Long-term impact of ivacaftor on mortality rate and health outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Ivacaftor (IVA) has been shown to improve lung function and other clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). A decade of real-world IVA availability has enabled the examination of long-term outcomes with this treatment. This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study investigated the impact of IVA on mortality rate and health outcomes among people with CF in the US. METHODS: Data from the US CF Foundation Patient Registry from January 2010 to December 2019 were analysed. The IVA-treated cohort included people with a CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gating mutation (excluding R117H); age-matched comparator cohort included people with a F508del and a minimal function CFTR mutation who had no prior CFTR modulator treatment. Baseline characteristics were balanced between cohorts using standardised mortality ratio weighting generated from propensity scores. Outcomes of interest were overall survival, lung transplant, percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1), body mass index (BMI), pulmonary exacerbations (PEx), outpatient visits and hospitalisations. FINDINGS: Over a maximum follow-up of 7.9 years, the IVA-treated cohort (N=736) had lower rates of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] (95% CI): 0.22 (0.09 to 0.45)), lung transplant (HR: 0.11 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.28)), PEx (rate ratio: 0.49 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.55)) and all-cause hospitalisations (rate ratio: 0.50 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.56)) as well as better lung function (mean difference in ppFEV1: 8.46 (95% CI 7.34 to 9.75)) and higher BMI/BMI z-scores (mean difference 1.20 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.71) kg/m2 and 0.27 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.40), respectively) than the comparator cohort (N=733). INTERPRETATION: Our analysis suggests that IVA provides sustained clinical benefits in people with CF over a follow-up period of approximately 8 years. These findings reinforce the existing real-world evidence that IVA can slow disease progression and decrease the healthcare burden of CF over the long term.

Improved Health Outcomes in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Following Early Belimumab Initiation Without Prior Immunosuppressant Use: A Real-World Descriptive Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have variable treatment pathways, including antimalarials, glucocorticoids, immunosuppressants, and/or biologics. This study describes differences in clinical outcomes when initiating belimumab (BEL) before and after immunosuppressant use. METHODS: This real-world, retrospective cohort study (GSK Study 217536) used de-identified administrative claims data from January 2015 to December 2022 in the Komodo Health Database. Adults with moderate/severe SLE initiating BEL (index date) were identified from January 2017 to May 2022, allowing a ≥ 24-month baseline period. Patients were stratified into those initiating BEL before immunosuppressant use (no immunosuppressant use within 24 months before index) and those initiating BEL after immunosuppressant use (one immunosuppressant used within 24 months before index). Oral glucocorticoid (OGC) use, SLE flares, new organ damage, and all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) were analyzed descriptively over a 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: Baseline SLE severity was similar for patients initiating BEL before (n = 2295) versus after (n = 4114) immunosuppressant use (moderate, 83.1% vs 79.0%; severe, 16.8% vs 21.0%). Patients initiating BEL before versus after immunosuppressant use had lower SLE flare rates and OGC use. Post-index, patients initiating BEL before versus after immunosuppressant use discontinued their OGC sooner (moderate baseline SLE, 4.5 vs 8.9 months; severe baseline SLE, 6.2 vs 11.6 months). Patients initiating BEL before versus after immunosuppressant use had lower SLE flare rates per person-year at all time points (especially severe flare rates in patients with severe baseline SLE, 0.70 vs 1.48 through 24 months post-index). Median time to new organ damage occurrence was longer in patients initiating BEL before versus after immunosuppressant use (moderate baseline SLE, 32.1 vs 26.7 months; severe baseline SLE, 22.7 vs 21.6 months). All-cause HCRU was similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patients initiating BEL before versus after immunosuppressant use had more favorable outcomes.

