Assessment of symptoms in COMET-ICE, a phase 2/3 study of sotrovimab for early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COMET-ICE trial demonstrated that sotrovimab clinically and statistically significantly reduces the risk of all-cause > 24-h hospitalization or death due to any cause among patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression. Patient-reported outcomes are important to capture symptom burden of COVID-19 and assess treatment effectiveness. This study investigated symptoms and their impact over the acute phase of COVID-19 infection among patients on sotrovimab versus placebo. METHODS: Randomized (1:1), double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 study in 57 centers across five countries. Participants were non-hospitalized patients with symptomatic, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and ≥ 1 baseline risk factor for disease progression (aged ≥ 55 years or ≥ 1 of the following: diabetes requiring medication, obesity, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or moderate-to-severe asthma). An intravenous infusion of sotrovimab 500 mg or placebo was administered on Day 1. The FLU-PRO Plus questionnaire was administered once-daily with 24-h recall from Day 1-21, and at Day 29. Intensity and duration of COVID-19 symptoms were determined from area under the curve (AUC) and mean change in total and individual domain scores through Days 7, 14, and 21. Time to symptom alleviation was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 1057 patients were randomized to sotrovimab (n = 528) or placebo (n = 529). At Day 7, mean decrease in FLU-PRO Plus total score (measured by AUC) was statistically significantly greater for patients on sotrovimab (-3.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -2.83]) than placebo (-1.98 [95% CI -2.20 to -1.76]; difference -1.07 [95% CI -1.38 to -0.76]; p < 0.001). Significant differences were also observed at Days 14 and 21. A more rapid decline in symptom severity was observed with sotrovimab versus placebo through Week 1 and the first 21 days post-treatment. By Day 21, 41% of patients on sotrovimab and 34% on placebo reported symptom resolution. In a post-hoc analysis, median time to symptom alleviation was 4 and 6 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab provides significant and rapid improvements in patient-reported COVID-19 symptoms, as measured by the FLU-PRO Plus. These results further show the benefits of sotrovimab in alleviating symptoms among high-risk patients with COVID-19. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04545060 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04545060 ). Date of registration: September 10, 2020 (retrospectively registered).

Burden of influenza hospitalization among high-risk groups in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza poses a substantial clinical and economic burden in the United States and vulnerable populations, including the elderly and those with comorbidities, are at elevated risk for influenza-related medical complications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus claims database in two stages. In Stage 1, we identified patients with evidence of medically-attended influenza during influenza seasons from October 1, 2014 to May 31, 2018 (latest available data for Stage 1) and used a multivariable logistic regression model to identify patient characteristics that predicted 30-day influenza-related hospitalization. The findings from Stage 1 informed high-risk subgroups of interest for Stage 2, where we selected cohorts of influenza patients during influenza seasons from October 1, 2014 to March 1, 2019 and used 1:1 propensity score matching to patients without influenza with similar high-risk characteristics to compare influenza-attributable rates of all-cause hospital and emergency department (ED) visits during follow-up (30-day and in the index influenza season). RESULTS: In Stage 1, more than 1.6 million influenza cases were identified, of which 18,509 (1.2%) had a hospitalization. Elderly age was associated with 9 times the odds of hospitalization (≥65 years vs. 5-17 years; OR = 9.4, 95% CI 8.8-10.1) and select comorbidities were associated with 2-3 times the odds of hospitalization. In Stage 2, elderly influenza patients with comorbidities had 3 to 7 times higher 30-day hospitalization rates compared to matched patients without influenza, including patients with congestive heart failure (41.0% vs.7.9%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (34.6% vs. 6.1%), coronary artery disease (22.8% vs. 3.8%), and late-stage chronic kidney disease (44.1% vs. 13.1%; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of influenza-related complications is elevated in the elderly, especially those with certain underlying comorbidities, leading to excess healthcare resource utilization. Continued efforts, beyond currently available vaccines, are needed to reduce influenza burden in high-risk populations.

