Cost of skeletal complications from bone metastases in six European countries

Objective Patients with bone metastases or lesions secondary to solid tumors or multiple myeloma often experience bone complications (skeletal-related events [SREs]—radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression); however, recent data that can be used to assess the value of treatments to prevent SREs across European countries are limited. This study aimed to provide estimates of health resource utilization (HRU) and cost associated with all SRE types in Europe. HRU data were reported previously; cost data are reported herein.

Methods Eligible patients from 49 centers across Austria (n?=?57), the Czech Republic (n?=?59), Finland (n?=?60), Greece (n?=?59), Portugal (n?=?59), and Sweden (n?=?62) had bone metastases or lesions secondary to breast, lung, or prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, and ≥1 index SRE (a SRE preceded by a SRE-free period of ≥?6.5 months). SRE-related costs were estimated from a payer perspective using health resource utilization data from patient charts (before and after the index SRE diagnosis). Country-specific unit costs were from 2010 and local currencies were converted to 2010 euros.

Results The mean costs across countries were €7043, €5242, €11,101, and €11,509 per radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression event, respectively. Purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted mean cost ratios were similar in most countries, with the exception of radiation to bone.

Limitations The overall burden of SREs may have been under-estimated owing to home visits and evaluations outside the hospital setting not being reported here.

Conclusions All SREs were associated with substantial costs. Variation in SRE-associated costs between countries was most likely driven by differences in treatment practices and unit costs.     

Retrospective database analysis of the effect of zoledronic acid on skeletal-related events and mortality in women with breast cancer and bone metastasis in a managed care plan

Abstract

Background:

Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced breast cancer, and place patients at risk for skeletal-related events (SREs) including pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia of malignancy, and the need for radiotherapy and/or surgery to bone. These SREs are associated with reduced survival and quality-of-life. The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates Zometa (zoledronic acid, ZOL) and Aredia (pamidronate disodium, PAM) reduce SRE risk in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. This database analysis compared SRE and mortality rates in a real-life setting in women with breast cancer receiving ZOL and PAM, and assessed long-term ZOL benefit.

Methods:

A retrospective, claims-based analysis was conducted using commercial and Medicare Advantage data from >45 US managed-care plans. Eligible adult patients had diagnoses for breast cancer and bone metastasis between 01/01/01 and 12/31/06, continuous enrollment in the health plan, and no evidence of bone metastasis or intravenous bisphosphonate (IV-BP) use for 6 months before their first ZOL or PAM infusion. Patients were followed until disenrollment (including mortality) or end of the analysis period (12/31/07). Persistency was defined as absence of a >45-day gap between IV-BP treatments.

Results:

Of 8757 patients (mean age, 58.1 [SD 12.4] years), ～ 30% were treated with ZOL, 15% with PAM, and 55% with no IV-BP. Patients treated with ZOL had a moderately lower incidence of SREs (mean, 36.2 vs 40.0 SREs/100 person-years; p?=?0.0707) and significantly lower mortality (mean, 6.5 vs 11.2 deaths/100 person-years; p?<?0.001) compared with PAM-treated patients. Longer persistency with ZOL was associated with lower risk of fracture and all SREs (trend-test p?=?0.0076 and p?=?0.0200, respectively).

Limitations:

Interpretation of this claims-based analysis must be tempered by the inherent limitations of observational data, such as imbalances in patient populations and the potential for bias in treatment selection.

Conclusions:

This analysis suggests that fewer than half of breast cancer patients with bone metastases receive IV-BPs. Longer persistence with ZOL was associated with lower SRE risk, and ZOL-treated patients had longer survival and a non-significant trend toward fewer SREs compared with PAM.     

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective.

Methods:

A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were $49,405, $78,915, and $67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were $8567, $13,557, and $10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates.

Limitations:

Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration.

Conclusion:

Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.     

Assessment of zoledronic acid treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with bone metastases from genitourinary cancers

Abstract

Background:

Patients with bone metastases secondary to genitourinary (GU) cancer are at risk for skeletal-related events (SREs), including bone pain requiring palliative radiotherapy, fractures or surgery to bone, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia of malignancy. These SREs can be debilitating and potentially life-limiting. This study examined treatment practices and the association of treatment patterns with Zometa (zoledronic acid, ZOL), an intravenous bisphosphonate (IV-BP), with SREs and fractures. (Zometa is a registered trademark of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, USA.)

