Real-world economic burden associated with disease progression from metastatic castration-sensitive to castration-resistant prostate cancer on treatment in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The advent of next-generation imaging will likely reduce nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PC) prevalence and increase identification of metastatic prostate cancer cases, resulting in two predominant advanced stages in the metastatic setting. There is a need to characterize changes in health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs when metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC) progresses to metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) to identify value drivers from current and new treatments. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment patterns, HRU, and total health care costs among patients with mCSPC, before and after progression to mCRPC. METHODS: Clinical data from the Flatiron Metastatic PC Core Registry (January 1, 2013, to December 1, 2021) and linked claims from Komodo Health (January 1, 2014, to December 1, 2021) were used to identify patients with progression from mCSPC to mCRPC (date of progression was the index date) and subsequently initiated first-line mCRPC therapy on/after January 1, 2017. Treatment patterns and all-cause/PC-related HRU and health care costs were described per-patient-per-month (PPPM), separately for no more than 12 months pre-index (mCSPC disease state) and post-index (mCRPC disease state). Costs (payer's perspective) included those for services/procedures from medical claims and costs from pharmacy claims. Continuous HRU and costs were compared between the mCSPC and mCRPC disease states using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: Among 296 patients with mCSPC progressing to mCRPC (median age 69.0 years, 60.5% White, 15.9% Black), use of systemic therapies with androgen deprivation therapy increased dramatically from 35.1% in the mCSPC disease state to 92.9% in the mCRPC disease state, and use of androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy decreased from 25.7% to 2.4%, respectively. Although 39.2% received none of these therapies in the mCSPC disease state, this proportion decreased to 4.7% after transition to mCRPC. The mean number of days with PC-related outpatient visits increased from 1.57 to 2.16 PPPM in the mCSPC and mCRPC disease states (P < 0.001). From the mCSPC to mCRPC disease states, mean all-cause total health care costs PPPM increased from $4,424 (medical costs: $2,846) to $9,717 (medical costs: $4,654), and mean PC-related total health care costs PPPM increased from $2,859 (medical costs: $1,626) to $8,012 (medical costs: $3,285; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of patients with disease progression from mCSPC to mCRPC in US clinical practice, nearly 2-in-3 patients did not receive treatment with additional systemic therapies before progression to castration resistance. Post-progression, mean PC-related total costs increased nearly 3-fold, with a more than 2-fold increase in PC-related medical costs. Use of additional systemic therapies may delay the time and cost associated with disease progression to castration resistance.

Real-world clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer initiating apalutamide.

Aim: To describe overall survival, time to castration resistance and castration resistance-free survival in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) initiating apalutamide in a US oncology network. Patients & methods: Patients with mCSPC initiating apalutamide on or after 17 September 2019 from an electronic health record-derived deidentified database were included. Patients were followed from apalutamide initiation and were censored at the earlier of end of clinical activity or data availability (31 October 2022). Results: At 12 and 24 months, overall survival rates were 91.0 and 88.3%, rates of castration sensitivity were 85.7 and 72.1%, and castration resistance-free survival rates were 80.2 and 65.9%, respectively. Conclusion: Real-world clinical outcomes of patients with mCSPC treated with apalutamide were comparable to results from the phase III TITAN trial.

This study looked at health outcomes among 176 patients receiving a prostate cancer medication, apalutamide. The average age of patients was 72 years, and approximately two-thirds of patients were White. Two years after starting apalutamide, most patients remained alive and their cancer did not progress.

Characterizing the real-world economic burden of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in the United States.