Impact of age at ivacaftor initiation on pulmonary outcomes among people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Ivacaftor (IVA) improves lung function and other extrapulmonary outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). However, the effect of initiating IVA at earlier versus later ages has not been studied. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of people in the US CF Foundation Patient Registry aged ≥6 years with ≥1 CF transmembrane conductance regulator-gating mutation to compare the effects of initiating IVA at earlier ages on per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1) and pulmonary exacerbation (PEx) outcomes. People with CF were grouped by age at IVA initiation (ages 6-10, 11-15, 16-20 and 21-25 years) to perform three analyses of younger versus older IVA initiation (6-10 vs 11-15, 11-15 vs 16-20 and 16-20 vs 21-25 years). For each analysis, baseline characteristics assessed over 1-year periods at the same age prior to IVA initiation were balanced by standardised mortality/morbidity ratio (SMR) weighting. For each analysis, outcomes were compared over a 5-year outcome assessment period when both groups were in the same age range and receiving IVA. FINDINGS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between younger and older IVA initiator groups after SMR weighting. In the outcome assessment period, younger IVA initiators had significantly higher mean ppFEV1 than older initiators across all comparisons, and those initiating IVA between ages 6-10 and 11-15 years had significantly lower PEx rates. INTERPRETATION: Study findings showed the importance of early IVA initiation in people with CF.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer Harboring Homologous Recombination Repair Mutations.

BACKGROUND: There is currently limited literature assessing the real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations. METHODS: Medical charts were abstracted for mCRPC patients with ≥ 1 of 12 HRR somatic gene alterations treated at US oncology centers participating in the American Association for Cancer Research Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange. Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes were assessed from the initiation of first-line or later (1L+) mCRPC therapy received on or after July 1, 2014. RESULTS: Among 138 patients included in the study, the most common somatic HRR mutations were CDK12 (47.8%), BRCA2 (22.5%), and ATM (21.0%). Novel hormonal therapy and taxane chemotherapy were most commonly used in 1L; taxane use increased in later lines. Median overall survival (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 36.3 (30.7-47.8) months from initiation of 1L therapy and decreased for subsequent lines. Similarly, there was a trend of decreasing progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response from 1L to 4L+ therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns identified in this study were similar to those among patients with mCRPC regardless of tumor HRR mutation status in the literature.

Comparative effectiveness of lenalidomide/dexamethasone-based triplet regimens for treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma in the United States: An analysis of real-world electronic health records data.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective longitudinal study compared the effectiveness of dexamethasone+lenalidomide (Rd)-based triplet regimens containing proteasome inhibitors (PIs) ixazomib (IRd), carfilzomib (KRd), and bortezomib (VRd) or monoclonal antibodies (MABs) elotuzumab (ERd) and daratumumab (DRd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)-including those with high cytogenetic risk-primarily treated at community oncology clinics in the United States. METHODS: Electronic health records of adult RRMM patients in a deidentified real-world database (01/01/2014-09/30/2020) who initiated IRd, KRd, VRd, ERd, or DRd in the second or later line of therapy (LOT) were analyzed. The index date was the date of initiation of each LOT and baseline was the 6-month pre-index period. Duration of therapy (DOT), time to next therapy (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared across regimens with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of the 1,185 patients contributing 1,332 LOTs, 985 had standard cytogenetic risk (median age, 71 years) and 180 had high risk (median age, 69 years). Compared with other regimens, DRd was associated with longer DOT overall (adjusted hazard ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.42, 2.38] vs. KRd, 1.65 [1.20, 2.28] vs. ERd, 1.58 [1.23, 2.04] vs. IRd, and 1.54 [1.18, 2.00] vs. VRd), and longer TTNT and PFS. KRd was associated with shorter OS compared with DRd (1.45 [1.01, 2.08]) and VRd (1.32 [1.01, 1.73]). High-risk patients had similar outcomes with all triplet regimens. CONCLUSION: Although DRd improved clinical outcomes overall, Rd-based triplet regimens containing a PI or MAB are similarly effective in high-risk RRMM.