Estimating the Population Benefits and Costs of Rituximab Therapy in the United States from 1998 to 2013 Using Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab was approved in 1997 and is regularly one of the largest drug expenditures for Medicare; however, its benefits and costs have not been estimated from a population perspective. OBJECTIVES: To estimate both the clinical and the economic outcomes of rituximab for its approved hematological uses at the population level. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analyses using cancer registry incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, and outcomes data from SEER data linked with Medicare administrative claims (SEER-Medicare data). These results were incorporated into an epidemiological simulation model of the population over time. SUBJECTS: We modeled all United States patients from 1998 to 2013 diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia. MEASURES: Using this model, we estimated the life-years saved, as well as their economic benefit, in the United States population. We also estimated the incremental cost of adding rituximab to chemotherapy. All economic inputs were based on Medicare reimbursed amounts inflated to 2013 dollars. RESULTS: There were 279,704 cumulative life-years saved which were valued at $25.44 billion. The incremental direct medical cost of rituximab was estimated to be $8.92 billion, resulting in an incremental economic gain of $16.52 billion. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses, based on real-world evidence, show that the introduction of rituximab into clinical practice has produced a substantial number of incremental life-years. Importantly, the economic benefit of the life-years gained greatly exceeds the added costs of treatment.

Comparative healthcare costs in patients with metastatic melanoma in the USA.

Recent advances have increased treatment options for, and improved clinical outcomes in, metastatic melanoma (mM). Using a large claims database, this retrospective study compared healthcare and adverse event (AE) costs in a US managed care population of mM patients initiating vemurafenib (VEM), ipilimumab (IPI), dacarbazine (DTIC), paclitaxel (PAC), or temozolomide (TMZ) from July 2009 to September 2012. Treatment episodes were identified from the start of study drugs (index date) to a switch to a different study drug, or a gap greater than 45 days (>112 days for IPI). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurring ≥5% from study drug package inserts were selected for this analysis. All-cause costs for treatment episodes and AEs were normalized as monthly costs. Generalized estimating equation models with log link and gamma distribution provided adjusted monthly treatment episode and AE costs. A total of 809 treatment episodes were identified in 541 mM patients, with a mean (SD) age of 57.5 (11.5) years. The total mean (SD) all-cause cost per treatment episode for VEM was $77 687 ($60 329), for IPI was $153 062 ($134 048), for DTIC was $35 243 ($33 641), for TMZ was $42 870 ($41 384), and for PAC was $58 991 ($81 306). The adjusted mean monthly treatment episode cost for VEM was significantly lower than that for IPI and comparable to that for other drugs. VEM had a significantly lower monthly AE cost than IPI, DTIC, and PAC. In combination with safety and efficacy findings, these results may assist clinicians, patients, policy makers, and payers in the treatment of mM.

Referral and treatment patterns among patients with stages III and IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Little is known about how referrals to different cancer specialists influence cancer care for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Among Medicare enrollees, we identified factors of patients and their primary care physician that were associated with referrals to cancer specialists, and how the types of cancer specialists seen correlated with delivery of guideline-based therapies (GBTs). METHODS: Data from patients with stages III and IV NSCLC included in the SEER-Medicare database were linked to their physicians in the American Medical Association Masterfile database. Using logistic regression, we (1) identified patient and physician factors that were associated with referrals to cancer specialists (medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons); (2) identified the types of referral to cancer specialists that predicted greater likelihood of receiving GBT (per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines). RESULTS: A total of 28,977 patients with NSCLC diagnosed from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2005 met eligibility criteria. Younger age, white race, higher income, and primary physician specialty other than family practice predicted higher likelihood of referrals to medical oncologists (P < .01 for all predictors). Seeing the three types of cancer specialists predicted higher likelihood of GBT (stage IIIA: odds ratio [OR] = 20.6; P < .001; IIIB: OR = 77.2; P < .001; and IV: OR = 1.2; P = .011), compared with seeing a medical oncologist only. Use of GBTs increased over the study period (42% to 48% from 2000 to 2005; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Referrals to all types of cancer specialists increased the likelihood of treatment with standard therapies, particularly in stage III patients. However, racial and income disparities still prevent optimal referrals to cancer specialists.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Payments for Oral Oncolytics: Results From a 2009 US Claims Data Analysis.

