Comparative treatment-related adverse event cost burden in immune thrombocytopenic purpura.

AIMS: Real-world evidence on the safety profile and costs associated with immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) treatment in adults is lacking. This study quantifies and compares adverse event (AE) crude rates and costs associated with ITP treatments as found in claims data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective claims-based analysis was conducted using IMS Pharmetrics Plus database. Included patients were ≥18 years old, with a diagnosis of ITP (2007-2012); an ITP-related claim for anti-D, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), rituximab, romiplostim, or eltrombopag; and 1-year continuous enrollment (3-years for rituximab) during follow-up. AEs and event costs were identified during active treatment, defined from the first claim of each drug to a pre-defined treatment gap or end of study period. Descriptive statistics were reported with Wilcoxon rank-sum significance tests. RESULTS: A total of 2,518 patients were identified (mean age = 50.8 (±16.3 years); 55.8% male). Of all patients, 22.8% experienced any AE. Significantly fewer anti-D patients had any AE (13.8% vs IVIG: 21.1%, rituximab: 29.4%, romiplostim: 28.1%, eltrombopag: 22.4%). Nausea/vomiting and arthralgia/musculoskeletal pain were most common across treatments, and hemolytic events did not differ significantly across treatments. Most costly AEs were urinary tract infection, aseptic meningitis, and fever ($5000+/case); headache, nasal congestion, and hemolytic event were $4,000-5,000/case. Cost per AE did not differ by treatment. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although lower than trial-based AE rates, claims for ITP treatment-related AEs are common, with higher numbers for rituximab and lower numbers for anti-D. This disparity suggests a possible differential cost burden overall that future analysis should explore.

Economic benefits of BIS-aided assessment of post-BC lymphedema in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the economic outcomes associated with routine use of bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) to aid in the assessment of lymphedema following breast cancer (BC) treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Budget impact analysis for a hypothetical payer, comparing a "current standard assessment methods" scenario with a hypothetical scenario in which BIS is used routinely. METHODS: A payer-perspective decision model was built to calculate the 1-year budget impact of using either current standard methods or BISaided assessments for lymphedema in post-BC patients among a hypothetical payer population. Parameter values were obtained from the medical literature, including population characteristics, lymphedema incidence, resource utilization, and costs associated with assessments and treatment. Alternate scenario analysis incorporated incidence and associated costs of downstream infections and excess mental health care. RESULTS: With 627 BC patients in a payer of 1M covered lives, base-case analysis shows cost savings of $315,711, or $0.03 per enrolled member per month (from the payer perspective), from implementation of BIS-aided assessments for lymphedema. Savings improved with consideration of sequelae (eg, infection, hospitalization). However, savings are reduced if specificity of current standard assessments improves by 25% (fewer unnecessary expensive treatments), or if cost of complex decongestive therapy falls by 25%. Sensitivity analysis showed that cost savings results were robust to changes in other model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Over 1 year, BIS-aided assessment of lymphedema for patients following treatment for BC results in cost savings, even without considering potential cost savings associated with averted downstream sequelae.