Search

Judith J Stephenson,1 Jonathon Colby Gable,2 Rebekah Zincavage,1 Gregory L Price,2 Collin Churchill,2 Emily Zhu,2 Keri Stenger,2 Mukul Singhal,1 Bal Nepal,1 Michael Grabner,1 Michael J Fisch,3 David Debono,4 Amy R Geschwender,5 Gebra Cuyun Carter2 1HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA; 2Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 3AIM Specialty Health, Chicago, IL, USA; 4Anthem, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; 5SWOG Cancer Research Network, San Antonio, TX, USACorrespondence: Judith J Stephenson Tel +1 302-547-5770Email JStephenson@healthcore.comPurpose: To describe patients’ perspectives on the use of and potential challenges and barriers with adherence/persistence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4& 6i’s) to treat metastatic breast cancer (MBC).Methods: This qualitative study consisted of 60-minute semi-structured telephone interviews with patients with MBC in the US who were either current or recent CDK4& 6i users, identified from administrative claims of survey-eligible commercial and Medicare Advantage patients in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between November 1, 2018 and November 1, 2019. Patients were recruited by email and/or mailed letter. The 60-minute telephone interviews were conducted by a trained facilitator using a study-developed interview discussion guide that included topics impacting treatment choice and adherence/persistence. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed.Results: All 462 eligible patients were sent a recruitment email and/or letter to which 36 patients responded, consented to participate, and met study inclusion criteria; 25 patients scheduled interviews, and 24 completed them. Study participants were predominately white, non-Hispanic (96%) with a mean age of 59.5 years. Participants reported a largely positive experience and mentioned very few adherence/persistence issues. They further reported appreciating the ease and convenience of oral oncolytics, coped with side effects, had strong medical and social support, and experienced few cost issues.Conclusion: The few adherence/persistence issues reported by participants contrasts with other findings of suboptimal oral oncolytic use. Interview themes indicated several factors that likely contributed to the lack of adherence/persistence issues: trusted relationship with oncologist, belief in importance of medication, positive medication views, strong medical and social support, and minimal personal drug cost. Future research should focus on whether and how much these factors impact adherence/persistence in more diverse populations. If adherence/persistence issues are identified in these populations, then it would be appropriate to study the development of interventions that target factors associated with better adherence/persistence.Keywords: oral oncolytics, patient perspective, semi-structured interviews, adherence, persistence, CDK4& 6i users

Michael Grabner,1 Julja Burchard,2 Chi Nguyen,3 Haechung Chung,4 Nilesh Gangan,3 J Jay Boniface,2 John AF Zupancic,5 Eric Stanek1 1Scientific Affairs, HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA; 2Research and Development, Sera Prognostics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 3Health Economics and Outcomes Research, HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA; 4Research Operations, HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA; 5Department of Neonatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: Michael GrabnerScientific Affairs, HealthCore, Inc., 123 Justison St, Suite 200, Wilmington, DE, 19801, USATel +1 302-230-2000Email mgrabner@healthcore.comBackground: Preterm birth (PTB) carries increased risk of short- and long-term health problems as well as higher healthcare costs. Current strategies using clinically accepted maternal risk factors (prior PTB, short cervix) can only identify a minority of singleton PTBs.Objective: We modeled the cost-effectiveness of a risk-screening-and-treat strategy versus usual care for commercially insured pregnant US women without clinically accepted PTB risk factors. The risk-screening-and-treat strategy included use of a novel PTB prognostic blood test (PreTRM®) in the 19th– 20th week of pregnancy, followed by treatment with a combined regimen of multi-component high-intensity-case-management and pharmacologic interventions for the remainder of the pregnancy for women assessed as higher-risk by the test, and usual care in women without higher risk.Methods: We built a cost-effectiveness model using a combined decision-tree/Markov approach and a US payer perspective. We modeled 1-week cycles of pregnancy from week 19 to birth (preterm or term) and assessed costs throughout the pregnancy, and further to 12-months post-delivery in mothers and 30-months in infants. PTB rates and costs were based on > 40,000 mothers and infants from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database® with birth events in 2016. Estimates of test performance, treatment effectiveness, and other model inputs were derived from published literature.Results: In the base case, the risk-screening-and-treat strategy dominated usual care with an estimated 870 fewer PTBs (20% reduction) and $54 million less in total cost ($863 net savings per pregnant woman). Reductions were projected for neonatal intensive care admissions (10%), overall length-of-stay (7%), and births < 32 weeks (33%). Treatment effectiveness had the strongest influence on cost-effectiveness estimates. The risk-screening-and-treat strategy remained dominant in the majority of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations and model scenarios.Conclusion: Use of a novel prognostic test during pregnancy to identify women at risk of PTB combined with evidence-based treatment is estimated to reduce total costs while preventing PTBs and their consequences.Keywords: preterm birth, cost effectiveness, progesterone, prognostic test