Real-World Effectiveness of Sotrovimab for the Early Treatment of COVID-19: Evidence from the US National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been an unprecedented healthcare crisis, one that threatened to overwhelm health systems and prompted an urgent need for early treatment options for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomised clinical trials established the safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) early in the pandemic; in vitro data subsequently led to use of the mAbs being discontinued, without clear evidence on how these data were linked to outcomes. In this study, we describe and compare real-world outcomes for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab versus untreated patients. METHODS: Electronic health records from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) were used to identify US patients (aged ≥ 12 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 (positive test or ICD-10: U07.1) in an ambulatory setting (27 September 2021-30 April 2022) who met Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) high-risk criteria. Patients receiving the mAb sotrovimab within 10 days of diagnosis were assigned to the sotrovimab cohort, with the day of infusion as the index date. Untreated patients (no evidence of early mAb treatment, prophylactic mAb or oral antiviral treatment) were assigned to the untreated cohort, with an imputed index date based on the time distribution between diagnosis and sotrovimab infusion in the sotrovimab cohort. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation or death (both all-cause) within 29 days of index, reported as descriptive rate and adjusted [via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)] odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of nearly 2.9 million patients diagnosed with COVID-19 during the analysis period, 4992 met the criteria for the sotrovimab cohort, and 541,325 were included in the untreated cohort. Before weighting, significant differences were noted between the cohorts; for example, patients in the sotrovimab cohort were older (60 years versus 54 years), were more likely to be white (85% versus 75%) and met more EUA criteria (mean 3.1 versus 2.2) versus the untreated cohort. The proportions of patients with 29-day hospitalisation or death were 3.5% (176/4992) and 4.5% (24,163/541,325) in the sotrovimab and untreated cohorts, respectively (unadjusted OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.91; p = 0.001). In adjusted analysis, sotrovimab was associated with a 25% reduction in the odds of hospitalisation or death compared with the untreated cohort (IPTW-adjusted OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.92; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab demonstrated clinical effectiveness in preventing severe outcomes (hospitalisation, mortality) in the period 27 September 2021-30 April 2022, which included Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants and an early surge of Omicron BA.2 variant.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes With Brentuximab Vedotin or Other Standard Therapies in Patients With Previously Treated Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphomas (pcALCLs) are a type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in which CD30 is uniformly expressed. In mycosis fungoides (MF), another CTCL, CD30 is heterogeneously expressed. In ALCANZA, patients with pcALCLs or CD30-positive MF randomized to brentuximab vedotin (BV) vs. physician's choice of methotrexate or bexarotene had significantly improved outcomes, including higher objective response rates (ORR) lasting ≥4 months (ORR4), as well as longer median progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment (TTNT). In this study, we sought to assess the real-world impact of treatment with BV in second or later lines of therapy for CTCL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective chart review describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource use (HRU) in patients with pcALCLs or MF previously treated with ≥1 systemic therapy and subsequently treated with BV (n = 139) or other standard therapy (OST; n = 164). RESULTS: Most patients in the BV cohort (96.4%) received BV as second-line (2L) systemic therapy. The most common OSTs were methotrexate (11.6%), mogamulizumab (9.1%), and bendamustine (9.1%) monotherapies. For 2L BV and OST, median duration of therapy was 8.4 and 5.2 months, real-world ORR was 82.1% and 66.5%, and real-world ORR4 was 42.5% and 25.0%. Real-world 1- and 2-year PFS, TTNT, and OS were significantly longer (all P < .01) and HRU was lower for BV vs. OST. CONCLUSION: These real-world outcomes are consistent with ALCANZA results, demonstrating favorable outcomes with BV vs. OST in patients with CTCL previously treated with ≥1 systemic therapy.

Patient-centric assessment of rheumatoid arthritis using a smartwatch and bespoke mobile app in a clinical setting.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a fluctuating progressive disease requiring frequent symptom assessment for appropriate management. Continuous tracking using digital technologies may provide greater insights of a patient's experience. This prospective study assessed the feasibility, reliability, and clinical utility of using novel digital technologies to remotely monitor participants with RA. Participants with moderate to severe RA and non-RA controls were monitored continuously for 14 days using an iPhone with an integrated bespoke application and an Apple Watch. Participants completed patient-reported outcome measures and objective guided tests designed to assess disease-related impact on physical function. The study was completed by 28 participants with RA, 28 matched controls, and 2 unmatched controls. Completion rates for all assessments were > 97% and were reproducible over time. Several guided tests distinguished between RA and control cohorts (e.g., mean lie-to-stand time [seconds]: RA: 4.77, control: 3.25; P < 0.001). Participants with RA reporting greater stiffness, pain, and fatigue had worse guided test performances (e.g., wrist movement [P < 0.001] and sit-to-stand transition time [P = 0.009]) compared with those reporting lower stiffness, pain, and fatigue. This study demonstrates that digital technologies can be used in a well-controlled, remote clinical setting to assess the daily impact of RA.