AIMS: To describe healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). METHODS: Linked data from Flatiron Metastatic PC Core Registry and Komodo's Healthcare Map were evaluated (01/2016-12/2021). Patients with chart-confirmed diagnoses for metastatic PC without confirmed castration resistance in Flatiron who initiated androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy or advanced therapy for mCSPC in 2017 or later (index date) with a corresponding pharmacy or medical claim in Komodo Health were included. Advanced therapies considered were androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors, chemotherapies, estrogens, immunotherapies, poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, and radiopharmaceuticals. Patients with <12 months of continuous insurance eligibility before index were excluded. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and PC-related HRU and costs (medical and pharmacy; from a payer's perspective in 2022 $USD) were described in the 12-month baseline period and follow-up period (from the index date to castration resistance, end of continuous insurance eligibility, end of data availability, or death). RESULTS: Of 871 patients included (mean age: 70.6 years), 52% initiated ADT monotherapy as their index treatment without documented advanced therapy use. During baseline, 31% of patients had a PC-related inpatient admission and 94% had a PC-related outpatient visit; mean all-cause costs were $2551 PPPM and PC-related costs were $839 PPPM with $787 PPPM attributable to medical costs. Patients had a mean follow-up of 15 months, during which 38% had a PC-related inpatient admission and 98% had a PC-related outpatient visit; mean all-cause costs were $5950 PPPM with PC-related total costs of $4363 PPPM, including medical costs of $2012 PPPM. LIMITATIONS: All analyses were descriptive; statistical testing was not performed. Treatment effectiveness and clinical outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSION: This real-world study demonstrated a significant economic burden in mCSPC patients, and a propensity to use ADT monotherapy in clinical practice despite the availability and guideline recommendations of advanced life-prolonging therapies.

Real-world economic burden of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer before and after first-line therapy initiation.

AIMS: To describe healthcare costs of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) initiating first-line (1 L) therapies from a US payer perspective. METHODS: Patients initiating a Flatiron oncologist-defined 1 L mCRPC therapy (index date) on or after mCRPC diagnosis were identified from linked electronic medical records/claims data from the Flatiron Metastatic Prostate Cancer (PC) Core Registry and Komodo's Healthcare Map. Patients were excluded if they initiated a clinical trial drug in 1 L, had <12 months of insurance eligibility prior to index, or no claims in Komodo's Healthcare Map for the Flatiron oncologist-defined index therapy. All-cause and PC-related total costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM), including costs for services and procedures from medical claims (i.e. medical costs) and costs from pharmacy claims (i.e. pharmacy costs), were described in the 12-month baseline period before 1 L therapy initiation (including the baseline pre- and post- mCRPC progression periods) and during 1 L therapy (follow-up). RESULTS: Among 459 patients with mCRPC (mean age 70 years, 57% White, 16% Black, 45% commercially-insured, 43% Medicare Advantage-insured, and 12% Medicaid-insured), average baseline all-cause total costs (PPPM) were $4,576 ($4,166 pre-mCRPC progression, $8,278 post-mCRPC progression). Average baseline PC-related total costs were $2,935 ($2,537 pre-mCRPC progression, $6,661 post-mCRPC progression). During an average 1 L duration of 8.5 months, mean total costs were $13,746 (all-cause) and $12,061 (PC-related) PPPM. The cost increase following 1 L therapy initiation was driven by higher PC-related outpatient and pharmacy costs. PC-related medical costs PPPM increased from $1,504 during baseline to $5,585 following 1 L mCRPC therapy initiation. LIMITATIONS: All analyses were descriptive; statistical testing was not performed. CONCLUSION: Incremental costs of progression to mCRPC are significant, with the majority of costs driven by higher PC-related costs. Using contemporary data, this study highlights the importance of utilizing effective therapies that slow progression and reduce healthcare resource demands despite the initial investment in treatment costs.

Time to next treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia initiating first-line ibrutinib or acalabrutinib.

Aim: To investigate real-world time to next treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia initiating first-line (1L) ibrutinib or acalabrutinib. Materials & methods: US specialty pharmacy electronic medical records (21/11/2018-30/4/2022) were used; patients initiated 1L on/after 21/11/2019 (acalabrutinib approval). Results: Among 710 patients receiving ibrutinib, 5.9% initiated next treatment (mean time to initiation = 9.2 months); among 373 patients receiving acalabrutinib, 7.5% initiated next treatment (mean time to initiation = 5.9 months). Adjusting for baseline characteristics, acalabrutinib-treated patients were 89% more likely to initiate next treatment (hazard ratio = 1.89; p = 0.016). Conclusion: This study addresses a need for real-world comparative effectiveness between 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib and shows that next treatment (a clinically meaningful measure for real-world progression) occurred less frequently with 1L ibrutinib.

