Search

Objectives: To investigate treatment patterns and healthcare costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) or lung cancer (LC) who were treated with bevacizumab in a physician office (OFF) setting versus a hospital outpatient (HOP) setting., Study Design: Retrospective analysis of claims from a national US health plan., Methods: mCRC and LC patients initiating treatment with bevacizumab (index date) between January 1, 2006, and July 31, 2012, were identified. Patients were aged ≥18 years with ≥6-month pre- (baseline) and ≥6-month post index (follow-up) data, retaining patients who died with <6 months of follow-up. Differences by site of service were analyzed by χ2 and t test (bevacizumab administrations, dose) and general linear model adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics (all-cause healthcare costs)., Results: A total of 1687 mCRC (OFF: 1292; HOP: 395) and 1232 LC patients (OFF: 983; HOP: 249) were identified. Mean age was 61.3 years, 56.3% were male, and 78% were treated in OFF. Treatment in OFF declined from 2006 (84% of patients) to 2012 (61%). For OFF versus HOP, mean length of treatment (208.3 vs 191.0 days; P=.007), number of bevacizumab administrations per month (1.4 vs 1.1; P<.001), and mean weekly dose (eg, for 2012, 4.34 vs 3.11 mg/kg, P<.05) were higher in OFF. Adjusted monthly HOP costs (vs OFF) were higher by 37.8% for mCRC patients (cost ratio=1.378; 95% CI, 1.282-1.482) and 31.1% for LC patients (cost ratio=1.311; 95% CI, 1.204-1.427) CONCLUSIONS: Despite fewer administrations and lower weekly dose of bevacizumab in HOP, adjusted total costs were 31% to 38% higher for mCRC and LC patients treated in the HOP setting.

Background: Adjuvant trastuzumab treatment is administered to early stage breast cancer patients in physician office (POV) or hospital outpatient (HOP) settings., Objective: To identify treatment patterns, utilization, and costs by site of care (POV vs. HOP) of patients with adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with trastuzumab., Methods: This retrospective analysis identified adult, female breast cancer patients who initiated trastuzumab treatment (index date) from a large U.S. claims database. Inclusion criteria also required ≥ 2 claims for both trastuzumab (from July 1, 2006, to July 31, 2012) and breast cancer (during 6-month pre-index baseline period), no evidence of metastatic breast cancer or other cancers in the baseline period, and continuous enrollment with commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage 6 months pre- and post-index, except that patients who died during follow-up were retained. Patients with evidence of trastuzumab receipt during the baseline period or more than 1 site of care during follow-up were excluded. Patients were stratified by site of care and were followed from index date to 30 days after the last trastuzumab infusion prior to a gap ≥ 90 days, death, disenrollment, or end-of-study period. Differences in treatment patterns between the POV and HOP cohorts were assessed by t-test and chi-square test. The relationship between site of care and health care costs was modeled with a generalized linear model with gamma distribution and log link, and the number of trastuzumab infusions was modeled with negative binomial regression controlling for log follow-up time. All models were adjusted for age, baseline comorbidity score, and insurance type., Results: Of the 3,439 breast cancer patients identified, 77.6% (2,669) received adjuvant trastuzumab in the POV setting. Mean age (53.7 years) and baseline comorbidity score (3.91) were similar among cohorts; a higher percentage of POV versus HOP patients had commercial insurance (91.1% vs. 86.4%, P < 0.001). Compared with the POV cohort, HOP patients had a shorter mean duration of trastuzumab treatment (324.8 vs. 343.0 days, P < 0.001); more treatment gaps (30-59 day gap: 67.4% vs. 24.1%, P < 0.001); and fewer trastuzumab infusions per month (1.37 vs. 1.98, P < 0.001) during follow-up. In multivariate analysis, the monthly count of trastuzumab infusions in the HOP cohort was lower than the POV cohort (incidence rate ratio = 0.693; 95% CI = 0.672-0.715). Adjusted per patient per month total health care costs were 53.6 % higher in the HOP setting (cost ratio = 1.536, 95% CI = 1.472-1.604)., Conclusions: Breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab in the HOP setting had a shorter duration of trastuzumab treatment and fewer trastuzumab infusions but incurred higher monthly total costs than patients treated in the POV setting.

Background: Myelosuppressive chemotherapy can lead to dose-limiting febrile neutropenia. Prophylactic use of recombinant human G-CSF such as daily filgrastim and once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. This comparative study examined the effect of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim on the risk of hospitalization., Methods: This retrospective United States claims analysis utilized 2004-2009 data for filgrastim- and pegfilgrastim-treated patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast, lung, ovarian, or colorectal cancers. Cycles in which pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was administered within 5 days from initiation of chemotherapy (considered to represent prophylaxis) were pooled for analysis. Neutropenia-related hospitalization and other healthcare encounters were defined with a "narrow" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia and with a "broad" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia, fever, or infection. Odds ratios (OR) for hospitalization and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Per-cycle healthcare utilization and costs were examined for cycles with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis., Results: We identified 3,535 patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis, representing 12,056 chemotherapy cycles (11,683 pegfilgrastim, 373 filgrastim). The mean duration of filgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 4.8 days. The mean duration of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 1.0 day, consistent with the recommended dosage of pegfilgrastim - a single injection once per chemotherapy cycle. Cycles with prophylactic pegfilgrastim were associated with a decreased risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (narrow definition: OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16-1.13; broad definition: OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.24-0.59) and all-cause hospitalization (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) versus cycles with prophylactic filgrastim. For neutropenia-related utilization by setting of care, there were more ambulatory visits and hospitalizations per cycle associated with filgrastim prophylaxis than with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. Mean per-cycle neutropenia-related costs were also higher with prophylactic filgrastim than with prophylactic pegfilgrastim., Conclusions: In this comparative effectiveness study, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia-related or all-cause hospitalization relative to filgrastim prophylaxis.

PURPOSE Given the widespread introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), we evaluated the cost associated with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) care compared with the cost of care for patients with hematologic malignancies (HEM) and for patients without cancer (GEN), to aid with resource allocation and clinical decision making. METHODS A retrospective cohort was constructed from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse using claims from 2000 to 2016. Eligible patients had ≥ 2 CML claims and were enrolled continuously for ≥ 6 months before diagnosis and$1 year afterward (n = 1,909). Patients with CML were frequency matched 4:1 with HEM and GEN cohorts and were observed through October 2017. We used generalized linear models to assess the variation in total mean annualized health care costs in the 3 cohorts and to examine the influence of factors associated with costs. RESULTS Mean annualized costs for CML were $82,054 (ie, $25,471 [95% CI, $20,808 to $30,133] more than those for HEM and $74,993 [95% CI, $70,818 to $79,167] more than those for GEN); these differences were driven by pharmacy costs in the CML group. The cost of CML care exceeded that for HEM and GEN for all index years in this study and increased over each diagnostic interval until 2015, peaking at $91,990. The mean annual cost of all TKIs increased. Imatinib's mean annualized cost was $41,546 in the period 2000-2004 but increased to $105,069 in the period 2015-2017. In multivariable analysis, percent days on TKIs had the greatest influence on cost: ≥ 75% of the time versus none showed a difference in cost of $108,716 (95% CI, $99,193 to $118,239). CONCLUSION Contemporary CML costs exceeded the cost of treatment of other hematologic malignancies. Cost was primarily driven by TKIs, whose cost continued to increase over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]