Economic burden of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: an assessment of healthcare resource utilization and medical costs.

Aim: To quantify the economic burden of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) among patients with and without adjuvant therapy. Methods: All-cause and NSCLC-related healthcare resource utilization and medical costs were assessed among patients with resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC in the SEER-Medicare database (1 January 2011-31 December 2019), from NSCLC diagnosis to death, end of continuous enrollment, or end of data availability (whichever occurred first). Results: Patients receiving adjuvant therapy had the lowest mean NSCLC-related medical costs (adjuvant [n = 1776]: $3738; neoadjuvant [n = 56]: $5793; both [n = 47]: $4818; surgery alone [n = 3478]: $4892, per-person-per-month), driven by lower NSCLC-related hospitalization rates. Conclusion: Post-surgical management of early-stage NSCLC was associated with high economic burden. Adjuvant therapy was associated with numerically lower medical costs over surgical resection alone.

Comparison of health care costs and resource utilization for commonly used proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-based triplet regimens for the management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Economic differences among currently available proteasome inhibitors (PI)-based lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-backbone triplet regimens-ixazomib (I), bortezomib (V), and carfilzomib (K) plus Rd-remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the United States treated with IRd, VRd, and KRd. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus adjudicated claims US data (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) included adult patients with all available data who initiated IRd, VRd, or KRd in second line of therapy or later (LOT2+) on or after September 1, 2015. The index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT (multiple LOTs per patient were included) and the baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up and reported per patient per month (PPPM; 2020 US Dollars). For MM-related costs only, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. HCRU/costs were compared between treatment groups using generalized linear models (GLMs). Cost variables were compared using 2-part models and GLM with log transformation and γ distribution. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for imbalance of baseline confounders across treatment groups. RESULTS: The study included 511 patients contributing 542 LOTs (IRd: n = 153; VRd: n = 262; KRd: n = 127). Before IPTW, mean observed time spent on therapy was 8.5, 9.3, and 7.3 months for the IRd, VRd, and KRd cohorts, respectively. During follow-up and after IPTW, IRd and VRd were associated with significantly fewer OP visits vs KRd. Post-IPTW comparisons of MM-related costs for IRd vs KRd yielded lower OP costs for IRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,428; P < 0.001), contributing to lower total medical costs (-$3,813; P < 0.001) and total health care cost savings with IRd vs KRd (-$5,813; P = 0.001). MM-related OP costs were lower for VRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,543; P < 0.001) than KRd, reducing its total MM-related medical costs (-$3,997; P = 0.002), leading to total MM-related health care cost savings with VRd vs KRd (-$12,357; P < 0.001). All-cause cost comparisons yielded similar results (total health care cost savings for IRd and VRd vs KRd: -$6,371 and -$13,629, respectively; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the US insurance-payer perspective, patients treated with IRd and VRd had significant medical cost savings vs KRd due to lower OP costs when excluding treatment administration costs. The differential economic impacts of PI-Rd regimens in this study may help to inform treatment decisions for patients with MM. DISCLOSURES: This study and article were supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Dr Sanchez has no conflicts to declare. Dr Chari has the following relationships: Research Support/Principal Investigator: Amgen, Array Biopharma, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Klein, Janssen, Millenium/Takeda, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Oncoceutics, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Consultant: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm; Scientific Advisory Board: Amgen, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics. Drs Cherepanov, Huang, Dabora, and Noga are current employees of Takeda, while Drs Stull and Young are ex-employees of Takeda; Drs Cherepanov and Huang also own stocks in Takeda. Dr DerSarkissian, Ms Cheng, Ms Zhang, Mr Banatwala, and Dr Duh are employees of Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), a consulting firm that received funding from Takeda to conduct this study. Ms Pi was an employee of AG at the time of the study. Dr Ailawadhi has the following relationships to declare: Research Support and Consulting for BMS, GSK, and Janssen; Research Support from AbbVie, Arch Oncology, Cellectar, Medimmune, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor; Consulting for Beigene, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