Ibrutinib and acalabrutinib are oral medications taken once-daily and twice-daily, respectively. They are recommended as initial treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of these treatments as initial treatment for CLL. To meet this goal, real-world US specialty pharmacy electronic medical records between 11/21/2018­4/30/2022 were used. Patients treated with ibrutinib or acalabrutinib as initial treatment for CLL were studied. Treatment had to be started on or after the date of acalabrutinib approval for CLL (11/21/2019). Time to next treatment was used to estimate real-world disease progression. It was defined as the time from the initiation of initial treatment with ibrutinib or acalabrutinib to the initiation of a next treatment. Study results showed that patients were observed for a median of up to 1.5 years. Over this period, next treatment was more likely for acalabrutinib (7.5%) compared with ibrutinib (5.9%). After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, next treatment was 89% more likely with acalabrutinib than ibrutinib. This study addresses a need to compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in the real-world. It helps better contextualize results from clinical trial data and shows that next treatment occurred less frequently with ibrutinib.

Real-World Comparison of First-Line Treatment Adherence Between Single-Agent Ibrutinib and Acalabrutinib in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

Purpose: Increased dosing frequency adversely affects treatment adherence and outcomes in chronic diseases; however, such data related to treatment adherence is lacking in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). This study compared adherence between patients treated with ibrutinib (once-daily) versus acalabrutinib (twice-daily) as first-line (1L) therapy for CLL/SLL. Patients and Methods: Specialty pharmacy electronic medical records were used to identify adults with CLL/SLL initiating 1L ibrutinib or acalabrutinib between 01/01/2018 and 11/30/2020. Adherence was measured by the proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR) and was compared between cohorts using odds ratios (ORs) obtained from logistic regression models adjusted for baseline characteristics. Results: Between 01/01/2018 and 11/30/2020, 1374 and 140 patients initiated ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, respectively. Based on PDC/MPR ≥80%, patients treated with once-daily ibrutinib were more likely to be adherent than those treated with twice-daily acalabrutinib (OR ranges: PDC: 1.04-1.76; MPR: 1.03-1.58). At 6 months, patients on ibrutinib had a 58-76% higher likelihood of staying adherent compared to patients on acalabrutinib (PDC: 75.9% for ibrutinib vs 63.6% for acalabrutinib, OR: 1.76, P=0.008; MPR: 76.8% vs 66.9%, OR: 1.58, P=0.036) with a similar trend noted for the entire line of treatment (LOT) (PDC: 53.0% vs 41.4%, OR: 1.53, P=0.021; MPR: 58.7% vs 47.1%, OR: 1.50, P=0.027). Conclusion: In this real-world analysis, CLL/SLL patients initiating 1L once-daily ibrutinib had >50% higher treatment adherence than those initiating twice-daily acalabrutinib during their LOT. Given the importance of sustained adherence for disease control in CLL/SLL, dosing frequency may be an important consideration for patients and physicians.

Attainment of early, deep prostate-specific antigen response in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A comparison of patients initiated on apalutamide or enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: Deep prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, defined as a ≥90% decline in PSA (PSA90), is an important early response indicator for achieving radiographic progression-free and overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) treated with a next-generation androgen signaling inhibitor (ASI), such as apalutamide or enzalutamide. The objective of this study was to compare deep PSA response among patients with mCSPC newly initiated on apalutamide or enzalutamide. METHODS: Clinical data from 69 community urology practices in the United States were evaluated. Patients with mCSPC were classified into cohorts based on their first dispensation (index date) for apalutamide or enzalutamide and were followed until the earliest of treatment discontinuation, initiation of a new next-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitor, end of clinical activity (including death), or end of data availability (03/05/2021). Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) were used to reduce baseline confounding. PSA90 was defined as the earliest ≥90% PSA decline relative to baseline PSA. The proportion of patients achieving PSA90 and time to PSA90 were reported using weighted Kaplan-Meier analysis and weighted Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. RESULTS: The apalutamide and enzalutamide cohorts comprised 186 and 165 patients, respectively. Patient characteristics were generally well balanced after IPTW. By 6 months, patients initiated on apalutamide had a 56% greater likelihood of attaining PSA90 than those initiated on enzalutamide (P = 0.014). This result remained significant through the end of the observation period. The median time to achieving PSA90 was 3.1 months with apalutamide and 5.2 months with enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study demonstrated that apalutamide initiation is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of achieving ≥90% reduction in PSA as compared to initiation of enzalutamide. Moreover, this deep PSA response was observed to occur earlier with apalutamide treatment than with enzalutamide.

