Incidence, Prevalence, Hospitalization Rates, and Treatment Patterns in Myasthenia Gravis: A 10-Year Real-World Data Analysis of German Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare chronic autoimmune disease caused by autoantibodies directed against postsynaptic antigens of the neuromuscular junction. Over the last decades, increasing incidence and prevalence rates have been reported. Epidemiological data on prevalence and incidence in Germany are lacking. Furthermore, the MG treatment landscape is rapidly changing due to the continued approval of novel monoclonal antibodies. METHOD: This is a retrospective study assessing incidence, prevalence, and hospitalization rates of MG as well as treatment patterns in Germany over 10 years based on medical claims data covering 6.1 million insured persons. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2020, the prevalence rate of MG increased from 15.7 to 28.2 per 100,000 person-years. The age-adjusted incidence rate was 2.8 per 100,000 person-years within the study period (95% confidence interval, 2.43-3.22) and decreased dramatically in 2020, the year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, the hospitalization rate fluctuated within the study period but reached an overall low of 8.3% in 2020 (mean hospitalization rate 11.5%). Treatment patterns showed that most MG patients are treated with base therapy. However, crisis intervention is necessary for 2-5% of MG patients, and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, including rituximab and eculizumab, are increasingly used. CONCLUSION: This is the first study on MG prevalence and incidence rates in Germany. Data show an increase in prevalence by 1.8-fold over 10 years. Decreasing incidence and hospitalization rates in 2020 hint at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Treatment patterns in MG are changing with the advent of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in this indication.

A real-world retrospective analysis of the management of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada from 2010 - 2018.

PURPOSE: We sought to quantify mCRPC patient treatment patterns and survival across multiple lines of therapy after prior androgen-receptor-axis-targeted therapy (ARAT) failure. METHODS: Individuals diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2010 and 2018 were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR). An algorithm was created to identify patients with mCRPC that was aligned to Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 criteria (PCWG3) and validated with Canadian clinical experts. In the mCRPC setting, treatment patterns were assessed by line of therapy, and survival was calculated from treatment initiation until death or lost to follow-up. RESULTS: 64,484 men were diagnosed withprostate cancer in Ontario between 2010 and 2018with 5,588 men assessed to have mCRPC and 2,970 (53%) of those received first-line systemic treatment. Across the first-, second- and third-line of therapy, ARATs (abiraterone and enzalutamide) were the most used therapies. Survival for mCRPC patients treated with ARATs in first-, second- and third-line were 13.0 (95% CI, 11.6 - 14.5), 11.5 (95% CI, 10.1 - 13.4) and 8.9 (95% CI, 7.4 - 10.2) months, respectively. Survival for mCRPC patients treated with taxanes in first, second- and third-line were 16.7 (95% CI, 14.8 - 18.0), 11.3 (95% CI, 10.1 - 12.5) and 7.8 (95% CI, 6.5 - 10.6) months, respectively. No statistical difference in overall survival was found between taxanes and ARATs. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of a large retrospective cohort of Canadian men with mCRPC, we found that survival in patients treated with ARATs and taxanes was fairly similar across all lines of therapy. Importantly, this trend was maintained in ARAT-exposed patients, where sequential ARAT and taxanes offered similar survival. These data may help inform optimal sequencing of therapies in mCRPC.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022.

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States due to the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate triennially to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries, vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Database are presented for the most prevalent cancer types by race, and cancer-related and treatment-related side-effects are also briefly described. More than 18 million Americans (8.3 million males and 9.7 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2022. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,523,230), melanoma of the skin (760,640), and colon and rectum (726,450) among males and breast (4,055,770), uterine corpus (891,560), and thyroid (823,800) among females. More than one-half (53%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and two-thirds (67%) were aged 65 years or older. One of the largest racial disparities in treatment is for rectal cancer, for which 41% of Black patients with stage I disease receive proctectomy or proctocolectomy compared to 66% of White patients. Surgical receipt is also substantially lower among Black patients with non-small cell lung cancer, 49% for stages I-II and 16% for stage III versus 55% and 22% for White patients, respectively. These treatment disparities are exacerbated by the fact that Black patients continue to be less likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease than White patients for most cancers, with some of the largest disparities for female breast (53% vs 68%) and endometrial (59% vs 73%). Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based strategies and equitable access to available resources are needed to mitigate disparities for communities of color and optimize care for people with a history of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:409-436.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Management of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected health care patterns and outcomes for patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) in 2020 compared with those diagnosed with mPDAC in 2019. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Flatiron Health database to identify adults diagnosed with mPDAC from March 1 to September 30, 2019 (pre-COVID-19 cohort) and March 1 to September 30, 2020 (post-COVID-19 cohort). Between-cohort comparisons included demographic and clinical characteristics and year-over-year data for diagnosis of mPDAC, newly treated patients, time to and types of first-line therapy, and adverse events (AEs) during first-line therapy. Overall survival (OS) and milestone survival rates were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to assess OS. RESULTS: Pre-COVID-19 (n = 923) and post-COVID-19 (n = 796) cohorts had similar baseline demographic characteristics. A smaller proportion of patients in the pre-COVID-19 cohort were initially diagnosed with stage IV disease versus the post-COVID-19 cohort (62.2% vs 69.7%). Between 2019 and 2020, there was a 13.8% decrease in diagnosis of mPDAC and a 13.0% decrease in newly treated patients. Median (interquartile range) times to first-line treatment were similar (21 [13-40] and 19 [12-32] days). Median OS (months) was significantly longer in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (8·4 [95% CI: 7·5, 9·0]) versus the post-COVID-19 cohort (6·1 [95% CI: 5·4, 6·9]; P < .001). Survival rates were higher in the pre-COVID-19 versus post-COVID-19 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, patients were initially diagnosed with PDAC at more advanced stages. While patients in both cohorts appeared to receive similar care, survival outcomes were adversely affected.