Health Care Costs With Sustained Oral Corticosteroid Use in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare health care costs, health care resource utilization, and adverse events associated with sustained oral corticosteroid (OCS) use versus no OCS use in systemic lupus erythematosus. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims data (January 1, 2006-July 31, 2019) from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus aged ≥5 years with ≥24 months of continuous enrollment. Health care costs, health care resource utilization, and OCS-related adverse events were assessed. The sustained OCS cohort (defined as ≥12 months of continuous OCS use) was divided into exposure categories based on the number of 6-month classification periods with >5 mg/d OCS (0, 1-2, or 3-4). FINDINGS: Of the 6234 patients in the sustained OCS use cohort, there were 1587 (25.5%) patients with 0 periods of >5 mg/d OCS use, 2087 (33.5%) patients with 1 to 2 periods of >5 mg/d OCS use, and 2560 (41.1%) patients with 3 to 4 periods of >5 mg/d OCS use; the no OCS use cohort included 7828 patients. Adjusted health care cost differences (95% CIs) were significantly greater for patients with 0, 1 to 2, and 3 to 4 periods of OCS use >5 mg/d versus the no OCS use cohort ($7774 [5426-10,223], $21,738 [18,898-25,321], and $30,119 [26,492-33,774], respectively). A higher proportion of patients in all OCS exposure categories required health care resource utilization (≥99.7% vs 93.4%) and experienced OCS-related adverse events (94.3%-96.8% vs 82.6%) versus the no OCS use cohort, with more periods of OCS use >5 mg/d associated with increased health care resource utilization and adverse events. IMPLICATIONS: Sustained OCS use in systemic lupus erythematosus was associated with high economic burden, health care resource utilization, and OCS-related adverse events. These data highlight the need for health care providers to carefully consider OCS use in systemic lupus erythematosus.

Clinical and Economic Burden in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus During the First Year After Initiating Oral Corticosteroids: A Retrospective US Database Study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize health care resource utilization (HCRU), health care costs, and adverse events (AEs) among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) initiating oral corticosteroids (OCS) versus patients without OCS use. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study (GSK Study 213061), eligible patients (aged ≥5 years at first OCS claim) with SLE from the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US database (January 2006 to July 2019) had continuous enrollment during the 6-month preindex (baseline) and 12-month postindex (observation) periods and one or more inpatient or emergency department SLE diagnosis codes or two or more outpatient SLE diagnosis codes during baseline. The "OCS-initiator cohort" comprised patients with one or more OCS pharmacy claims during the study period and no evidence of preindex OCS use and was classified into three exposure categories based on the number of 6-month periods of more than 5 mg/day of OCS use (0, 1, 2). The "no-OCS-use cohort" comprised patients without OCS claims, although patients may have received OCS prior to the study period. Clinical and economic outcomes were reported over the observation period. RESULTS: Adjusted health care costs differed significantly ($6542 [95% confidence interval (CI): $5761-$7368], $19,149 [95% CI: $16,954-$21,471], $28,985 [95% CI: $25,546-$32,885]). HCRU incidence rates were significantly greater for all OCS-initiator exposure categories (n = 16,216) versus the no-OCS-use cohort (n = 11,137; adjusted incidence rate ratios [95% CI]: 1.22 [1.19-1.24], 1.39 [1.34-1.43], 1.66 [1.60-1.73]). OCS-related AEs were experienced by 67.1% to 74.1% of patients with OCS initiation, most commonly affecting the immune system. CONCLUSION: Within 12 months of OCS initiation, patients with SLE experienced substantial clinical and economic burden, which may imply a need to minimize OCS use.