Early prostate-specific antigen response among Black and non-Black patients with advanced prostate cancer treated with apalutamide.

Aim: To assess reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels among Black and non-Black patients treated with apalutamide for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) or metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Patients & methods: Patients were identified from electronic medical data. PSA reduction (≥50%, ≥90% or below 0.2 ng/ml) after apalutamide initiation was assessed. Results: A total of 313 patients with nmCRPC and 260 patients with mCSPC were identified. The majority of patients treated with apalutamide achieved a 90% reduction in PSA regardless of indication or race. The proportion of patients achieving a PSA reduction at any level was similar among Black and non-Black patients and was consistent with apalutamide phase III trials. Conclusion: In routine clinical practice, apalutamide consistently produced reduction in PSA levels in Black and non-Black men with nmCRPC or mCSPC.

Clinical and economic burden of tumor lysis syndrome among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma: A real-world US retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is a potentially fatal complication of antineoplastic treatments for hematologic malignancies, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Patients developing TLS require intensive care, adding to the overall clinical and economic burden of CLL/SLL. OBJECTIVE: To analyze TLS-associated health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with CLL/SLL treated with regimens associated with a high TLS risk (per treatment guidelines), ie, anti-CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), lenalidomide, obinutuzumab, or venetoclax. METHODS: Adult patients with CLL/SLL in the MarketScan Databases (January 1, 2006, to April 30, 2020) initiated on CIT, lenalidomide, obinutuzumab, or venetoclax (index date) on or after January 1, 2007, were included in the analysis. Treatment-emergent TLS was defined as TLS occurring in the first 90 days of active treatment. The post-index period was divided into 30-day intervals until the end of the index regimen; intervals pre-TLS were non-TLS intervals and those starting from the TLS event were TLS intervals. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) HCRU and costs were compared between TLS and non-TLS intervals using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline and time-varying confounders. The proportion of patients in the TLS cohort (patients with treatment-emergent TLS) and non-TLS cohort (patients with no treatment-emergent TLS) who switched treatment within 90 days post-index was compared using Kaplan-Meier rates with logrank P values. RESULTS: Among 6,343 patients with CLL/SLL, 71 (1.1%) developed treatment-emergent TLS (venetoclax: 11.5%; other regimens: 0.8%) after a mean (median) of 12.7 (7.0) days following treatment initiation (mean [median] duration of index regimen: 16.0 [10.0] months); 12 (0.2%) developed clinical TLS (venetoclax: 3.1%; other regimens: 0.1%). TLS was associated with 1.7 times more inpatient admissions (P < 0.001), 2 times more days of inpatient stay (P = 0.012), 22% fewer days of antineoplastic drug administration (P = 0.020), and $3,062 PPPM higher health care costs (P = 0.016), which were mainly driven by $1,688 PPPM higher inpatient costs (P = 0.044). Higher costs were observed among both patients who initiated venetoclax (TLS: $24,170; non-TLS: $20,091) and those who initiated other regimens (TLS: $8,746; non-TLS: $6,915). More patients in the TLS vs non-TLS cohort switched treatment in the first 90 days of treatment (12.6% vs 5.1%, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: TLS was associated with a substantial cost burden (driven by inpatient costs) and higher rate of treatment switching (vs non-TLS cohort) in patients with CLL/SLL treated with CIT, obinutuzumab, lenalidomide, or venetoclax. The risk of treatment-emergent TLS and associated incremental HCRU and costs, as well as the potential impact on quality of life, should be weighed when evaluating the risk-benefit of therapies in CLL/SLL management. DISCLOSURES: Dr Rogers has received research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and Janssen (not for the present study); consulting fees from Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, Innate Pharma, Pharmacyclics, Genentech, and AbbVie; and travel funding from AstraZeneca. Mr Emond, Mr Kinkead, Ms Lafeuille, and Mr Lefebvre are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., which has provided paid consulting services to Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Drs Lu and Huang are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson. Ms Côté-Sergent was an employee of Analysis Group, Inc., at the time the study was conducted. This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. The sponsor was involved in the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; manuscript writing; and the decision to publish the article.