Samaneh Kalirai,1 Jasmina I Ivanova,2 Magaly Perez-Nieves,1 Judith J Stephenson,3 Irene Hadjiyianni,1 Michael Grabner,3 Roy Daniel Pollom,1 Caroline Geremakis,3 Beverly L Reed,1 Lawrence Fisher4 1Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 2Analysis Group Inc., New York, NY, USA; 3HealthCore Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA; 4Department of Family and Community Medicine, UC San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USACorrespondence: Michael GrabnerHealthCore, Inc., 123 Justison St, Suite 200, Wilmington, DE 19801, USATel +1 302 230-2000Email mgrabner@healthcore.comObjective: A survey of US adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus was conducted to better understand patients’ insulin initiation experiences and treatment persistence behaviors.Research Design and Methods: Participants were recruited from consumer panels and grouped by basal insulin treatment pattern: continuers (no gap of ≥ 7 days within 6 months of initiation); interrupters (gap ≥ 7 days, resumed treatment); discontinuers (stopped for ≥ 7 days, not resumed). A quota of approximately 50 respondents per persistence category was set.Results: A total of 154 respondents (52 continuers, 52 interrupters, 50 discontinuers) completed the survey. Mean age was 51.4 years; 51.9% male. Continuers were more likely to report their views being considered during initiation, and less likely to report a sense of failure. Concerns included insulin dependence (64.3% agree/strongly agree), frequent blood glucose monitoring (55.2%), costs/ability to pay (53.9%), fears of or mistakes during self-injection (52.6%), and weight gain (52.6%). Continuers were motivated by benefits of insulin therapy; experienced or potential side effects were notable factors for interruption/discontinuation. Healthcare provider instruction was indicated as a reason for continuing, stopping, and restarting therapy.Conclusion: Benefits of basal insulin therapy motivated continuers while side effects impacted interruption/discontinuation. Persistence on basal insulin is often influenced by provider actions. Earlier provider intervention upon signs of treatment discontinuation may promote persistence.Keywords: type 2 diabetes mellitus, basal insulin, patient survey, medication persistence

Michael J Fisch,1 Michael Grabner,2 Daniel S Mytelka,3 Amit D Raval,2 Lee Bowman,3 David M Kern,2 Collin Churchill,3 Joseph Singer,2 Stewart Wetmore,3 John Barron,2 Michael Eleff4 1AIM Specialty Health, Chicago, IL, USA; 2HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA; 3Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 4Anthem, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USACorrespondence: Michael GrabnerHealthCore, Inc., 123 Justison St, Suite 200, Wilmington, DE 19801, USATel +1 302-230-2000Fax +1 302-230-2020Email mgrabner@healthcore.comObjective: Choosing chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) requires balancing clinical effectiveness and risk of complications. This study characterized real-world inpatient/emergency department (ED) hospitalizations during first-line chemotherapy among individuals with mCRC.Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from medical and pharmacy claims. All patients had mCRC with ≥ 1 claim for ≥ 1 of the 5 most frequently utilized first-line chemotherapy agents (fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, irinotecan, capecitabine). The main outcome was all-cause hospitalizations (inpatient or ED setting) identified from claims via ICD-9/10-CM coding from index date until 30 days after the end of first-line chemotherapy or last available data.Results: A total of 717 individuals (mean age 55 years; 58% male; ECOG 0/1/2+/missing in 44%/39%/6%/11%; median follow-up 116 days) met study criteria. Thirty-four distinct chemotherapy regimens were used. Overall, 40% of patients had ≥ 1 hospitalization (n=285; total 415 hospitalizations); 12% (n=85) had ≥ 2 hospitalizations. The median time to first hospitalization was 52 days; median inpatient length of stay was 4 days; infections/neutropenia (21%) and bowel-related complications (17%) were the most common issues associated with inpatient hospitalizations. In univariate analyses, insurance plan type, geographical location, ECOG, and renal disease were associated with hospitalization. In multivariable analyses, ECOG ≥ 1 was associated with a 67% increase (p< 0.01) in the odds of hospitalization vs ECOG= 0.Conclusion: Approximately 40% of patients with mCRC were hospitalized during the study period. Hospital stays were typically short. Further research is needed to determine how many of these hospitalizations may be avoidable. We also observed a large amount of variation in regimens used in the first-line setting.Keywords: colorectal cancer, chemotherapy-associated hospitalization, outcomes research, observational study, claims analysis

