Limitations of the analysis included the single-center study design and the use of pre-defined questionnaires on resource use (which may conservatively estimate costs).

Results:

A total of 62 patients were included in the study with a mean age of ～54 years. Most patients had stage II (50.8%) or stage III (40.7%) disease. Anthracycline plus taxane-based chemotherapy regimens were most commonly prescribed (77% of patients). Mean cost of adjuvant chemotherapy was estimated to be ～€15,740 per patient from a societal perspective. The acquisition costs of chemotherapy agents were responsible for 26% of the total, with lost productivity (27%), chemotherapy administration (19%), and adverse events (16%) also contributing substantially.

Conclusions:

Evaluation of costs in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in France has shown that the costs of adjuvant chemotherapy are substantial. The main components of total cost were the cost of chemotherapy agents, lost productivity, chemotherapy administration, and management and prevention of adverse events.     

An economic comparison of the net clinical benefit and treatment costs of raltitrexed and 5-fluorouracil + leucovorin (Mayo regimen) in advanced colorectal cancer

Summary

Background

This paper describes an economic evaluation in which raltitrexed (Tomudex®) was compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + leucovorin (LV), and where net clinical benefits were related to differential health service costs. Raltitrexed, a specific inhibitor of thymidylate synthetase, has shown anticancer activity against a range of solid tumours.

Tomudex® is a registered trademark ofZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Materials and Methods

In a large, open, randomised, multicentre study in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, raltitrexed (n = 223) and 5-FU plus LV (n = 216) showed similar efficacy in terms of patient survival and objective response (i.e. tumour shrinkage rates). Palliative benefits were seen in both groups of patients and suggest that patients with stable disease are as likely to show improvement as those with a tumour response. Reductions compared with 5-FU plus LV in the number of toxicity days (median 1.5 vs 8 treatment days) and administration days (6 vs 22 days) with raltitrexed were consistent with a net clinical benefit.

Results

A cost minimisation analysis that drew on data from a number of sources showed direct medical costs per month to be similar for the two treatments (£781 for raltitrexed vs £834 for 5-FU + LV).

Conclusions

Raltitrexed therefore represents a clinically effective alternative to 5-FU plus LV (Mayo regimen) and offers net clinical benefit to patients with advanced colorectal cancer at no apparent additional cost.     

Medical resource use and costs associated with chylomicronemia

Abstract

Background:

The prevalence of severe hypertriglyceridemia (TG?>?1000?mg/dl) is estimated at 150–400 per 100,000 individuals in North America. Severe hypertriglyceridemia in the fasting state is associated with increased acute pancreatitis risk and is a sign of chylomicronemia which reflects the accumulation in the bloodstream of chylomicrons, the large lipoprotein particles produced in the gut after a meal.

Objective:

To assess medical resource use and costs associated with chylomicronemia.

Methods:

Patients with chylomicronemia of different causes (≥2 diagnoses with ICD-9 code 272.3) were identified from a large US claims database (years 2000 to 2009) and matched 1:1 to controls free of chylomicronemia based on age, gender, demographics, comorbidities, and use of lipid lowering drugs. During a 1-year study period, medical resource use and costs associated with chylomicronemia or acute pancreatitis were compared between matched cases and controls.

Results:

Among 6472 matched pairs, annual per-patient medical costs, calculated independently of the occurrence of acute pancreatitis, were significantly greater by $808 for chylomicronemia cases vs controls ($8029 vs $7220, p?<?0.01), half of which was attributable to chylomicronemia-related services (p?<?0.01). Chylomicronemia cases with a history of acute pancreatitis (n?=?46) had greater rates of inpatient visits (p?<?0.05) and greater average costs for subsequent acute pancreatitis or abdominal pain (p?<?0.01) as well as greater total medical costs ($33,587 vs $4402, p?<?0.01) vs matched controls. The average episode of acute pancreatitis (n?=?104 episodes) generated medical costs of $31,820, almost entirely due to inpatient stays.

Limitations:

Triglyceride levels were not available to characterize disease severity.

Conclusions:

Patients with chylomicronemia, and especially those with a history of acute pancreatitis, incurred significantly greater total medical costs compared with individuals without chylomicronemia but with an otherwise comparable health profile.     

A comparison of work absence periods and the associated costs for two different modes of exercise therapies for patients with longstanding subacromial pain

Abstract

Background: There are no studies on economic issues concerning rehabilitation exercises for shoulder pain.

Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate sick leave and the associated costs after a medical exercise therapy programme in patients with longstanding subacromial pain/impingement.