Economic burden of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among children and adolescents in the United States: a societal perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the economic burden associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among children and adolescents from a US societal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Direct healthcare costs of children (5-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) with ADHD were obtained using claims data from the IBM MarketScan Research Databases (01/01/2017-12/31/2018). Direct non-healthcare and indirect costs were estimated based on literature and government publications. Each cost component was estimated using a prevalence-based approach, with per-patient costs extrapolated to the national level. RESULTS: The total annual societal excess costs associated with ADHD were estimated at $19.4 billion among children ($6,799 per child) and $13.8 billion among adolescents ($8,349 per adolescent). Education costs contributed to approximately half of the total excess costs in both populations ($11.6 billion [59.9%] in children; $6.7 billion [48.8%] in adolescents). Other major contributors to the overall burden were direct healthcare costs ($5.0 billion [25.9%] in children; $4.0 billion [29.0%] in adolescents) and caregiving costs ($2.7 billion [14.1%] in children; $1.6 billion [11.5%] in adolescents). LIMITATIONS: Cost estimates were calculated based on available literature and/or governmental publications due to the absence of a single data source for all costs associated with ADHD. Thus, the quality of cost estimates is limited by the accuracy of available data as well as the study populations and methodologies used by different studies. CONCLUSION: ADHD in children and adolescents is associated with a substantial economic burden that is largely driven by education costs, followed by direct healthcare costs and caregiver costs. Improved intervention strategies and policies may reduce the clinical and economic burden of ADHD in these populations.

Economic burden of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among adults in the United States: a societal perspective.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with substantial clinical burden as individuals transition to adulthood, including higher rates of comorbidities, mortality, incarceration, and psychiatric hospitalizations than in individuals without ADHD. These higher rates likely contribute to substantial economic burden as well. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the economic burden associated with ADHD in the US adult population. METHODS: Direct health care costs were obtained by using claims data from the IBM MarketScan Research Databases (January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018). Direct non-health care costs and indirect costs were estimated on the basis of the literature and government publications. Excess costs incurred by adults with ADHD during 2018 were evaluated from a societal perspective; per-patient costs were extrapolated to the national level. RESULTS: An estimated 8.7 million adults live with ADHD in the United States, resulting in a total societal excess cost attributable to ADHD of $122.8 billion ($14,092 per adult). Excess costs of unemployment ($66.8 billion; 54.4%) comprised the largest proportion of the total, followed by productivity loss ($28.8 billion; 23.4%) and health care services ($14.3 billion; 11.6%). CONCLUSIONS: ADHD in adults is associated with substantial economic burden. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. (Otsuka). The study sponsor contributed to and approved the study design, participated in the interpretation of data, and reviewed and approved the manuscript. Schein is an employee of Otsuka. Gagnon-Sanschagrin, Davidson, Kinkead, Cloutier, Guérin, and Lefebvre are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that provided paid consulting services to Otsuka to develop and conduct this study and write the manuscript. Adler has received research support from Shire/Takeda, Sunovion, and Otsuka; consulting fees from Bracket, Shire/Takeda, Sunovion, Otsuka, the State University of New York (SUNY), the National Football League (NFL), and Major League Baseball (MLB); and royalty payments (as inventor) from New York University (NYU) for license of adult ADHD scales and training materials. Childress has received research support from Allergan, Takeda/Shire, Emalex, Akili, Ironshore, Arbor, Aevi Genomic Medicine, Neos Therapeutics, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris, KemPharm, Supernus, and the US Food and Drug Administration; was on the advisory board of Takeda/Shire, Akili, Arbor, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue, Adlon, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris, Supernus, and Corium; received consulting fees from Arbor, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris, KemPharm, Supernus, Corium, Jazz, and Tulex Pharma; received speaker fees from Takeda/Shire, Arbor, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Pfizer, Tris, and Supernus; and received writing support from Takeda/Shire, Arbor, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Pfizer, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, and Tris. Part of the material in this study was presented as a poster at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2021 Virtual Meeting; May 17-20, 2021.

