Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer,with or without brain metastases,receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors

Abstract

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.

Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK?+?NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1?year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.

Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1?year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p?=?0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.

Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.

Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with BM versus no BM.     

Brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients on epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: symptom and economic burden

Objective: This study describes the symptom and economic burden associated with brain metastases (BM) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs).

Methods: This retrospective study included adults with ≥2 medical claims, within 90 days, for lung cancer and ≥1 administration of EGFR-TKIs. Based on ICD-9 codes, patients were stratified into cohorts by type of metastases (BM, other metastases [OM], or no metastases [NM]), and by when the metastasis diagnosis occurred (synchronous or asynchronous).

Results: The population (synchronous BM [SBM]?=?24, synchronous OM [SOM]?=?23, asynchronous BM [ASBM]?=?15, asynchronous OM [ASOM]?=?49, NM?=?85) was mostly female (57%), average age 69 years (SD?=?11). SBM patients experienced more fatigue and nausea/vomiting compared with SOM and NM patients and more headaches and loss of appetite than NM patients. ASBM was associated with more fatigue, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain/numbness, altered mental status, and seizures than NM, and more headaches and pain/numbness than ASOM. SBM patients experienced a greater increase in per-member-per-month all-cause total healthcare costs after diagnosis ($20,301) vs SOM ($9,131, p?=?.001) and NM ($2,493, p?=?.001). ASBM’s cost increase between baseline and follow-up ($7,867) did not differ from ASOM’s ($4,947, p?=?.195); both were larger than NM ($2,493, p?=?.001 and p?=?.009, respectively).

Limitations: EGFR mutation status was inferred based on EGFR-TKI treatment, not by molecular testing. Patients were from US commercial insurance plans; results may not be generalizable to other populations.

Conclusions: Among patients with EGFR-TKI-treated NSCLC, patients with BM experienced more symptoms and, when diagnosed synchronously, had significant increases in total medical costs vs patients with OM and NM. Therapeutic options with central nervous system activity may offer advantages in symptomatology and costs in EGFR-mutated patients with BM.     

The economic burden of brain metastasis among lung cancer patients in the United States

Objective:

Brain metastases among lung cancer patients can impair cognitive and functional ability, complicate care, and reduce survival. This study focuses on the economic burden of brain metastasis in lung cancer—direct healthcare costs to payers and indirect costs to patients, payers, and employers—in the US.

Methods:

Retrospective study using claims data from over 60 self-insured Fortune 500 companies across all US census regions (January 1999–March 2013). Adult, non-elderly lung cancer patients with brain metastasis were evaluated over two study periods: (1) pre-diagnosis (≤30 days prior to first observed lung cancer diagnosis to ≤30 days prior to first-observed brain metastasis diagnosis) and (2) post-diagnosis (≤30 days prior to first observed brain metastasis diagnosis to end of continuous eligibility or observation).

Outcome measures:

Healthcare costs to payers and resource utilization, salary loss to patients, disability payouts for payers, and productivity loss to employers.

Results:

A total of 132 patients were followed for a median of 8.4 and 6.6 months in the pre- and post-diagnosis periods, respectively. At diagnosis of brain metastasis, 21.2% of patients were on leave of absence and 6.1% on long-term disability leave. Substantial differences were observed in the pre- vs post-diagnosis periods. Specifically, patients incurred much greater healthcare utilization in the post-diagnosis period, resulting in $25,579 higher medical costs per-patient-per-6-months (PPP6M). During this period, patients missed significantly more work days, generating an incremental burden of $2853 PPP6M in salary loss for patients, $2557 PPP6M in disability payments for payers, and $4570 PPP6M in productivity loss for employers.

Limitations:

Type of primary lung cancer and extent of brain metastasis could not be assessed in the data. The analysis was also limited to patients with comprehensive disability coverage.

Conclusions:

Development of brain metastasis among lung cancer patients is associated with a substantial economic burden to payers, patients, and employers.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line pembrolizumab treatment for PD-L1 positive,non-small cell lung cancer in China

Purpose: Pembrolizumab was recently approved in several countries as a first-line treatment for patients with PD-L1 positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is expensive. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in treating advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 positive cancer in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of NSCLC tumor cells. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were derived from published clinical trial data, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Costs for drugs were updated to standard fee data from West China Hospital in 2017. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Pembrolizumab gained 0.45 QALYs at an incremental cost of $46,362 compared to chemotherapy for an ICER of $103,128 per QALY gained. In most scenarios, the ICER exceeded three times the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per capita. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, when the utility of the progression-free status increased to the maximal value of 0.845 and the 1?mg dose price decreased to $10.50, the ICER reduced to $25,216/QALY.

Conclusions: Pembrolizumab is not likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of PD-L1 positive, NSCLC for Chinese patients. Less aggressive pricing may increase accessibility for patients in China.     