Real-world retrospective analysis of patient characteristics, healthcare resource utilization, costs, and treatment patterns among unvaccinated adults with COVID-19 diagnosed in outpatient settings in the United States.

AIMS: This retrospective analysis of the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database evaluated US patient characteristics, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and treatment patterns among unvaccinated adults with outpatient-diagnosed COVID-19 to quantify US economic burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The index event was the earliest outpatient diagnosis of confirmed COVID-19 from May 1 to December 10, 2020. Patients had 12 months' continuous enrollment before and were followed for ≥60 days after index date until insurance dis-enrollment or study end. RESULTS: 236,589 patients had outpatient-diagnosed COVID-19 (7,692 with and 228,897 without subsequent COVID-19-related inpatient admission >48 h post-diagnosis). The median age was 51 years (≥65 years, 30.0%); 72.4% had ≥1 risk factor. Patients with versus without subsequent inpatient admission were more often male, older, Black/Hispanic, and had comorbidities/risk factors. With a median follow-up of 162 days, patients had a median of 1 COVID-19-related outpatient visit (with inpatient admission, 5 outpatient visits). Those with inpatient admission had a median of 1 COVID-19-related inpatient visit (median length of stay [LOS], 6 days), 33.3% were admitted to intensive care (median LOS, 8 days), 8.4%, 7.1%, and 13.3% received invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive mechanical ventilation, and supplemental oxygen, respectively; 13.5% experienced readmission. Inpatient mortality was 6.0% (0.3% for nonhospitalized patients). Antithrombotic therapy, antibiotics, corticosteroids, and remdesivir use increased among patients with inpatient admission versus without. Median total COVID-19-related non-zero medical costs were $208 for patients without inpatient admission (with inpatient admission, $39,187). LIMITATIONS: Results reflect the circulating SARS-CoV-2 and treatment landscape during the study period. Requirements for continuous enrollment could have biased the population. Cost measurements may have included allowed (typically higher) and charge amounts. CONCLUSIONS: Given the numbers of the US population who are still not fully vaccinated and the evolving epidemiology of the pandemic, this study provides relevant insights on real-world treatment patterns, HCRU, and the cost burden of outpatient-diagnosed COVID-19.

Clinical Management of Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to characterize hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and describe their real-world treatment patterns and outcomes over time. METHODS: Adult patients hospitalized on May 1, 2020-December 31, 2020 with a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patient and hospital characteristics, treatments, baseline severity based on oxygen support, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and mortality were examined. RESULTS: The study included 295657 patients (847 hospitals), with median age of 66 (interquartile range, 54-77) years. Among each set of demographic comparators, the majority were male, white, and over 65. Approximately 85% had no supplemental oxygen charges (NSOc) or low-flow oxygen (LFO) at baseline, whereas 75% received no more than NSOc or LFO as maximal oxygen support at any time during hospitalization. Remdesivir (RDV) and corticosteroid treatment utilization increased over time. By December, 50% were receiving RDV and 80% were receiving corticosteroids. A higher proportion initiated COVID-19 treatments within 2 days of hospitalization in December versus May (RDV, 87% vs 40%; corticosteroids, 93% vs 62%; convalescent plasma, 68% vs 26%). There was a shift toward initiating RDV in patients on NSOc or LFO (68.0% [May] vs 83.1% [December]). Median LOS decreased over time. Overall mortality was 13.5% and it was highest for severe patients (invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO], 53.7%; high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], 32.2%; LFO, 11.7%; NSOc, 7.3%). The ICU use decreased, whereas mortality decreased for NSOc and LFO. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical management of COVID-19 is rapidly evolving. This large observational study found that use of evidence-based treatments increased from May to December 2020, whereas improvement in outcomes occurred over this time-period.