A multicenter chart review of patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes in hereditary angioedema: unmet need for more effective long-term prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease characterized by unpredictable, recurring subcutaneous or submucosal swelling. Without effective therapy, HAE can negatively impact patients' quality of life. Management of HAE includes on-demand treatment of attacks and short- and long-term prophylaxis (LTP) to prevent attacks. Newer therapies may be more tolerable and effective in managing HAE; however, therapies such as androgens are still widely used in some countries owing to their relative ease of access and adequate disease control for some patients. This study evaluated the characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization of a multinational cohort of patients with HAE, with a focus on understanding reasons for recommending or discontinuing available therapies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted at 12 centers in six countries and included data from patients with HAE type 1 or 2 who were ≥ 12 years of age at their first clinical visit. The relationship between LTP use and attack rates was evaluated using a multivariable Poisson regression model. Data were collected between March 2018 and July 2019. RESULTS: Data from 225 patients were collected (62.7% female, 86.2% White, 90.2% type 1); 64.4% of patients had their first HAE-related visit to the center prior to or during 2014. Treatment patterns varied between countries. Overall, 85.8% of patients were prescribed on-demand treatment and 53.8% were prescribed LTP, most commonly the androgen danazol (53.7% of patients who used LTP). Plasma-derived C1 inhibitor (Cinryze®) was used by 29.8% of patients for LTP. Patients who received LTP had a significantly lower rate of HAE attacks than patients who did not receive any LTP (incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.90 (0.84-0.96)). Androgens were the most commonly discontinued therapy (51.3%), with low tolerability cited as the most frequent reason for discontinuation (50.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings from this study support the use of LTP in the prevention of HAE attacks; a lower rate of attacks was observed with LTP compared with no LTP. However, the type of LTP used varied between countries, with tolerability and accessibility to specific treatments playing important roles in management decision-making.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of acalabrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Novel agents, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis), have become the standard of care for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We conducted a real-world retrospective analysis of patients with CLL treated with acalabrutinib vs ibrutinib using the Flatiron Health database. Patients with CLL were included if they initiated acalabrutinib or ibrutinib between 1 January 2018 and 28 February 2021. The primary outcome of interest was time to treatment discontinuation (TTD). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate unweighted and weighted median TTD. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the TTD between cohorts. Of the 2509 patients included in the analysis, 89.6% received ibrutinib, and 14.1% received acalabrutinib. TTD was not significantly different between cohorts in the unweighted analysis. After weighting, the cohorts were balanced on all baseline characteristics except cardiovascular risk factors and baseline medications use. The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TTD was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 25.1 to NR) for the acalabrutinib cohort and was 23.4 months (95% CI, 18.1-28.7) for the ibrutinib cohort. The discontinuation rate at 12 months was 22% for the weighted acalabrutinib cohort vs 31% for the weighted ibrutinib cohort (P = .005). After additional adjustment for prior BTKi use, the acalabrutinib cohort had a 41% lower risk of discontinuation vs ibrutinib (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.81; P = .001). In the largest available study comparing BTKis, patients with CLL receiving acalabrutinib demonstrated lower rates of discontinuation and a prolonged time to discontinuation vs those receiving ibrutinib.

Time and personnel costs associated with adverse event (AE) management among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

OBJECTIVES: Novel therapies improve clinical outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), although adverse event (AE) profiles differ. This study evaluated time and personnel costs of AE management among healthcare professionals (HCPs) treating patients with CLL with novel therapies. METHODS: A non-interventional prospective survey was conducted over 2 months. Eligible HCPs reported the time per day spent performing AE management activities for CLL patients treated with acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, or venetoclax. Mean time and personnel costs (USD) per activity were summarized and used to estimate the total annual costs of AE management for an average-sized oncology practice. RESULTS: For an average-sized practice (28 HCPs with an average of 56 CLL patients), the mean annual personnel cost of AE management for CLL patients on novel agents was estimated at $115,733. The personnel cost associated with acalabrutinib ($20,912) was less than half that of ibrutinib ($53,801) and venetoclax ($41,884), potentially due to fewer severe AEs and less time spent by oncologists managing AEs compared to other HCP types. CONCLUSION: The substantial burden of AE management for patients with CLL may vary by treatment used. Acalabrutinib was associated with lower annual costs of AE management at an oncology practice level compared to ibrutinib and venetoclax.