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.     

Current and projected patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States through 2040

Aims: The objective of this study was to quantify the current and to project future patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the US.

Materials and methods: An analysis of administrative claims data among patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer from 2007–2015 was conducted. Future costs were projected through 2040 based on these data using autoregressive models.

Results: Analysis of claims data found the average total cost of care during first- and second-line therapy was $1,161.70 and $561.80 for patients, and $45,175.70 and $26,201.40 for insurers, respectively. By 2040, the average total patient out-of-pocket costs are projected to reach $3,047.67 for first-line and $2,211.33 for second-line therapy, and insurance will pay an average of $131,262.39 for first-line and $75,062.23 for second-line therapy.

Limitations: Claims data are not collected for research purposes; therefore, there may be errors in entry and coding. Additionally, claims data do not contain important clinical factors, such as stage of disease at diagnosis, tumor histology, or data on disease progression, which may have important implications on the cost of care.

Conclusions: The trajectory of the cost of lung cancer care is growing. This study estimates that the cost of care may double by 2040, with the greatest proportion of increase in patient out-of-pocket costs. Despite the average cost projections, these results suggest that a small sub-set of patients with very high costs could be at even greater risk in the future.     

Treatment patterns and cost-effectiveness of first line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Medicare patients

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line pemetrexed/platinum and other commonly administered regimens in a representative US elderly population with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Materials and methods: This study utilized the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry linked to Medicare claims records. The study population included all SEER-Medicare patients diagnosed in 2008–2009 with advanced non-squamous NSCLC (stages IIIB–IV) as their only primary cancer and who started chemotherapy within 90 days of diagnosis. The study evaluated the four most commonly observed first-line regimens: paclitaxel/carboplatin, platinum monotherapy, pemetrexed/platinum, and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab. Overall survival and total healthcare cost comparisons as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for pemetrexed/platinum vs each of the other three. Unstratified analyses and analyses stratified by initial disease stage were conducted.

Results: The final study population consisted of 2,461 patients. Greater administrative censorship of pemetrexed recipients at the end of the study period disproportionately reduced the observed mean survival for pemetrexed/platinum recipients. The disease stage-stratified ICER analysis found that the pemetrexed/platinum incurred total Medicare costs of $536,424 and $283,560 per observed additional year of life relative to platinum monotherapy and paclitaxel/carboplatin, respectively. The pemetrexed/platinum vs triplet comparator analysis indicated that pemetrexed/platinum was associated with considerably lower total Medicare costs, with no appreciable survival difference.

Limitations: Limitations included differential censorship of the study regimen recipients and differential administration of radiotherapy.

Conclusions: Pemetrexed/platinum yielded either improved survival at increased cost or similar survival at reduced cost relative to comparator regimens in the treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Limitations in the study methodology suggest that the observed pemetrexed survival benefit was likely conservative.     

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.     

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Healthcare costs,treatment patterns,and resource utilization among pancreatic cancer patients in a managed care population

Abstract

Background:

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has few effective treatment options and poor survival. The objective of this study was to characterize treatment patterns and estimate the costs and resource use associated with its treatment in a commercially-insured US population.

Methods:

In this retrospective claims-based analysis, individuals ≥18 years old with evidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2010 were selected from a managed care database. Treatment phase (either initial non-metastatic or metastatic) was determined using a claims-based algorithm. Patients in the pancreatic cancer population were matched 1:3 to a control population. Resource use (events/person-years), treatment patterns, and healthcare costs (per-patient per-month, PPPM) were determined during a variable length follow-up period (from first pancreatic cancer diagnosis to earliest of death, disenrollment, or study end).

Results:

In this study, 5262 pancreatic cancer patients were matched to 15,786 controls. Rates of office visits, inpatient visits, ER visits, and inpatient stays, and mean total all-cause healthcare costs PPPM ($15,480 vs $1001) were significantly higher among cancer patients than controls (all p?<?0.001). Mean inpatient costs were the single largest cost driver ($9917 PPPM). Also, mean total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly higher during the metastatic treatment phase vs the initial treatment phase of non-metastatic disease ($21,637 vs $10,358, p?<?0.001).

Conclusions:

These results indicate that pancreatic cancer imposes a substantial burden on the US healthcare system, and that treatment of more advanced disease is significantly more costly than initial treatment of non-metastatic disease.

Limitations:

Additional research is needed to validate the accuracy of the claims-based algorithms used to identify the treatment phase.     

Budget impact analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Aims: Broad molecular profiling of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is strongly advised to optimize genomic matching with available targeted treatment options or investigational agents. Unlike conventional molecular diagnostic testing, or smaller hotspot panels, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) identifies genomic alterations across hundreds of clinically relevant cancer genes from a single tissue specimen. The present study sought to estimate the budget impact of increased use of CGP using a 324-gene panel (FoundationOne) vs non-CGP (represented by a mix of conventional molecular diagnostic testing and smaller NGS hotspot panels) and the number needed to test with CGP to gain 1 life year.