Management of Patients with Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in the Real-World Setting in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study provides a contemporary assessment of the treatment patterns, health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs among metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) patients in the U.S. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with mCSPC were selected from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (Commercial insurance/Medicare Advantage [COM/MA]; January 1, 2014-July 31, 2019) or Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS; January 1, 2014-December 31, 2017). The index date was the first metastatic disease diagnosis date on/after the first prostate cancer diagnosis (without prior evidence of castration resistance). Patients were observed for 12 months pre-index (baseline) through their mCSPC period (from index until castration resistance or followup end). First-line (1L) mCSPC therapy was assessed during the mCSPC period; all-cause HRU and health plan-paid costs per-patient-per-year (PPPY) were measured during baseline and mCSPC periods. RESULTS: Among 6,517 COM/MA and 13,324 Medicare-FFS mCSPC patients over ∼10 months (median mCSPC period), 38% and 48% remained untreated/deferred treatment, and 45% and 46% received 1L androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy, respectively. 1L abiraterone acetate and docetaxel were used among 7% and 6% of COM/MA and 1% and 2% of Medicare-FFS patients, respectively. HRU increased from baseline to mCSPC period, resulting in increased health plan-paid costs from $21,201 to $108,767 in COM/MA and from $16,819 to $69,639 PPPY in Medicare-FFS. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the limited use of newer therapies that improve survival in men with mCSPC in the U.S. HRU and costs increased substantially after onset of metastasis. Given the emergence of newer effective mCSPC therapies, further evaluation of future real-world mCSPC treatment patterns and outcomes is warranted.

Real-world treatment sequencing and healthcare costs among CLL/SLL patients treated with venetoclax.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe treatment sequencing and healthcare costs among chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) patients treated with venetoclax in a US managed care population. METHODS: CLL/SLL patients initiating venetoclax between 04/11/2016 and 06/30/2019 were selected from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Costs per-patient-per-month were described during the first 60 days of venetoclax-based treatment (initiation phase) and subsequent post-initiation phase. Based on venetoclax prescribing information, clinical event-related costs were identified through claims for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) diagnosis, monitoring, prophylaxis, immunoglobulin treatment, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infection, renal impairment, hypertension, or cardiac arrhythmia. Statistical testing was not conducted due to small sample size. RESULTS: Twenty-five, 30, and 66 patients initiated venetoclax as their first observed regimen (1L), second observed regimen (2L), and third or later observed regimen (3L+), respectively. Most 2L (56.7%) and 3L+ (74.2%) venetoclax recipients previously received ibrutinib. Mean monthly all-cause costs during the initiation phase were $26,429 (1L cohort), $19,580 (2L cohort), and $23,918 (3L + cohort). Among the 2L cohort, mean monthly all-cause [clinical event-related] (including TLS) costs during initiation and post-initiation phases of venetoclax treatment were $15,506 [$6368] (initiation phase) and $14,318 [$5273] (post-initiation phase; median duration: 3.7 months) for patients receiving 1L ibrutinib, and $24,908 [$12,198] (initiation phase) and $16,905 [$7066] (post-initiation phase; median duration: 3.0 months) for patients not receiving 1L ibrutinib. CONCLUSIONS: In this descriptive study, highest mean costs were observed during venetoclax initiation phase. Venetoclax patients previously receiving ibrutinib had lower mean total all-cause and clinical event-related (including TLS) costs during their venetoclax line of therapy than those previously receiving non-ibrutinib therapy.

Identification of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer using administrative health claims and laboratory data.