PURPOSE: Oral oncolytics are an increasingly important treatment option for cancer. These agents often fall within the pharmacy benefit, with the potential for increased out-of-pocket (OOP) cost burden for patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient OOP payments for oral oncolytic therapies in US managed care plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients age ≥ 18 years who received one of 21 oral oncolytics were identified in 2009 US claims; the first oral therapy was the index therapy. OOP payments were calculated as the allowed amount (dollar amount a health plan allows for a therapy, including member liability) minus the paid amount (dollar amount paid by a health plan). Patient characteristics were provided, and per-claim OOP payments were evaluated for each of the 21 therapies in aggregate and stratified by payer type and index therapy. RESULTS: A total of 6,094 patients who received at least one oral oncolytic therapy were identified. Mean age was 53 years; 54% were women; 77% had a commercial payer; prevalent cancer diagnoses included breast, colorectal, glioblastoma, and lung. Mean OOP payments were highest for dasatinib ($527; median, $36) and lowest for cyclophosphamide ($15; median, $10). Medicare Risk patients had higher mean OOP payments for most therapies compared with commercial, Medicaid, and self-insured patients. CONCLUSION: Among 21 oral oncolytics, average OOP cost ranged from $15 to > $500. These results confirm previous findings showing OOP payments differing widely among oral oncolytic options. As cost for therapy becomes a greater part of treatment decisions, an understanding of patient OOP cost will be critical in informing choices.

Patient out-of-pocket payments for oral oncolytics: results from a 2009 US claims data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Oral oncolytics are an increasingly important treatment option for cancer. These agents often fall within the pharmacy benefit, with the potential for increased out-of-pocket (OOP) cost burden for patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient OOP payments for oral oncolytic therapies in US managed care plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged >18 years who received 1 of 21 oral oncolytics were identified in 2009 US claims; the first oral therapy was the index therapy. OOP payments were calculated as the allowed amount (dollar amount a health plan allows for a therapy, including member liability) minus the paid amount (dollar amount paid by a health plan). Patient characteristics were provided, and per-claim OOP payments were evaluated for each of the 21 therapies in aggregate and stratified by payer type and index therapy. RESULTS: A total of 6094 patients who received at least 1 oral oncolytic therapy were identified. Mean age was 53 years; 54% were women; 77% had a commercial payer; prevalent cancer diagnoses included breast, colorectal, glioblastoma, and lung. Mean OOP payments were highest for dasatinib ($527; median, $36) and lowest for cyclophosphamide ($15; median, $10). Medicare Risk patients had higher mean OOP payments for most therapies compared with commercial, Medicaid, and self-insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among 21 oral oncolytics, average OOP cost ranged from $15 to >$500. These results confirm previous findings showing OOP payments differing widely among oral oncolytic options. As cost for therapy becomes a greater part of treatment decisions, an understanding of patient OOP cost will be critical in informing choices.

An economic evaluation of the war on cancer.

For decades, the US public and private sectors have committed substantial resources towards cancer research, but the societal payoff has not been well-understood. We quantify the value of recent gains in cancer survival, and analyze the distribution of value among various stakeholders. Between 1988 and 2000, life expectancy for cancer patients increased by roughly four years, and the average willingness-to-pay for these survival gains was roughly $322,000. Improvements in cancer survival during this period created 23 million additional life-years and roughly $1.9 trillion of additional social value, implying that the average life-year was worth approximately $82,000 to its recipient. Health care providers and pharmaceutical companies appropriated 5-19% of this total, with the rest accruing to patients. The share of value flowing to patients has been rising over time. In terms of economic rates of return, R&D investments against cancer have been a success, particularly from the patient's point of view.