Methods:

Retrospective analysis of commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollment and medical claims data was performed to evaluate IV-BP use and SRE patterns in adult patients with GU cancers. Criteria included diagnosis of ≥1 bone metastasis and prostate cancer (PC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or bladder cancer (BlC) between January 2001 and December 2006; continuous healthcare plan enrollment for ≥6 months before the index date; and no evidence of prior IV-BP use. Patients were followed until disenrollment from the healthcare plan or December 2007.

Results:

Of 6347 patients (PC, n?=?4976; RCC, n?=?941; BlC, n?=?430; mean [standard deviation] age: 68.9 [11.1] years), only ～23% received ZOL. The mean time between diagnosis of bone metastasis and ZOL initiation was ～108 days. Among patients with PC, fracture risk was significantly smaller for ZOL vs no IV-BP (incidence rate ratio?=?0.70; p?<?0.001), and 2-year survival was significantly longer for ZOL-treated vs no IV-BP patients (p?=?0.007). Patients with longer persistency on ZOL had a smaller fracture risk than patients with shorter persistency. Sub-set analyses were not performed for RCC and BIC because the proportion of patients treated was too low.

Limitations:

Interpretation of this claims-based analysis must be tempered by the inherent limitations of observational data, such as limited and accurate available information, and unavailable information including clinical or disease-specific parameters.

Conclusions:

Intravenous BP therapy is not always received in patients with bone metastases secondary to GU cancers, and, when used, there are typically long time periods before treatment initiation. Without IV-BPs, PC patients have significantly larger risks of fracture and death compared with ZOL-treated patients, and benefits appear to be larger with increasing persistency on ZOL.     

Economic burden of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma: analysis of US commercial claims database

Aims: To estimate incremental healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with skeletal-related events (SREs) secondary to multiple myeloma (MM), and HRU and cost differences in patients with one vs multiple SREs.

Methods: Adults with MM diagnosis between January 1, 2010–December 31, 2014, with benefits coverage ≥12 months pre- and ≥6 months post-diagnosis were followed to last coverage date or December 31, 2015, excluding patients with prior anti-myeloma treatment or cancers. SREs were identified by diagnosis or procedure codes (pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation, or surgery to the bone). SRE patients (index?=?first post-diagnosis SRE) were propensity score matched 1:1 to patients without SRE (assigned pseudo-index) using baseline characteristics, and ≥1 month of continuous enrollment after index/pseudo-index date was required. Per-patient-per year (PPPY) HRU and costs (2016?US$) were determined for inpatient, outpatient, emergency department (ED), and outpatient pharmacy services during follow-up. Wilcoxon signed rank for means and McNemar’s tests for proportions were used to assess differences. Negative binomial regression and generalized linear regression analyses estimated differences in HRU and costs, respectively, for the comparison of single vs multiple SREs.

Results: Each cohort included 848 patients (mean age?=?61 – 62 years, 57% male) with no significant differences in pre-index demographic or clinical characteristics between matched cohorts. Versus non-SRE patients, SRE patients had significantly higher PPPY use (p?<?.0001) of inpatient hospitalizations, ED visits, outpatient pharmacy, and higher direct medical costs ($188,723 vs $108,160, p?<?.0001). Adjusted PPPY total costs were $209,820 in patients with multiple SREs; $159,797 in patients with one SRE.

Limitations: SRE misclassification and residual confounding are possible.

Conclusions: Among patients with MM, average annual costs were substantially higher in patients with SRE compared with matched non-SRE patients. The economic burden of SRE increased further with multiple events.     

Cost of skeletal-related events in European patients with solid tumours and bone metastases: data from a prospective multinational observational study

Abstract

Objectives:

Patients with bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs: radiation or surgery to bone, pathologic fracture, and spinal cord compression). This study examined health resource utilization and costs associated with SREs.

Methods:

Data presented are from the European cohort (Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) of patients with solid tumours enrolled in a multi-national, prospective, observational study in patients with solid tumours or multiple myeloma. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score 0–2 and life expectancy ≥6 months, who experienced an SRE up to 97 days before enrolment, were eligible. Health resource utilization associated with SREs (including number/length of inpatient stays, numbers of procedures and outpatient visits) were collected through chart review for up to 97 days before enrolment and prospectively during follow-up. Country-specific cost calculations were performed.