Methods: A randomised controlled trial in which 61 patients were randomly assigned either to a high-dosage medical exercise therapy group (HD) (n=31) or to a low dosage exercise therapy group (LD) (n=30). Both groups were given three treatments a week over 3 months. The differences between the groups were number of repetitions, number of sets and time performing global aerobic exercises.

Results: The outcome for the HD group was significantly (p<0.05) better compared to the LD group. The reduction in costs for sick leave for the HD group was 59.1%, whereas for the LD group, the reduction was only 42.3%, which is a significant difference.

Conclusion: In patients with longstanding subacromial pain, HD medical exercise therapy might be an efficient treatment approach.     

A comparison of different contract forms for consumers with switching costs and changed preferences

This paper compares three contract forms, including short-term contract with price discrimination, short-term contract without price discrimination, and long-term contract with price commitment for consumers with switching costs and changed preferences. We find that long-term contract generates the largest profit for firms. Moreover, we find that switching costs make the market more competitive when consumers have changed preferences, and the higher the switching costs, the more competitive. Our theory combines linear-city duopoly and switching-cost model and the results are consistent with literature, for example price commitment is valuable. Our findings shed light on the practice of different forms of dynamic pricing in various industries including telecommunication industry and airline industry.     

Changes in healthcare resource use and costs associated with early versus delayed initiation of atypical antipsychotic adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder

Aims: The study compared all-cause and major depressive disorder (MDD)-related healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs in patients with MDD treated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) adjunctive therapy early or later in treatment.

Materials and methods: Adults with MDD and antidepressant treatment (ADT) who newly initiated adjunctive aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, or quetiapine between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015 were identified in the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims database; the index date was the date of the first AAP claim. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: AAP initiated in the first year (Y1); in the second year (Y2); and more than 2 years (Y3) of first ADT use. Within each cohort, HRU and costs were compared between the 12 months before and after the index date. Pre–post changes in HRU and costs were then compared between cohorts.

Results: Five hundred and six (36.7%) patients were categorized as Y1; 252 (18.3%) as Y2; and 622 (45.1%) as Y3. AAP use was associated with significantly decreased rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalization and emergency department visits, and increased rates of pharmacy fills and physician office visits; and the magnitude of changes was largest in cohort Y1. Cohort Y1 had the largest reductions in mean (±SD) all-cause medical costs per patient (?$10,496?±?$85,022, p?=?.015) compared to Y2 (?$2,474?±?$85,022, p?=?.572) and Y3 (?$472?±?$31,334, p?=?.823), mainly due to the reduction in hospitalization. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the largest reductions in hospitalization and medical costs were observed in cohort Y1. Similar increases in all-cause pharmacy costs were seen in all cohorts. A similar trend in costs was observed in MDD-related healthcare services.

Limitations and conclusions: AAP treatment was associated with reductions in all-cause and MDD-related medical costs, primarily in decreased hospitalization. The reductions were largest among patients who initiated treatment in the first year.     

Reduction in costs of inpatient stay associated with clozapine treatment: A retrospective study

Summary

Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug used to treat the 10-25% of patients who suffer from schizophrenia who are treatment resistant or intolerant to standard antipsychotic drug treatment. A major issue associated with treatment is the high cost of the drug compared to standard antipsychotic drug treatment. Research carried out to date has suggested that despite the high cost of clozapine, it is overall a cost-effective treatment. This contention is based on the findings described elsewhere that clozapine treatment is associated with a dramatic decrease in psychiatric inpatient stay.

There are many ethical difficulties associated with a prospective double-blind controlled trial of clozapine treatment. We have therefore reported on a retrospective audit. A retrospective analysis was carried out by the examination of computerised patient records to determine if clozapine treatment had been associated with a reduction in psychiatric inpatient stay. Also examined was whether clozapine treatment had been associated with an overall shift from intensive therapeutic ward usage.

For example, patients are moved from intensive care and acute wards to wards with less intensive therapeutic input such as continuing care and rehabilitation wards. The inpatient stay details for 76 patients prescribed clozapine since early 1991 were examined before and after clozapine treatment commenced. The main problem with this retrospective analysis is that without any control group observed over the same time period, it is very difficult to assess how much of the decrease in bed usage is related to either the natural history of the disease and/or to changes in bed use over time associated with changes in mental health service provision and the development of community facilities.

Psychiatric inpatient stay decreased by a statistically non-significant average of 13.2 days (6%) in the first year of treatment (p=0.7692), a non-significant average of 34 days (15%) in the second year of treatment (p=0.0669), a significant average of 38.4 days (17%) in the third year of treatment (p=0.0007) and again by a significant average of 51.2 days (22%) in the fourth year of treatment (p=0.0011).

