Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a German retrospective real-world analysis.

Aim: This study assessed real-world treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in Germany. Materials & methods: Patients diagnosed with mUC from 2015 to 2019 were identified in two claims databases: AOK PLUS and GWQ. Results: 3226 patients with mUC were analyzed; 1286 (39.9%) received systemic treatment within 12 months of diagnosis (platinum-based chemotherapy: 64.2%). Factors associated with receiving treatment were: younger age, male sex, less comorbidity and recent diagnosis. In AOK PLUS and GWQ populations, unadjusted median overall survival (interquartile range) from diagnosis in treated patients was 13.7 (6.8-32.9) and 13.8 (7.1-41.7) months, and in untreated patients was 3.0 (1.2-10.8) and 3.6 (1.2-18.8) months, respectively. Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients with mUC in Germany receive no systemic treatment.

What is this article about? This article reports the results from a study in Germany between 2015 and 2019 that investigated how advanced bladder cancer that has spread to other organs was treated and how long people lived after diagnosis. The study looked at systemic therapies, which means treatments that affect the entire body.What were the results? Only 40% of people diagnosed with advanced bladder cancer received systemic treatment within the first 12 months. Of those who did receive systemic treatment, the majority received combination therapy that included a chemotherapy drug containing platinum (64%). Systemic treatment was more likely to be given to people who were younger, less sick, male, or more recently diagnosed. After 12 months, 56% of treated people were still alive, compared with 26% of people without treatment. On average, people who received systemic treatment lived for about 14 months, while people without systemic treatment lived for only 3 to 4 months.What do the results of the study mean? Many people with advanced bladder cancer in Germany do not receive systemic treatment. People who receive treatment are likely to live longer than those who do not receive treatment.

Healthcare resource utilization and associated costs in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a real-world analysis using German claims data.

AIMS: This retrospective claims data study characterized real-world treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Continuously insured adults with incident mUC diagnosis (=index; ICD-10: C65-C68/C77-C79) in 2015-2019 were identified from two German claims databases. Patients who received first-line (1 L) treatment within 12 months of index were divided into three mutually exclusive sub-cohorts: platinum-based chemotherapy (PB-CT), non-PB-CT, and immunotherapy (IO). Patient characteristics were assessed during a 24-month baseline period; treatments, HCRU, and costs (of the health insurance fund) per patient-year (ppy) were described during 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 3,226 patients with mUC (mean age, 73.8 years; male, 70.8%; mean Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, 17.6); 1,286 (39.9%) received 1 L treatment within 12 months of index. Of these, 825 (64.2%) received PB-CT, 322 (25.0%) non-PB-CT, and 139 (10.8%) IO. On average, treated patients had 5.1 hospitalizations ppy. Most UC-related hospitalizations ppy were observed in the PB-CT cohort (5.8), followed by the non-PB-CT (4.2) and IO (2.3) cohorts. Mean UC-related hospitalization costs ppy were €22,218 in the treated cohort, €24,294 in PB-CT, €19,079 in IO, and €18,530 in non-PB-CT cohorts. Cancer-related prescription costs ppy averaged €6,323 in treated patients, and €25,955 in IO, €4,318 in non-PB-CT, and €4,270 in PB-CT cohorts. LIMITATIONS: We recognized limitations in our study's sample selection due to unavailable mUC disease status data. We addressed this through an upstream feasibility study conducted in consultation with clinical experts to determine a suitable proxy. Proxies were also used to delineate treatment lines, switches, and discontinuations due to data absence. Furthermore, due to data restrictions, collective dataset analysis was not possible, prompting a meta-analysis for pooled results. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that mUC is associated with significant HCRU and costs across different types of 1 L systemic therapy.

Association between asthma control and healthcare costs: Results from a German linked data study.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate differences in healthcare resource utilization and cost among patients with controlled and uncontrolled asthma.Methods: Claims data from a German sickness fund was linked to patient survey data. Outpatient physicians enrolled patients and assessed asthma control using the ACTTM questionnaire. All-cause and asthma-specific healthcare resource use (HCRU)/costs were compared descriptively and based on multivariable models using a continuous ACTTM score.Results: Overall, 492 asthma patients were included (mean age: 53.8, 73.8% female). The mean/median ACTTM score was 19.9/20.7, with 183 patients (37.2%) classified as having uncontrolled asthma (mean ACTTM score<20) Patients with uncontrolled asthma had significantly more hospitalizations (p = .035) and medication prescriptions (p < .001), which resulted in higher total healthcare costs for asthma-related (€1785 vs. €1615; p = .004) and all-cause care (€4695 vs. €4117; p = .009). While controlling for baseline characteristics, multivariable models confirmed a negative association between asthma control and total all-cause healthcare costs (p = .008), total asthma-related costs (p = .008), and costs of medication prescriptions (p = .001). However, no significant association was found for all-cause (p = .062) and asthma-related hospitalization costs (p = .576).Conclusion: Considering continuous patient care, improving asthma control is not only desirable from a clinical perspective, but could also be an effective approach to reduce asthma-related HCRU and cost burden.