Prolonged oral corticosteroid treatment in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: An evaluation of 12-month economic and clinical burden.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged, high-dose corticosteroid treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is associated with substantial health care costs, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause health care costs, HCRU, and oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related AEs among patients with prevalent OCS use and patients without OCS use. METHODS: This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study (GSK study 214100) used claims data from the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims - US, IQVIA, Inc, database between January 1, 2006, and July 31, 2019, to identify patients with SLE. Patients with at least 1 OCS pharmacy claim during the study period and continuous OCS use during the 6-month pre-index (baseline) period (index date is the date of the first OCS claim following 6 months' continuous use) formed the "prevalent OCS use cohort." This cohort was subdivided based on the level of OCS exposure during the 12-month observation period, ie, the number of 6-month periods of greater than 5 mg/day OCS use (0, 1, or 2). Patients without OCS claims formed the "no OCS use cohort." All patients had continuous enrollment during the baseline and observation periods, had at least 1 inpatient or at least 2 outpatient SLE diagnosis codes during baseline, and were aged at least 5 years at index. A 2-part model, a generalized linear regression model with a negative binomial distribution, and a multivariate logistic regression model were used to compare health care costs, HCRU, and the odds of developing an OCS-related AE between cohorts, respectively. RESULTS: The no OCS use and prevalent OCS use cohorts included 21,517 and 16,209 patients, respectively. Adjusted health care cost differences (95% CI) were significantly lower for the no OCS use cohort vs all prevalent OCS use exposure categories ($5,439 [$4,537-$6,371] vs $17,856 [$16,368-$19,498]), driven by inpatient stays and outpatient visits; HCRU was also significantly lower (adjusted incidence rate ratios vs no OCS use cohort [95% CI]: 1.20 [1.16-1.23] vs 1.47 [1.41-1.52]). Health care costs and HCRU increased with increasing length of OCS exposure. OCS-related AEs occurred more frequently for all prevalent OCS use exposure categories vs the no OCS use cohort (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.39 [1.25-1.55] vs 2.32 [2.02-2.68]), driven by hematologic/oncologic and immune system-related AEs. The mean (SD) average daily dose of OCS increased with increasing periods of prevalent OCS use (2.5 [1.3], 6.9 [31.1], and 34.6 [1,717.3] mg/day, respectively, for patients with 0, 1, and 2 periods of OCS use). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalent OCS use incurs a substantial clinical and economic burden, highlighting the need for restricted OCS doses and durations. DISCLOSURES: This study (GSK Study 214100) was funded by GSK. GSK was involved in designing the study, contributing to the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, supporting the authors in the development of the manuscript, and funding the medical writing assistance. All authors, including those employed by GSK, approved the content of the submitted manuscript and were involved in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr DerSarkissian, Dr Duh, and Mr Benson are employees of Analysis Group, which received research funding from GSK to conduct this study. Dr Wang, Ms Gu, and Mr Vu are former employees of Analysis Group. Mr Bell is an employee of GSK and holds stocks and shares in the company. Ms Averell and Dr Huang are former employees of GSK and held stocks and shares in the company at the time of the study.

Clinical and Cost Benefits of Anti-Obesity Medication for US Veterans Participating in the MOVE! Weight Management Program.

Abstract This study investigated the clinical and economic impact of anti-obesity medications (AOMs; orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate extended-release [ER], naltrexone ER/bupropion ER) among United States Veterans with obesity participating in Motivating Overweight/Obese Veterans Everywhere! (MOVE!), a government-initiated weight management program. The study population was identified from electronic medical records of the Veterans Health Administration (2010-2020). Clinical indices of obesity and health care resource utilization and costs were evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months after the initial dispensing of an AOM in the AOM+MOVE! cohort (N = 3732, mean age 57 years, 79% male) or on the corresponding date of an inpatient or outpatient encounter in the MOVE! cohort (N = 7883, mean age 58 years, 81% male). At 6 months postindex, the AOM+MOVE! cohort had better cardiometabolic indices (eg, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, hemoglobin A1c) than the MOVE! cohort, with the trends persisting at 12 and 24 months. The AOM+MOVE! cohort was significantly more likely than the MOVE! cohort to have weight decreases of 5%-10%, 10%-15%, and >15% and lower body mass index at 6, 12, and 24 months. The AOM+MOVE! cohort also had fewer inpatient and emergency department visits than the MOVE! cohort, which was associated with lower mean total medical costs including inpatient costs. These results suggest that combining AOM treatment with the MOVE! program could yield long-term cost savings for the Veterans Affairs network and meaningful clinical improvements for Veterans with obesity.