Materials and methods: A decision analytic model was developed to assess the budget impact of increased CGP in advanced NSCLC from a US private payer perspective. Model inputs were based on published literature (epidemiology and treatment outcomes), real-world data (testing and rates, medical service costs), list prices for CGP and anti-cancer drugs, and assumptions for clinical trial participation.

Results: Among 2 million covered lives, 532 had advanced NSCLC; 266 underwent molecular diagnostic testing. An increase in CGP among those tested, from 2% to 10%, was associated with $0.02 per member per month budget impact, of which $0.013 was attributable to costs of prolonged drug treatment and survival and $0.005 to testing cost. Approximately 12 patients would need to be tested with CGP to add 1 life year.

Limitations: The model incorporated certain assumptions to account for inputs with a limited evidence profile and simplify the possible post-CGP treatments.

Conclusions: An increase in CGP utilization from 2% to 10% among patients with advanced NSCLC undergoing molecular diagnostic testing was associated with a modest budget impact, most of which was attributable to increased use of more effective treatments and prolonged survival.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in patients previously treated with crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer in Canada

Background: To assess the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib vs alternatives in patients who discontinue treatment with crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a Canadian public healthcare perspective.

Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable, progressive, and death) was developed. Comparators were chosen based on reported utilization from a retrospective Canadian chart study; comparators were pemetrexed, best supportive care (BSC), and historical control (HC). HC comprised of all treatment alternatives reported. Progression-free survival and overall survival for ceritinib were estimated using data reported from single-arm clinical trials (ASCEND-1 [NCT01283516] and ASCEND-2 [NCT01685060]). Survival data for comparators were obtained from published clinical trials in a NSCLC population and from a Canadian retrospective chart study. Parametric models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the trial period. Drug acquisition, administration, resource use, and adverse event (AE) costs were obtained from databases. Utilities for health states and disutilities for AEs based on EQ-5D were derived from literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were estimated. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Over 4 years, ceritinib was associated with 0.86 QALYs and total direct costs of $89,740 for the post-ALK population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $149,117 comparing ceritinib vs BSC, $80,100 vs pemetrexed, and $104,436 vs HC. Additional scenarios included comparison to docetaxel with an ICER of $149,780 and using utility scores reported from PROFILE 1007, with a reported ICER ranging from $67,311 vs pemetrexed to $119,926 vs BSC. Due to limitations in clinical efficacy input, extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out whereby results remained consistent with the base-case findings.

Conclusion: Based on the willingness-to-pay threshold for end-of-life cancer drugs, ceritinib may be considered as a cost-effective option compared with other alternatives in patients who have progressed or are intolerant to crizotinib in Canada.     

Healthcare costs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and disease progression during targeted therapy: a real-world observational study

Aims: To assess healthcare costs during treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and following disease progression in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A retrospective analysis of medical records of US community oncology practices was conducted. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB/IV) diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2015, initiated treatment with erlotinib or afatinib (first-line or second-line), and had disease progression. Monthly Medicare-paid costs were evaluated during the TKI therapy period and following progression.

Results: The study included 364 patients. The total mean monthly cost during TKI therapy was $20,106 (95% confidence interval [CI]?=?$16,836–$23,376), of which 47.0% and 42.4% represented hospitalization costs and anti-cancer therapy costs, respectively. Following progression on TKI therapy (data available for 316 patients), total mean monthly cost was $19,274 (95% CI?=?$15,329–$23,218), and was higher in the 76.3% of patients who received anti-cancer therapy following progression than in the 23.7% of those who did not ($20,490 vs $15,364; p?<?.001). Among patients who received it, anti-cancer therapy ($11,198; 95% CI?=?$7,102–$15,295) represented 54.7% of total mean monthly cost. Among patients who did not receive anti-cancer therapy, hospitalization ($13,829; 95% CI?=?$4,922–$22,736) represented 90.0% of total mean monthly cost. Impaired performance status and brain metastases were significant predictors of increased cost during TKI therapy.

Limitations: The study design may limit the generalizability of findings.

Conclusions: Healthcare costs during TKI treatment and following progression appeared to be similar and were largely attributed to hospitalization and anti-cancer therapy. Notably, almost one-quarter of patients did not receive anti-cancer therapy following progression, potentially indicating an unmet need; hospitalization was the largest cost contributor for these patients. Additional effective targeted therapies are needed that could prolong progression-free survival, leading to fewer hospitalizations for EGFR mutation-positive patients.     

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.     

