Trilaciclib and the economic value of multilineage myeloprotection from chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression among patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy.

AIMS: Proliferating hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) are susceptible to chemotherapy-induced damage, resulting in myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs) such as neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia that are associated with high health care costs and decreased quality of life (QoL). In this study, a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to help assess the economic impact of administering trilaciclib, a myeloprotective therapy that protects multilineage HSPCs from chemotherapy-induced damage, prior to standard first-line chemotherapy, using data from a pivotal Phase II study of trilaciclib in the setting of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC, NCT03041311). METHOD: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone among patients with ES-SCLC from a United States payer perspective. Data on the rate and frequency of myelosuppressive AEs and health utility were derived from the pivotal study of trilaciclib. Costs of managing myelosuppressive AEs and costs of chemotherapy treatment were sourced from published literature. Outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive AEs, costs (in 2021 US dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost, incremental QALY, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was associated with a reduction in neutropenia (82%), febrile neutropenia (75%), anemia (43%), and thrombocytopenia (96%) compared with chemotherapy alone. Additionally, trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was cost-saving compared with chemotherapy alone ($99,919 vs $118,759, respectively) and associated with QALY improvement (0.150 vs 0.145, respectively). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed 58% of iterations projecting cost savings and QALY improvement with trilaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the use of trilaciclib prior to first-line chemotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC can be cost-beneficial owing to fewer myelosuppressive AEs and lower costs, together with a favorable QoL profile.

The direct and indirect costs of adult atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis is considered a childhood illness, and the direct and indirect health care burden of atopic dermatitis in adults is not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To measure the direct and indirect costs of atopic dermatitis among adults in 2018. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared commercial and Medicare-insured adults with atopic dermatitis in 2018 with directly matched (1:3) adults without atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis prevalence was reported. Health care utilization, direct health care costs, and work loss data were compared between cohorts. This analysis was repeated for adults with atopic dermatitis in 2016 and 2017. RESULTS: 31,164 adults with atopic dermatitis in 2018 were identified and directly matched (1:3) to controls. Adults with atopic dermatitis had greater utilization of outpatient services, outpatient pharmacy services, and short-term disability benefits than controls. Unadjusted annual health care costs in 2018 were $4,979 higher for adults with atopic dermatitis ($14,603) than for the matched controls ($9,624), driven by outpatient services and pharmacy. Findings were supported by analyses of adults from 2016 and 2017 and multivariable analyses. One limitation of this study was that patients with mild cases of atopic dermatitis may not seek medical treatment and may be underrepresented in the study cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The direct health care and indirect (short-term disability) health care costs of atopic dermatitis present a significant health care burden among the adult population. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Employees of Eli Lilly were involved in the planning, execution, and interpretation of the study. Pierce is employed by Eli Lilly and Company. Boytsov and Goldblum were employed by Eli Lilly and Company Health at the time this research was conducted. Manjelievskaia and Brouillette are employed by IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct this study. Bonafede and Onyekwere were employed at IBM Watson Health at the time this research was conducted.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Versus Blinatumomab for Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: No head-to-head studies have compared inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), namely network meta-analysis (NMA), anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC), were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these therapies. METHODS: Patient-level data from a study that evaluated InO with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy (INO-VATE-ALL) and published data from a study that evaluated Blina with SoC chemotherapy (TOWER) were used in the analyses. Endpoints evaluated included remission rate defined as complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS). For each outcome, treatment-effect modifiers were adjusted for in the anchored MAIC and STC analyses. RESULTS: Analyses showed statistically significant higher rates of remission and HSCT with InO compared to Blina irrespective of the ITC method used or measure of the effect (i.e., odds ratio [OR] or rate difference). The treatment effects derived from the MAIC and STC analyses were consistent and stronger than those estimated from the NMA. A trend favoring InO was detected for EFS. The ITC results for OS suggest no difference between InO and Blina. CONCLUSION: Results from these ITCs indicated a statistically significant advantage for InO over Blina for rates of remission and HSCT in adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor ALL. It was not possible to fully adjust for all treatment-effect modifiers, and the similarity in chemotherapy regimens used in the SoC comparator arms of the INO-VATE-ALL and TOWER studies is worthy of further exploration. Both studies, however, used chemotherapy regimens that have a low response rate; therefore, no significant differences in efficacy outcomes are expected between SoC arms. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc, New York, NY. Plain language summary available for this article.

Racial disparities in insurance reimbursement for physician professional services in the ED.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether racial disparities exist in emergency physician professional services reimbursement from insurance. We hypothesized that insured adult African American emergency department (ED) visits are reimbursed at a lower level than White visits. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of insured adult White and African American ED visits (January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013) to a tertiary center. We downloaded for each included visit age, sex, race, residential zip code, insurance type, admission status, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Evaluation and Management (E/M) code charge reimbursement, and median household income for residential zip code. We chose as our primary outcome measure visit mean total insurance reimbursement/work relative value unit (wRVU). We report racial variation for this outcome measure with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and present the ß coefficient related to African American race within a multivariable regression model. RESULTS: A total of 50 297 visits met inclusion criteria (35 574 Whites and 14 723 African Americans). Overall, mean total insurance reimbursement/wRVU for White visits was $39.99 (95% CI, 39.80-40.18), for African American visits, $34.15 (95% CI, 33.88-34.42); P < .01. At the CPT E/M code level, African American visit reimbursement was lower than for White visits, ranging from $2.18/wRVU (95% CI, 0.87-3.49) (99282) to $7.55/wRVU (95 CI, 6.52-8.58) (99285). At the primary insurance level, African American visits showed lower reimbursement than White visits, ranging from $1.70/wRVU (95% CI, 0.75-2.65) in commercial insurance to $7.70/wRVU (95% CI, 5.42-9.98) in other insurance. Within the multivariable regression model, the ß coefficient for African American race was -$1.51/wRVU (95% CI, -1.85 to -1.18); P < .001. CONCLUSION: In this single-center study, professional services reimbursement was lower for African American ED visits compared with those of Whites.