Results:

In total, 478 eligible patients contributed 893 SREs to this analysis. Radiation to bone occurred most frequently (66% of total). Spinal cord compression (7%) and surgery to bone (10%) were the least common events, but most likely to require inpatient stays. The most costly SREs were also spinal cord compression (mean per SRE across countries, €4884–€12,082) and surgery to bone (€3348–€9407). Inpatient stays were the main cost drivers.

Limitations:

Health resource utilization used to calculate the costs associated with SREs may have been under-estimated as a result of exclusion of patients with low performance status or life expectancy; unavailable information and exclusion of resource consumption associated with pain. Thus, the estimate of associated costs is likely to be conservative.

Conclusions:

SREs result in considerable health resource utilization, imposing a substantial financial burden driven by inpatient stays. Treatments that prevent/delay SREs may help ease this burden, thereby providing cost savings across European healthcare systems.     

Cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients in France,Germany, Portugal,and the Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) reduces the risk of skeletal related events (SREs) in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients with bone metastases. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of ZOL for SRE management in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.

Methods:

This analysis was based on the results of a randomized phase III clinical trial wherein HRPC patients received up to 15 months of ZOL (n?=?214) or placebo (n?=?208). Clinical inputs were obtained from the trial. Costs were estimated using hospital tariffs, published, and internet sources. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were estimated from a separate analysis of EQ-5D scores reported in the trial. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ZOL patients experienced an estimated 0.759 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.03566 QALYs versus placebo patients. ZOL was associated with reduced SRE-related costs [net costs] (?€2396 [€1284] in France, ?€2606 [€841] in Germany, ?€3326 [€309] in Portugal and ?€3617 [€87] in the Netherlands). Costs per QALY ranged from €2430 (Netherlands) to €36,007 (France).

Conclusions:

This analysis is subject to the limitations of most cost-effectiveness analyses: it combines data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that ZOL is cost effective versus placebo in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.     

Short-term disability in solid tumor patients with bone metastases and skeletal-related events

Abstract

Objective:

The skeleton is a common site of metastasis in patients with solid tumors. These patients often experience pain and reduced quality-of-life. This analysis evaluated the time and costs associated with short-term disability use among solid tumor patients with bone metastases (BM) and skeletal-related events (SREs).

Methods:

Data from patients 18–64 years old with solid tumors and BM, eligible for short-term disability benefits between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2010, were extracted from MarketScan Research Databases. Short-term disability hours and costs associated with BM and SREs were evaluated.

Results:

Overall, 1098 patients met the criteria. For all patients with BM, the monthly mean short-term disability hours were 17.7?h pre-BM diagnosis and increased to 60.2?h post-BM diagnosis (p?<?0.001). The corresponding mean monthly short-term disability costs were $277 and $963 in the pre- and post-BM diagnosis periods, respectively (p?<?0.001). Monthly mean short-term disability hours were higher for the cohort of patients with SREs (21.2?h pre-SRE diagnosis and 67.4?h post-SRE diagnosis) than for those without an SRE (8.6?h pre-SRE diagnosis and 14.4?h post-SRE diagnosis) (p?<?0.001). Similarly, the corresponding monthly mean short-term disability costs were higher for patients with SREs ($625 and $1259 pre- and post-SRE diagnosis, respectively) than for patients without an SRE ($452 and $612 pre- and post-SRE diagnosis, respectively) (p?<?0.001). Results of a multivariate analysis indicated that SREs were associated with an additional 39.4 short-term disability hours and $613 in short-term disability costs per month (p?<?0.001).

>Conclusion:

Short-term disability hours and costs increased significantly when patients with solid tumors developed BM and SRE.     

Healthcare costs in postmenopausal women with hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer

Abstract

Objectives:

This study examines costs for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC).

Methods:

Data were obtained from the IHCIS National Managed Care Benchmark Database from 1/1/2001 to 6/30/2006. Women aged 55–63 years were selected for the study if they met the inclusion criteria, including diagnoses for breast cancer and metastases, and at least two fills for a hormone medication. Patients were followed from the onset of metastases until the earliest date of disenrollment from the health plan or 6/30/2006. Patient characteristics were examined at time of initial diagnoses of metastases, while costs were examined post-diagnosis of metastases and prior to receipt of chemotherapy (pre-chemotherapy initiation period) and from the date of initial receipt of chemotherapy until end of data collection (post-chemotherapy initiation period). Costs were adjusted to account for censoring of the data.