Cost drivers for breast,lung, and colorectal cancer care in a commercially insured population over a 6-month episode: an economic analysis from a health plan perspective

Aims: In the absence of clinical data, accurate identification of cost drivers is needed for economic comparison in an alternate payment model. From a health plan perspective using claims data in a commercial population, the objective was to identify and quantify the effects of cost drivers in economic models of breast, lung, and colorectal cancer costs over a 6-month episode following initial chemotherapy.

Research design and methods: This study analyzed claims data from 9,748 Cigna beneficiaries with diagnosis of breast, lung, and colorectal cancer following initial chemotherapy from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. We used multivariable regression models to quantify the impact of key factors on cost during the initial 6-month cancer care episode.

Results: Metastasis, facility provider affiliation, episode risk group (ERG) risk score, and radiation were cost drivers for all three types of cancer (breast, lung, and colorectal). In addition, younger age (p?p?p?p?p?Conclusions: Value-based reimbursement models in oncology should appropriately account for key cost drivers. Although claims-based methodologies may be further augmented with clinical data, this study recommends adjusting for the factors identified in these models to predict costs in breast, lung, and colorectal cancers.     

Drug wastage and costs to the healthcare system in the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Background: Lung cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the US. This study was designed to evaluate the actual drug wastage and cost to the healthcare system using patient-level retrospective observational electronic medical record (EMR) data from a cohort of lung cancer patients in the US.

Methods: Data from the Flatiron Health advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort was used for this study. Drug administered amount (in mg) was used to determine an optimal set of available vial sizes to minimize waste. Drug wastage was defined as the difference between the drug amount in the optimal set of vials and the administered amount. Wholesale acquisition costs were used to value the cost of drugs, with and without vial sharing assumptions. The amount and cost of waste were quantified over the 2-year study period (January 2015–December 2016).

Results: There were 8,467 eligible patients included in this study, providing data from 103,826 unique drug administrations across multiple lines of therapy. Overall wastage was 4.37% of the total medication used to care for patients. While costs per administration were low, the total cost of wastage for the study population represented $16,630,112 across the 2-year study period. Assuming that vial sharing occurred at the site level slightly reduced waste to 3.74% (reducing costs to $15,953,212 over 2 years).

Conclusions: Drug wastage is an important concern and has implications on healthcare costs in NSCLC. Evaluation of these real-world data suggest that pharmacists and physicians are able to reduce drug wastage by optimizing vial combinations and sharing vials among patients. Even small amounts of reduction in wastage could be useful in reducing healthcare costs in the US; however, caution is needed with drug rounding efforts to ensure patients do not receive a sub-optimal dose of medication.     

Antiepileptic drug treatment patterns and economic burden of commercially-insured patients with refractory epilepsy with partial onset seizures in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the economic burden in direct healthcare utilization and costs for refractory epileptic patients with partial onset seizures (POS) and assess the antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment patterns among these patients.     

Clinical comorbidities,treatment patterns,and direct medical costs of patients with osteoarthritis in usual care: a retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Objective:

Comorbidities and resource utilization among patients with osteoarthritis (OA) in clinical practice have been infrequently characterized. The purpose of this study was to examine comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and direct medical costs of patients with OA in clinical practice.

Method:

This retrospective cohort analysis used medical and pharmacy claims data from the LifeLink? Database. OA patients (ICD-9-CM codes 715.XX) were matched (age, gender, and region) with individuals without OA. Comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and direct medical costs (pharmacy, outpatient, inpatient, total) were examined for the calendar year 2008.

Results:

The sample consisted of 112,951 OA patients and 112,951 controls (mean age: 56.9 [SD?=?9.5] years; 62% female). Relative to controls, OA patients were significantly more likely (p?<?0.0001) to have comorbidities, including musculoskeletal (84.3 vs. 37.1%) and neuropathic pain (22.0 vs. 6.1%) conditions, depression (12.4 vs. 6.4%), anxiety (6.6 vs. 3.5%), and sleep disorders (11.9 vs. 4.2%). OA patients were significantly more likely (p?<?0.0001) to receive pain-related medications, including opioids (40.7 vs. 17.1%), NSAIDs (37.1 vs. 11.5%), tramadol (9.8 vs. 1.8%), and adjunctive medications for treating depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Mean [SD] total direct medical costs were more than two times higher among OA patients ($12,905 [$21,884] vs. $5099 [$13,855]; p?<?0.001) and median costs were more than three times higher ($6188 vs. $1879; p?<?0.0001). Study limitations include potential errors in coding and recording; overestimation of the comorbidity burden; inability to link condition of interest, OA, with prescribed medications; and possible underestimation of the true costs of OA, because indirect costs were not considered and the direct costs were from a third party payer (commercial insurance) perspective.

Conclusion:

The patient burden of OA was characterized by a high prevalence of comorbidities. The payer burden was also substantial, with significantly greater use of pain-related and adjunctive medications, and higher direct medical costs.