Second- and third-line treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with erlotinib in the community setting: retrospective study of patient healthcare utilization and symptom burden.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to describe treatment use patterns and outcomes with single-agent erlotinib among patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the community oncology setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients treated with single-agent erlotinib as either second- or third-line therapy from 4 community oncology clinics. Medical records were extracted for medical outcomes and resource utilization. Patients reported outcome measures of symptom burden and functioning. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients with stage IIIB/IV disease in second- (n = 27) or third-line (n = 18) therapy were 44% female and 84% white (16% black), with mean age of 66.7 years (SD, 9.2). Over 93% of the patients had previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were treated with erlotinib for an average of 24 weeks. Dose reductions (24%) and treatment delays (29%) were due to skin reactions, diarrhea, and fatigue. The most common reasons for stopping erlotinib therapy were disease progression (53%), death (22%), and toxicities (11%). Patients' physical functioning improved during the first 3 months of erlotinib therapy. Hospitalizations (22%) were not due to erlotinib complications, and unplanned medical visits to the clinics were rare. CONCLUSION: Data from this community sample were generally in agreement with the major clinical trial of erlotinib. Erlotinib is well tolerated by second- and third-line patients with advanced NSCLC in the community setting.

Sensitivity of administrative claims to identify incident cases of lung cancer: a comparison of 3 health plans.

BACKGROUND: Administrative claims are readily available, but their usefulness for identifying persons with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is relatively unknown, particularly for younger persons and those enrolled in Medicaid. OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying persons with NSCLC. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of insurance claims records linked to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry for the time period January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2005. Persons included in the sample were identified with NSCLC using SEER morphology and histology codes and were enrolled in a commercial health plan, Medicaid, or Medicare fee-for-service health plans in Washington State. The outcome measure was sensitivity, defined as the percentage of SEER-identified patients who were accurately identified as NSCLC cases using ICD-9-CM diagnoses (162.2, 162.3, 162.4, 162.5, 162.8, 162.9, or 231.2) recorded in any claim field in administrative claims data. We examined the influence of varying the number and timing of administrative codes in relation to the SEER cancer diagnosis date. In multivariate models, we examined the influence of age, sex, and comorbidity on sensitivity. RESULTS: The sensitivity of 1 medical claim including at least 1 ICD-9-CM code for identifying NSCLC within 60 days of diagnosis as documented in the SEER registry was 51.1% for Medicaid, 87.7% for Medicare, and 99.4% for commercial plan members. Sensitivity can improve at the expense of identifying a portion of patients who are 3 or more months from their true diagnosis date. In multivariate models, age, race, and noncancer comorbidity but not gender significantly influenced sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative claims are sensitive for identifying patients with new NSCLC in the commercial and Medicare plans. For Medicaid patients, linkage with cancer registry records is needed to conduct studies using administrative claims.

Second-line and third-line chemotherapy for lung cancer: use and cost.

OBJECTIVES: To identify commonly prescribed first-, second-, and third-line chemotherapy regimens for persons with lung cancer and to evaluate the utilization patterns and costs of care associated with receiving these regimens. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. METHODS: Using health insurance claims from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2006, patients with lung cancer were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes. An algorithm was developed to identify first-, second-, and third-line chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by the number of discrete regimens received or by their specific chemotherapy agent or combination of agents. Data were analyzed for up to 2 years from the date of the initial first-line regimen and for 1 year from the second and third lines. Patient costs were based on total reimbursements for each group during the observation period. RESULTS: Of patients receiving first-line chemotherapy, 25% and 10% received second-line and third-line chemotherapy, respectively. Docetaxel, gefitinib, and erlotinib hydrochloride were the most commonly prescribed second-line regimens; gefitinib and docetaxel were the most commonly prescribed third-line regimens. The most commonly prescribed second- and third-line agents changed substantially over time. Total costs and costs per patient per month increased as the number of lines of chemotherapy prescribed increased. CONCLUSIONS: Second- and third-line chemotherapy is prescribed infrequently, and patterns of prescribing are changing over time. Direct medical care costs increase substantially with additional lines of therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biological treatments for rheumatoid arthritis.

This review compares the cost-effectiveness of four biologics - adalimumab (Humira, Abbott Laboratories), anakinra (Kineret, Amgen Inc.), etanercept (Enbrel, Wyeth) and infliximab (Remicade, Schering-Plough) - used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of these biologics used alone or in combination with methotrexate during 1 year, from the perspective of a managed care organization. The direct costs consisted of drugs and healthcare resources. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life years based on preference weights and health states in which patients achieved one out of four levels of response according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria (No ACR, ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70), and experienced one of the four levels of adverse events (e.g., no, mild, moderate and severe) due to their treatments. Results were sensitive to changes in treatment costs and probabilities of health states in directions as predicted. For monotherapy and combination therapy regimens, anakinra was the least expensive option while etanercept dominated other treatments.