OBJECTIVE: To develop algorithms to identify metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) patients and castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients, using health claims data and laboratory test results. METHODS: A targeted literature review summarized mCSPC and mCRPC patient selection criteria previously used in real-world retrospective studies. Novel algorithms to identify mCSPC and mCRPC were developed based on diagnosis codes indicating hormone sensitivity/resistance, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test results, and claims for castration and mCRPC-specific treatments. These algorithms were applied to claims data from Optum Clinformatics Extended DataMart (Date of Death) Databases (commercial insurance/Medicare Advantage [COM/MA]; 01 January 2014-31 July 2019) and Medicare Fee-for-Service (Medicare-FFS; 01 January 2014-31 December 2017). RESULTS: Previous real-world studies identified mCSPC primarily based on metastasis diagnosis codes, and mCRPC based on mCRPC-specific drugs. Using the current study's algorithms, 7034 COM/MA and 19,981 Medicare-FFS patients were identified as having mCSPC, and 2578 COM/MA and 11,554 Medicare-FFS as having mCRPC. Most mCSPC patients were identified based on evidence of being hormone/castration-naive. Patients were identified as having mCRPC most commonly based on rising PSA (COM/MA), or at the metastasis diagnosis date if it occurred after castration (Medicare-FFS). Among patients with mCSPC, 14-17% had evidence of progression to castration resistance during a median 1-year follow-up period, mostly based on use of mCRPC-specific drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive algorithms based on claims and laboratory data were developed to identify and distinguish patients with mCSPC and mCRPC. This will facilitate appropriate identification of mCSPC and mCRPC patients based on health claims data and better understanding of patient unmet needs in real-world settings.

Burden of Crohn's disease in the United States: long-term healthcare and work-loss related costs.

AIMS: To quantify the long-term direct and indirect costs among patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and specific subgroups of these patients in the United States from the private payer's perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study used the OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc database (01 January 1999-31 March 2017) to match (1:5) adult patients with ≥2 claims for CD to patients without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patterns observed during follow-up (i.e. biologics, opioids, or steroids; CD-related surgery; moderate-to-severe disease; and comorbidities) were used to identify CD subgroups. Comparisons of healthcare resource utilization, work loss days, and direct and indirect work loss-related costs were made between matched cohorts. Descriptive analyses of costs were conducted within each CD subgroup. RESULTS: There were 6,715 and 33,575 patients in the CD and non-IBD cohorts, respectively. The direct burden was significantly higher in the CD cohort compared to the non-IBD cohort, with 0.34 inpatient admissions per patient per year (PPPY) versus 0.12 (217% increase; p < .001), and $24,500 direct healthcare costs PPPY versus $7,037 ($17,463 increase; p < .001). The trend was similar for the indirect burden, with work loss-related costs PPPY of $5,490 in the CD cohort versus $3,322 in the non-IBD cohort ($2,168 increase; p < .001). The burden was numerically higher in the CD subgroups, with direct healthcare costs reaching $101,013 PPPY in the surgery subgroup. LIMITATIONS: Severity of CD was determined based on claims-based algorithms due to the lack of access to medical files. Absenteeism was imputed based on claims data, and presenteeism was not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The direct healthcare and indirect work loss-related costs of patients with CD was significantly higher compared to patients without IBD over an average follow-up of 5 years.

Long-term direct and indirect costs of ulcerative colitis in a privately-insured United States population.

Objective: Prior evaluations of ulcerative colitis (UC)-related costs are dated or encompassed limited follow-up. This study assessed the incremental direct and indirect work loss-related costs of privately-insured patients with UC in the United States, overall and in specific subgroups.Methods: In this retrospective matched cohort study, the OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc (formerly Optum Health Reporting and Insights employer) database (01 January 1999-31 March 2017) was used to identify adult patients with ≥2 claims for UC, who were matched 1:5 to patients with no claims for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). UC subgroups were identified based on indicators during the observation period (i.e. use of biologics, opioids, or corticosteroids; UC-related surgery; moderate-to-severe disease; UC-related comorbidities). Healthcare resource utilization (HRU), work loss days, and direct and work loss-related costs were compared between matched cohorts. Descriptive analyses of direct and work loss-related costs were conducted within each UC subgroup.Results: Compared to the non-IBD cohort (n = 46,765), the UC cohort (n = 9353) incurred higher HRU, including 128% more inpatients visits, resulting in $11,029 higher direct costs per patient per year (PPPY; $7170 vs. $18,198; p < .001). Patients in the UC cohort also incurred more work loss days, resulting in $2142 higher work loss-related costs PPPY ($3165 vs. $5307; p < .001). Direct and work loss-related costs were particularly high in the UC subgroups, with patients undergoing UC-related surgery incurring the highest costs.Conclusions: Over ∼5 years follow-up, patients with UC had significantly higher all-cause direct healthcare and indirect work loss-related costs compared to matched patients without IBD.