Results:

The study population consisted of 1,266 women; mean (SD) age was 59.05 (2.57) years. Pre-chemotherapy initiation, unadjusted inpatient, outpatient, and drug costs were $4,392, $47,731, and $5,511, while these costs were $4,590, $57,820, and $38,936 per year, respectively, post-chemotherapy initiation. After adjusting for censoring of data, total medical costs were estimated to be $55,555 and $70,587 in the first 12 months and 18 months, respectively in the pre-chemotherapy initiation period. Post-chemotherapy initiation period, 12-month and 18-month adjusted total medical costs were estimated to be $87,638 and $130,738.

Limitations:

The use of an administrative claims database necessitates a reliance upon diagnostic codes, age restrictions, and medication use, rather than formal assessments to identify patients with post-hormonal women with breast cancer. Furthermore, such populations of insured patients may not be generalizable to the population as a whole.

Conclusions:

These findings suggest that healthcare resource use and costs – especially in the outpatient setting – are high among women with HR+ metastatic breast cancer.     

Retrospective evaluation of the clinical benefit of long-term continuous use of zoledronic acid in patients with lung cancer and bone metastases

Abstract

Background:

For patients with bone metastases, skeletal-related events including fracture are common, can cause considerable morbidity, and may reduce overall survival (OS). This retrospective analysis assessed the effect of Zometa (zoledronic acid, ZOL), an intravenous bisphosphonate (IV-BP), on fracture risk and OS in patients with bone metastases from lung cancer (LC). (Zometa is a registered trademark of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, USA.)

Methods:

A claims-based analysis using commercial and Medicare Advantage data from >45 US managed-care plans was used to evaluate the association between fracture risk and treatment persistency (31–90, 91–180, 181–365, and ≥366 days) and follow-up duration in LC patients diagnosed with bone metastases between 01/01/2001 and 12/31/2006 and treated with ZOL or without (no IV-BP). Persistency was defined as the absence of a >45-day gap between ZOL treatments. Analysis of variance tests were used to compare follow-up duration, a proxy for OS, between ZOL persistency groups. The effect of time to treatment with ZOL was also assessed.

Results:

In 9874 LC patients with bone metastases (n?=?1090 ZOL; n?=?8784 no IV-BP) the unadjusted relative fracture risk was reduced by 40% with ZOL vs no IV-BP; fracture risk decreased consistently with increasing duration of ZOL treatment. Even short-term (31–90 days) ZOL significantly reduced fracture risk (47%) vs no IV-BP (p?=?0.005) with adjustment for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics. Delaying ZOL until after bone metastases were diagnosed significantly increased fracture risk (p?=?0.0017). For a sub-set of patients included in a survival analysis (n?=?550 ZOL; n?=?4512 no IV-BP), mortality was significantly lower (mean, 38.6 vs 46.8 deaths/100 person-years; p?=?0.038) in those treated with ZOL vs no IV-BP.

Limitations:

Interpretation of this claims-based analysis must be tempered by the inherent limitations of observational data, such as limited clinical information and the ability to control for prognostic factors.

Conclusions:

This retrospective analysis demonstrates that LC patients with bone metastases receiving ZOL had significantly reduced risk of fracture (p?=?0.005) and death (p?<?0.038) vs patients receiving no IV-BP. Longer ZOL persistency consistently yielded better outcomes, with ≥12 months’ treatment producing the greatest benefit.     

Real-world utilization of molecular diagnostic testing and matched drug therapies in the treatment of metastatic cancers

Aims: To assess the frequency of biopsies and molecular diagnostic testing (human DNA/RNA analysis), anti-cancer drug use (genomically-matched targeted therapy [GMTT], unmatched targeted therapy [UTT], endocrine therapy [ET], and chemotherapy [CT]), and medical service costs among adults with metastatic cancer.

Methods: Adults diagnosed with metastatic breast, non-small cell lung (NSCLC), colorectal, head and neck, ovarian, and uterine cancer (2010Q1–2015Q1) were identified in the OptumHealth Care Solutions claims database and followed from first metastatic diagnosis for ≥1 month and until the end of data availability. Utilization was assessed for each cancer cohort (all and patients aged ≥65 years); per-patient-per-month (PPPM) medical service costs were assessed for all patients. Testing frequency estimates were applied to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data to estimate the number of untested patients (2010–2014).