Thomas P Power,1 Xuehua Ke,2 Zhenxiang Zhao,3 Nicole Gidaya Bonine,2 Mark J Cziraky,2 Michael Grabner,2 John J Barron,2 Ralph Quimbo,2 Burkhard Vangerow,3 Peter P Toth4,5 1AIM Specialty Health, Chicago, IL, 2HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, 3Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 4CGH Medical Center, Sterling, IL, 5Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate real-world patient characteristics, medication use, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients with clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as defined by 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines, to examine burden of disease and unmet needs, such as potential undertreatment.Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized a nationally representative managed care database to identify newly diagnosed ASCVD patients between January 1, 2007, and November 30, 2012 (index = first ASCVD diagnosis date) in the USA. Patients had ≥12-month pre-index (baseline) and ≥12-month post-index (follow-up) health plan enrollment and no baseline lipid-lowering medication (LLM). Patient characteristics, LLM utilization patterns, HCRU, and costs were examined for all patients and by subgroups based on LLM use pattern and/or follow-up low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.Results: A total of 128,017 ASCVD patients were identified with a mean (SD) age of 59 (13) years, 43.1% female, and 48.8% with ≥36-month follow-up. Within 12-month follow-up, 10.6% had high-intensity statins and 56.9% had no LLM fills. Baseline mean (SD) all-cause costs were $8,852 ($25,608). At 12-month follow-up, mean (SD) all-cause and ASCVD-related costs were $31,443 ($54,040) and $20,289 ($45,159), respectively. The 36-month analyses showed similar distributions. Multivariable analyses showed that age, gender, region, health insurance type, baseline comorbidities, baseline use of specific medications, baseline lipid profiles, and index ASCVD type were significantly associated with all-cause and ASCVD-related health care costs.Conclusion: Patients have nonoptimal treatment for ASCVD and substantial HCRU and costs associated with residual risk. Unmet needs and cost burdens of ASCVD patients merit additional investigation. Keywords: ASCVD, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lipid-lowering medications, health care resource utilization and costs, statins, treatment patterns, guidelines, real-world evidence

Nella Bieszk,1 Michael Grabner,2 Wenhui Wei,1 Nicole G Bonine,2 Judith J Stephenson,2 1Sanofi US, Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, 2HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA Objective: To evaluate awareness of the 2012 American Diabetes Association (ADA) Position Statement among physicians and assess its effects on patient-centered glycated hemoglobin (A1C) goals in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Research design and methods: The Summarizing Real-World Individualized TrEatmEnT GoalS and Potential SuppOrT Systems in Type 2 Diabetes (SWEET SPOTS) study used the HealthCore claims database to identify T2D patients, stratified by risk, and their treating physicians to assess primary care physician and endocrinologist awareness of the 2012 ADA Position Statement. Physicians completed online surveys on A1C targets before and after receiving an educational intervention to review the position statement. Results: Of 125 responding physicians (mean age 50.3 years, 12.8% endocrinologists) who were linked to 125 patient profiles (mean age 56.9 years, 42% female, mean A1C 7.2%), 92% were at least somewhat aware of the position statement prior to the intervention and 59% believed that the statement would impact how they set A1C targets. The educational intervention resulted in mostly less stringent goal setting for both lower and higher risk patients, but changes were not significant. The proportion of physician-assigned A1C targets within ADA-recommended ranges increased from 56% to 66% post-intervention (P