Epidemiology, treatment and health care resource use of patients with severe asthma in Germany - a retrospective claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asthma causes various clinical symptoms, including unpredictable severe exacerbations, and even though most patients can achieve a reasonable disease control due to adequate treatment, some patients do not. This study seeks to describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and treatment of asthma and severe asthma patients in Germany. METHOD: A retrospective claims data analysis has been conducted on adult asthma patients and a subset of patients with severe asthma, identified during July 2017 - June 2018. A proxy was used to identify severe asthma patients based on therapy options recommended within the German treatment guideline for treating these patients. These include (i) biologics, (ii) medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in conjunction with LABA/montelukast and antibiotics/oral corticosteroids (OCS), and (iii) long-term OCS therapy. HCRU and treatment of patients were observed during a 1-year follow-up period (July 2018 - June 2019). RESULTS: The study included 388 932 adult asthma patients (prevalence: 7.90%), with 2.51%-12.88% affected by severe asthma (depending on the definition). 22.60% of all asthma patients experienced hospitalizations (severe asthma: 36.11%). Furthermore, 13.59% received OCS (severe asthma: 39.91%), but only 0.18% (severe asthma: 1.25%) received biologics. Only 23.95% (severe asthma: 41.17%) visited a pulmonologist. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of severe asthma patients receive long-term OCS therapy. However, less than 50% have seen a pulmonologist who would typically seek a change in treatment to avoid the long-term consequences of OCS. To optimize the treatment of severe asthma in Germany, better referral of these patients to specialists is needed and considering potential treatment alternatives.

Use of Biologic Therapies in the Treatment of Asthma - A Comparative Real World Data Analysis on Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs Before and After Therapy Initiation.

Background: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in Germany. While many patients achieve asthma control under standard therapies, some patients still experience exacerbations and persistent airway obstructions. Thus, further pharmacological treatment is needed, and biologics could fill this gap, as they have shown clinical benefit in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, this real-world study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs before and after biologic therapy initiation. Methods: A retrospective claims data analysis has been conducted on adult asthma patients who initiated a long-term biologic therapy between January 2015 and June 2018. Patients were therapy-naïve to biologics for at least 12 months. HCRU and cost incurred by patients during 12 months before and after therapy initiation were compared. Results: Overall, 571 asthma patients initiated a biologic therapy during the observational period (316 omalizumab, 232 mepolizumab, 16 benralizumab, and 7 reslizumab). Patients had a mean age of 54.86 (62.70% female), and the majority (93.70%) received at least one follow-up prescription of their index-biologic agent within one year. During baseline, patients received on average 2.75 OCS prescriptions compared to 2.17 during follow-up. Most patients received less or the same amount of OCS after therapy initiation. Moreover, hospitalizations and asthma-related sick leave days decreased significantly. The average total costs per patient were €6618.90 during baseline and €22,832.33 during follow-up. Biologics mainly drove the increase; however, hospitalization costs were reduced significantly (€2443.37 vs €1941.93; p<0.001). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates an improved asthma control due to the initiation of a biologic therapy in terms of decreased hospitalization frequency, OCS consumption, and sick leave days. However, biologics are associated with high costs for healthcare providers during the first year after initiation. Therefore, short- and long-term clinical benefits and financial burden must be considered in the overall context of healthcare.

Epidemiology and treatment of patients with Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Germany-A claims data study.