Results: Patients with metastatic cancer (n?=?8,193; breast [n?=?3,414], NSCLC [n?=?2,231], colorectal [n?=?1,611], head and neck [n?=?511], ovarian [n?=?275], and uterine [n?=?151]) were 63 years old (mean), with 11.1–22.2 months of observation. Biopsy and molecular diagnostic testing frequencies ranged from 7% (uterine) to 73% (ovarian), and from 34% (head and neck) to 52% (breast), respectively. Few were treated with GMTT (breast, 11%; NSCLC, 9%; colorectal, 6%). Treatment with UTT ranged from 0.7% (uterine) to 21% (colorectal). Biopsy, diagnostic testing, and anti-cancer drug therapy were less frequent for those ≥65 years. Medical service costs (PPPM, mean) ranged from $6,618 (head and neck) to $9,940 (ovarian). The estimated number of untested new patients with metastatic cancer was 636,369 (all) and 341,397 (≥65).

Limitations: In addition to the limitations of claims analyses, diagnostic testing frequency may be under-estimated if patients underwent testing prior to study inclusion.

Conclusions: The low frequency of molecular diagnostic testing suggests there are opportunities to better inform management of patients with advanced cancer, particularly decisions to treat with GMTT.     

Utilization and cost comparison of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in inpatient and outpatient hospital settings

Abstract

Objective:

To compare utilization and associated costs of epoetin alfa (EPO) and darbepoetin alfa (DARB), two erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy and patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not on dialysis in inpatient and outpatient hospital settings.

Methods:

An analysis of medical claims recorded between January 2006 and December 2009 was conducted using the Premier Perspective Comparative Hospital database. Patients included were ≥18 years old with cancer and chemotherapy or with pre-dialysis CKD and with ≥1 claim for EPO or DARB during a hospital inpatient or outpatient treatment episode. Patients treated with both ESAs or who were receiving dialysis were excluded. Mean cumulative drug costs and dose ratios (units EPO: mcg DARB) were calculated using cumulative dose and April 2010 wholesale acquisition costs.

Results:

Cancer chemotherapy: 13,832 inpatient stays (EPO: 10,454; DARB: 3378) and 5590 outpatient treatment episodes (EPO: 2856; DARB: 2734) were identified. The inpatient and outpatient populations reported ESA dose ratios of 230:1 and 238:1 with DARB cost premiums of 42% (EPO: $948; DARB: $1348) and 38% (EPO: $3358; DARB: $4627), respectively. CKD: 148,746 hospital stays (EPO: 116,017; DARB: 32,729) and 11,012 outpatient treatment episodes (EPO: 6921; DARB 4091) were identified. The inpatient and outpatient populations reported ESA dose ratios of 251:1 and 257:1 with DARB cost premiums of 30% (EPO: $566; DARB: $738) and 27% (EPO: $2077; DARB: $2642), respectively.

Limitations:

The lack of randomization may have led to confounding by indication. In addition, statistical significance must be interpreted with caution in studies involving large samples.

Conclusions:

This study of 19,422 patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and 159,758 patients with pre-dialysis CKD reported ESA dose ratios ranging from 230:1–257:1 (units EPO: mcg DARB) and associated cost premiums of 27–42% for DARB.     

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal-related events in the Czech Republic

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the subcutaneous RANKL inhibitor, denosumab, vs the intravenous bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and other solid tumors (OST) in the Czech Republic.

Materials and methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the effects of denosumab and zoledronic acid on costs (including drug costs and administration, patient management, SREs, and adverse events), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from a national payer perspective. Different discount rates, time horizons, SRE rates, distributions, and nature (asymptomatic vs all SREs), and the inclusion of treatment discontinuation were considered in scenario analyses. The robustness of the model was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with fewer SREs, improved QALYs, and higher total costs over a lifetime. The incremental cost per QALY gained for denosumab vs zoledronic acid was 382,673 CZK for prostate cancer, 408,450 CZK for breast cancer, and 608,133 CZK for OST. Incremental costs per SRE avoided for the same tumor type were 54,007 CZK, 51,765 CZK, and 94,426 CZK, respectively. In scenario analyses, the results remained similar to baseline, when different discount rates and time horizons were considered. At a non-official willingness-to-pay threshold of 1.2 million CZK, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective vs zoledronic acid were 0.64, 0.67, and 0.49 for prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST, respectively.