Comparison of selection strategies for genetic testing of patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma: effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) is becoming standard care and it is cost-effective compared with no genetic testing. However, the best strategy for detection of HNPCC gene carriers is unknown. METHODS: We use a decision analytic model to evaluate the effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of four commonly used testing strategies to detect HNPCC gene carriers. The model starts with a population of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients and measures costs, the number of gene carriers detected, and incremental costs per gene carrier detected. RESULTS: We found that germline testing on only those CRC probands who meet the Amsterdam criteria detects the fewest gene carriers and has the lowest cost whereas tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) testing of all CRC patients and families has the highest cost and detects the most gene carriers. When cost-effectiveness is considered, the mixed strategy (MSH2 and MLH1 testing on those who meet the Amsterdam criteria and germline testing for the remainder who meet less stringent modified criteria and are MSI-High) seems superior. The mixed strategy detects 59.6 mutation carriers per 1000 CRC cases and costs much less than the test all strategy, which has an incremental cost-effectiveness of $51,151. The mixed strategy often other strategies and when compared to the Amsterdam strategy, has a cost-effectiveness of only $6441 per gene carrier detected. CONCLUSIONS: It is not very effective to limit genetic testing to only individuals who meet the Amsterdam criteria, as many gene carriers are missed. However, testing all CRC patients for tumor MSI-H, although effective, may be prohibitively expensive. A mixed strategy is the more cost-effective approach.

Meta-analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous epoetin in maintenance treatment of anemia in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and pharmacokinetic studies have shown that target hemoglobin or hematocrit levels can be maintained using a reduced recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) dosage by switching from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous (SC) administration. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of comparative studies of epoetin administered IV versus SC to assess the relative costs of these administration routes. Twenty-seven prospective clinical studies involving 916 patients were included in the analysis. The average difference between IV and SC doses of epoetin and average difference in drug costs between administration routes were determined. RESULTS: The average reduction in dose in patients treated with SC versus IV epoetin was 48 IU/kg/wk (P < 0.001), representing an average annual cost savings with SC administration of US $1,761 +/- $1,080 (SD) per patient. The difference between SC and IV doses was similar in both parallel- and crossover-design studies. A retrospective US survey showed a dose reduction of 26 IU/kg/wk (P < 0.001) with SC administration, translating to an annual savings of $946 per patient. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the cost of epoetin is reduced substantially when administered SC in comparison to IV. Recommendations of current US and European guidelines, which encourage the use of SC administration, not only have a sound rationale in terms of efficacy and safety, but also have a sound economic basis.

The direct cost and incidence of systemic fungal infections.

OBJECTIVES: In this study we determined the incidence and direct inpatient and outpatient costs of systemic fungal infections (candidiasis, aspergillosis, cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis) in 1998. METHODS: Using primarily the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) for incidence and the Maryland Hospital Discharge Data Set (MDHDDS) for costs, we surveyed four systemic fungal infections in patients who also had HIV/AIDS, neoplasia, transplant, and all other concomitant diagnoses. Using a case-control method, we compared the cases with controls (those without fungal infections with the same underlying comorbidity) to obtain the incremental hospitalization costs. We used the Student's t-test to determine significance of incremental hospital costs. We modeled outpatient costs on the basis of discharge status to calculate the total annual cost for systemic fungal infections in 1998. RESULTS: For 1998, the projected average incidence was 306 per million US population, with candidiasis accounting for 75% of cases. The estimated total direct cost was $2.6 billion and the average per-patient attributable cost was $31,200. The most commonly reported comorbid diagnoses with fungal infections (HIV/AIDS, neoplasms, transplants) accounted for only 45% of all infections. CONCLUSIONS: The cost burden is high for systemic fungal infections. Additional attention should be given to the 55% with fungal disease and other comorbid diagnoses.