Network meta-analysis of efficacy of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: In the absence of head-to-head comparisons across relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treatments following the approval of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd), we conducted an indirect comparison of the efficacy of IRd relative to several RRMM therapies using Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) models. METHODS: Data for the NMA were obtained through a systematic literature review (conducted in June 2020), which identified randomized controlled trials (base case) and observational studies (extended network analysis) reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In the base case, IRd was associated with a significantly longer PFS than lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), bortezomib monotherapy (V), dexamethasone (Dex), and pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pom-dex), a significantly shorter PFS than daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd), and a PFS comparable to elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (ERd) and carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd). IRd was associated with a significantly longer OS than V, Dex, and Pom-dex, and an OS comparable to Rd, ERd, KRd, and DRd. The ORR of IRd was significantly higher than Rd, V, and Dex, significantly lower than KRd and DRd, and comparable to Pom-dex and ERd. The extended network analyses and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base case. DISCUSSION: This NMA shows that IRd is relatively efficacious among RRMM treatments. Being an oral regimen, IRd is also convenient to manage. CONCLUSION: IRd could be a preferable treatment option for many patients with RRMM, particularly those seeking an efficacious and convenient therapeutic option.

A 5-Year Retrospective, Observational Study Assessing Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Outcome Measures to Characterize Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Burden in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the use of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease measures in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a US community-based rheumatology physician network over 5 years. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study (GSK Study 213818) of patients with SLE utilized electronic medical records (01 January 2010-31 December 2019) from the United Rheumatology Normalized Integrated Community Evidence database. The index was the date of first SLE diagnosis recorded in the database; the observation period was 5 years post-index. RA disease measures evaluated were: Pain Index, Multi-Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MD-HAQ), Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Physician Global Assessment (PGA), Swollen Joint Count (SJC), Tender Joint Count (TJC), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS-28). The number of patients with measures utilized, the score on each measure, and proportion of patients per disease activity category were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 5990 patients with SLE were included. The most frequently used measures were Pain Index, SJC, TJC, MD-HAQ, PtGA, RAPID3, and PGA (cumulative use over Years 1-5: 23.9-71.3%). For all measures, frequency of use was lowest in Year 1, followed by a general increase from Year 1 to Year 5. Scores remained relatively stable for most measures, and the proportion of patients in remission or with low/moderate disease activity per RAPID3 increased. CONCLUSION: RA disease measure utilization in SLE was generally infrequent but increased over time. Pain Index and MD-HAQ were the most commonly applied cumulatively across 5 years of follow-up. The rationale for the increased use of these measures in SLE over time requires further exploration. In the absence of a clinically applicable SLE-specific measure, the use of RA measures, for example in conjunction with SLE measures, may provide an alternative approach for measuring disease activity, representing an opportunity to improve patient outcomes.

Treatment patterns and overall survival of patients with double-class and triple-class refractory multiple myeloma: a US electronic health record database study.

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) resistant to multiple drug classes remain a high unmet need population. This longitudinal retrospective cohort study assessed real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in adults with RRMM. Patients who had three or more prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (double-exposed) were further categorized as refractory to a PI and an immunomodulatory agent (double-class refractory, n = 381) or additionally to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (triple-class refractory, n = 173). Treatment options are limited for patients with double-class or triple-class refractory disease. Retreatment is a part of standard of care. Bortezomib and lenalidomide had the highest retreatment rates among double-class and triple-class refractory patients. Survival outcomes remain poor among RRMM patients with median overall survival (OS) of 22.3 and 11.6 months for double-class refractory and triple-class refractory patients, respectively. This study highlights the need for novel efficacious therapies in this heavily pretreated RRMM population.