Limitations: The SRE rates used were obtained from clinical trials; studies suggest rates may be higher in clinical practice. Additional evidence on real-world SRE rates could further improve the accuracy of the modeling.

Conclusions: Compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab provides a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST in the Czech Republic.     

Comparison of second-generation antipsychotic treatment on psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder

Abstract

Objective:

To compare second-generation antipsychotics on time to and cost of psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder.

Methods:

Retrospective study using healthcare claims from 10 US state Medicaid programs. Included beneficiaries were aged 18–64, initiated a single second-generation antipsychotic (aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) between 1/1/2003–6/30/2008 (initiation date?=?index), and had a medical claim with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for bipolar disorder. A 360-day post-index period was used to measure time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization (inpatient claims with a diagnosis code for a mental disorder [ICD-9-CM 290.xx–319.xx] in any position). Cox proportional hazards models and Generalized Linear Models compared time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization, respectively, in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole vs each other second-generation antipsychotic, adjusting for beneficiaries’ baseline characteristics.

Results:

Included beneficiary characteristics: mean age 36 years, 77% female, 80% Caucasian, aripiprazole (n?=?2553), mean time to psychiatric hospitalization or censoring?=?85 days; olanzapine (n?=?4702), 81 days; quetiapine (n?=?9327), 97 days; risperidone (n?=?4377), 85 days; ziprasidone (n?=?1520), 82 days. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, time to psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole was longer compared to olanzapine (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.52, p?<?0.001), quetiapine (HR?=?1.40, p?<?0.001), ziprasidone (HR?=?1.33, p?=?0.032), and risperidone, although the latter difference did not reach significance (HR?=?1.18, p?=?0.13). The adjusted costs of psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole were significantly lower compared to those initiating quetiapine (incremental per-patient per-month difference?=?$42, 95% CI?=?$16–66, p?<?0.05), but not significantly lower for the other comparisons.

Limitations:

This study was based on a non-probability convenience sample of the Medicaid population. Analyses of administrative claims data are subject to coding and classification error.

Conclusions:

Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder initiating aripiprazole had significantly longer time to psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating olanzapine, quetiapine, or ziprasidone, and significantly lower adjusted costs for psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating quetiapine.     

Adherence,persistence, healthcare utilization,and cost benefits of guideline-recommended hepatitis B pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Objective:

To compare pharmacotherapy adherence, persistence, and healthcare utilization/costs among US patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) initiated on an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current national (US) guidelines vs an oral antiviral not recommended as first-line monotherapy.

Research design and methods:

In this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 18–64 with medical claims for CHB who initiated an oral antiviral monotherapy for CHB between 07/01/05 and 01/31/10 were identified from a large US commercial health insurance claims database. Patients were continuously enrolled for a 6-month baseline period and ≥ 90 days follow-up. They were assigned to ‘currently recommended first-line therapy’ (RT: entecavir or tenofovir) or ‘not currently recommended first-line therapy’ (NRT: lamivudine, telbivudine, or adefovir) cohorts.

Main outcome measures:

Multivariate analyses were conducted to compare treatment adherence, persistence, healthcare utilization, and costs for RT vs NRT cohorts.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between RT (n?=?825) and NRT (n?=?916) cohorts. In multivariate analyses, RT patients were twice as likely as NRT patients to be adherent (OR?=?2.09; p?<?0.01) and persistent (mean: RT?=?361 days, NRT?=?298 days; p?<?0.01) and half as likely to have an inpatient stay (OR?=?0.527; p?<?0.01). Between the two oral antivirals recommended as first-line treatment, even though pharmacy cost was higher for entecavir, mean total healthcare costs for entecavir and tenofovir were similar ($1214 and $1332 per patient per month, respectively). Similar results were also observed with regard to adherence, persistence, and healthcare use for entecavir and tenofovir.

Conclusions:

A limitation associated with analysis of administrative claims data is that coding errors can be mitigated but are typically not fully eradicated by careful study design. Nevertheless, the current findings clearly indicate the benefits of initiating CHB treatment with an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current guidelines.