The average cost per inpatient bed-day for the main psychiatric hospital in the Health Board's area is £90.86 (based on 100% occupancy rate, 1994/95 prices). The reduction in bed days identified was equivalent to a saving of £1,200 per patient in the first year of treatment, £3,090 per patient in the second year, £3,490 per patient in the third year and £4,652 per patient in the fourth year. The average annual cost of clozapine per patient is approximately £2,500.

Clozapine treatment was also associated with a shift from intensive care and acute ward inpatient usage to continuing care and rehabilitative ward usage. In the year prior to clozapine treatment intensive care and acute ward stay accounted for 72.7% of total inpatient stay. In the first year of treatment this proportion decreased to 63.7%, in the second year to 39.5%, in the third year to 31.8% and in the fourth year to 24.6%. This represented potential savings of £500,000 per annum.

Overall, the data generated from this study indicated that clozapine treatment is associated with both a reduction in psychiatric bed usage and a shift to less therapeutically intensive care wards. However, the decrease identified is not as dramatic as the reduction quoted elsewhere in the literature. These findings provide useful costing information to support the view that clozapine is a cost-saving or cost-neutral treatment in terms of the provision of psychiatric services in the UK. However, the costs associated with the increased use of community services by the study group were not identified in this review. In order to establish whether or not clozapine is cost saving overall compared to standard antipsychotic treatment it would have been necessary to identify all costs, including the whole range of community costs, before and after treatment commenced.     

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with treatment for opioid dependence

Objective: Opioid use disorder (OUD) can be managed with medication assisted therapy (MAT) (methadone [MET], buprenorphine [BUP], or extended-release naltrexone [XR-NTX]) or counseling alone (non-pharmacological therapy [NPT]). The objective of this study was to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with XR-NTX compared with alternative treatments for opioid dependence.

Methods: Adults with a diagnosis of opioid dependence who initiated treatment with XR-NTX, BUP, MET, or NPT between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial administrative claims database. Healthcare resource utilization, costs (inpatient [IP], emergency department [ED], outpatient [OP], and pharmacy) and adherence were evaluated for each cohort during 12-month baseline and follow-up periods.

Results: A total of 29,235 patients were included in the analysis; 1,041, 20,566, 745, and 6,883 received XR-NTX, BUP, MET, and NPT, respectively. Patients in the XR-NTX cohort were significantly younger and had more comorbidities compared with the other cohorts. Patients in the XR-NTX group had the largest percentage decrease in IP and ED utilization and costs from baseline to follow-up. OP and pharmacy costs increased significantly from baseline to follow-up for all cohorts. Overall, there was no significant change in total healthcare costs for the XR-NTX group, whereas the costs increased significantly for other groups (BUP?=?+43%, MET?=?+47.7%, NPT?=?+38.8%).

Conclusions: Healthcare resource utilization and costs increased from baseline to follow-up in BUP, MET, and NPT patients, whereas patients receiving XR-NTX experienced no such increase. This analysis suggests there may be economic value in the use of XR-NTX for OUD.     

Healthcare costs among men with favorable risk prostate cancer managed with observation strategies versus immediate treatment in an integrated healthcare system

Objective: This study explored short-term healthcare costs of men managed with observation strategies (OBS) vs immediate treatment (IMT) for favorable risk prostate cancer (PCa) from the Geisinger Health System, a single integrated health system in Pennsylvania, as evidence from the community setting is limited.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic health records from men aged ≥40 years diagnosed with favorable risk PCa (T1 or 2, PSA ≤15?ng/mL, Gleason ≤7 [3?+?4]) between January 2005 and October 2013. Prostate-specific healthcare costs were compared between the OBS and IMT cohorts in men with ≥3 years of follow-up and available linked claims data. Sub-group analyses focused on those men with low-risk PCa (T1-2a, PSA ≤10?ng/mL, Gleason ≤6). Sensitivity analysis stratified the study sample in three cohorts: OBS, switched from OBS to definitive treatment (OBS switch), and IMT.

Results: A total of 352 patients were included (OBS?=?70 and IMT?=?282). Compared with IMT, OBS resulted in significantly lower cumulative PCa-related healthcare costs for the first 3 years ($15,785 vs $23,177; p-value <.001). The main cost drivers were outpatient procedures. The OBS cohort had the lowest incremental PCa-related healthcare costs in the first 3 years (OBS: $5,011 vs OBS switch: $26,040, net cost savings?=?$21,029, p?p?Conclusions: In favorable risk PCa, half of the patients who initially chose OBS eventually underwent treatment after their PCa diagnosis. As expected, OBS was associated with reduced disease management costs compared with IMT.     

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.