BACKGROUND: There are different levels of severity among patients who suffer from chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). In this study, the epidemiology of CRSwNP and severe CRswNP was estimated. METHODS: A retrospective claim data analysis was conducted on adult CRSwNP patients (ICD-10: J33), and those classified as severe CRSwNP patients with inadequate disease control (based upon combinations of previous and current treatments) between 2015 and 2019. Prevalence and incidence figures were calculated and extrapolated to the German population. In addition, baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Overall, the 5-year prevalence of adult CRSwNP cases from 2015 to 2019 in Germany was 374,115 cases (about 5500 per million), with 12,989 (about 200 per million) patients being classified as severe CRSwNP with inadequate disease control, whereas 267,880 (about 3900 per million) patients were identified as having an incident CRSwNP diagnosis between 2016 and 2019. From the incident CRSwNP cohort, 80.55% had received at least one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS), 24.27% received at least 1 systemic corticosteroid (SCS), and 17.33% received at least one functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) within 12 months after their incident diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Severe CRSwNP with inadequate disease control affects about 200 per million people in Germany. INCS is the first-choice treatment for most CRSwNP patients; however, for patients with severe CRSwNP, SCS are prescribed more frequently and long-term effects of these should be further investigated, especially if despite treatment, adequate disease control cannot be achieved.

Preferences of Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B - A Discrete Choice Experiment on the Acceptability of Functional Cure.

BACKGROUND: Current antiviral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) rarely achieve functional cure, thus often requiring lifelong therapy. A therapy achieving functional cure in a significant percentage of patients could change the treatment landscape substantially. However, the acceptability of functional cure by patients is unknown, especially if associated with additional treatment burden. METHODS: A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) including patients with CHB was performed between 2018 and 2019 in Germany. Patient inclusion criteria were confirmed CHB; age of at least 18 years; no history of hepatocellular carcinoma; no HIV or HCV/HDV co-infection. The final DCE included the following attributes: route of administration (oral administration by tablets; subcutaneous injection + tablets; intramuscular electroporation + tablets), side effect frequency (0/1/3 days per month), functional cure (1%/30%/50% of patients), frequency of physician visits (monthly, half-yearly) and travel time to treating physician (15/45 min). RESULTS: The main analysis sample consisted of 108 patients with CHB (mean age: 49.1 years, female: 37.0%, average time since CHB diagnosis: 14.0 years, 52.8% with Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) chronic HBV infection). High efficacy was found to be the main driver of decisions for/against the presented treatment options (impacted 57% of patients' decisions), followed by therapy regimen (17%), safety profile (12%) and number of physician visits (11%). Latent class analysis revealed first insights into different decision patterns, with age, gender and previous side-effect experience affecting patients' decisions. CONCLUSION: In comparison to all other treatment-related attributes such as therapy regimen or safety profile, patients with CHB showed a strong preference towards a scenario where a substantial number of patients benefit from sustained disease remission, which mimics functional cure.

Burden of Staphylococcus aureus infections after orthopedic surgery in Germany.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of Staphylococcus aureus infections (SAI) following endoprosthetic hip or knee, or spine surgeries. METHODS: Adult patients with at least one of the selected surgeries from 2012 to 2015 captured in a German sickness fund database were included. SAI were identified using S. aureus-specific ICD-10 codes. Patients with certain prior surgeries and infections were excluded. Cumulative incidence and incidence density of post-surgical SAI were assessed. Risk factors, mortality, healthcare resource utilization and direct costs were compared between SAI and non-SAI groups using multivariable analyses over the 1 year follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 74,327 patients who underwent a knee (28.6%), hip (39.6%), or spine surgery (31.8%) were included. The majority were female (61.58%), with a mean age of 69.59 years and a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 2.3. Overall, 1.92% of observed patients (20.20 SAI per 1000 person-years (PY)) experienced a SAI within 1 year of index hospitalization. Knee surgeries were associated with lower SAI risk compared with hip surgeries (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.8; p = 0.024), whereas spine surgeries did not differ significantly from hip surgeries. Compared with non-SAI group, the SAI group had on average 4.4 times the number of hospitalizations (3.1 vs. 0.7) and 7.7 times the number of hospital days (53.5 vs. 6.9) excluding the index hospitalization (p < 0.001). One year post-orthopedic mortality was 22.38% in the SAI and 5.31% in the non-SAI group (p < 0.001). The total medical costs were significantly higher in the SAI group compared to non-SAI group (42,834€ vs. 13,781€; p < 0.001). Adjusting for confounders, the SAI group had nearly 2 times the all-cause direct healthcare costs (exp(b) = 1.9; p < 0.001); and 1.72 times higher risk of death (HR = 1.72; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SAI risk after orthopedic surgeries persists and is associated with significant economic burden and risk of mortality. Hence, risk reduction and prevention methods are of utmost importance.