Amy Guo,1 Michael Grabner,2 Swetha Rao Palli,2 Jessica Elder,1 Matthew Sidovar,1 Peter Aupperle,1 Stephen Krieger3 1Acorda Therapeutics Inc., Ardsley, New York, NY, USA; 2HealthCore Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA; 3Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for MS, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA Background: Although previous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of dalfampridine extended release (D-ER) tablets in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), there are limited real-world data on D-ER utilization and associated outcomes in patients with MS. Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns, budget impact, and health care resource utilization (HRU) associated with D-ER use in a real-world setting. Methods: A retrospective claims database analysis was conducted using the HealthCore Integrated Research DatabaseSM. Adherence (measured by medication possession ratio, or [MPR]) and persistence (measured by days between initial D-ER claim and discontinuation or end of follow-up) were evaluated over 1-year follow-up. Budget impact was calculated as cost per member per month (PMPM) over the available follow-up period. D-ER and control cohorts were propensity-score matched on baseline demographics, comorbidities, and MS-related resource utilization to compare walking-impairment-related HRU over follow-up. Results: Of the 2,138 MS patients identified, 1,200 were not treated with D-ER (control) and 938 were treated with D-ER. Patients were aged 51 years on average and 74% female. Approximately 82.6% of D-ER patients were adherent (MPR >80%). The estimated budget impact range of D-ER was $0.014–$0.026 PMPM. Propensity-score-matched D-ER and controls yielded 479 patients in each cohort. Postmatching comparison showed that the D-ER cohort was associated with fewer physician (21.5% vs 62.4%, P

Swetha Rao Palli,1 Michael Grabner,1 Ralph A Quimbo,1 Hope S Rugo2 1HealthCore, Wilmington, DE, 2University of California San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA Purpose: To determine the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) and chemotherapy treatment delay and adherence among patients receiving palonosetron versus other 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) antiemetics. Materials and methods: This retrospective claims analysis included adults with primary malignancies who initiated treatment consisting of single-day intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately EC (MEC) regimens. Treatment delay was defined as a gap in treatment at least twice the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-specified cycle length, specific to each chemotherapy regimen. Treatment adherence was determined by the percentage of patients who received the regimen-specific recommended number of chemotherapy cycles within the recommended time frame. Results: We identified 1,832 palonosetron and 2,387 other 5-HT3 RA (“other”) patients who initiated HEC therapy, and 1,350 palonosetron users and 1,379 patients on other antiemetics who initiated MEC therapy. Fewer patients receiving palonosetron experienced CINV versus other (HEC, 27.5% versus 32.2%, P=0.0011; MEC, 36.1% versus 41.7%, P=0.0026), and fewer treatment delays occurred among patients receiving palonosetron versus other (HEC, 3.2% versus 6.0%, P

Michael Grabner,1 Yong Chen,2 Matthew Nguyen,3 Scott D Abbott,3 Ralph Quimbo1 1HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA; 2Merck and Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA; 3Valeritas, Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, USA Objective: To inform the design and assess the feasibility of a prospective effectiveness study evaluating an insulin delivery device for patients with diabetes mellitus to be conducted within the membership of a large US commercial insurer. Methods: Providers who issued ≥1 insulin prescription between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2011 were selected from administrative claims contained in the HealthCore Integrated Research DatabaseSM. Adult diabetes patients with visits to these providers were identified. Providers were dichotomized into high- [HVPs] and low-volume providers [LVPs] based on median number of diabetes patients per provider. Results: We identified 15,349 HVPs and 15,313 LVPs (median number of patients = 14). Most HVPs were located in the Midwest (6,291 [41.0%]) and South (5,092 [33.2%]), while LVPs were evenly distributed across regions. Over 80% (12,769) of HVPs practiced family or internal medicine; 6.4% (989) were endocrinologists. HVPs prescribed insulin to an average of 25% of patients. Patients of HVPs (522,527) had similar characteristics as patients of LVPs (80,669), except for geographical dispersion, which followed that of providers. Approximately 65% of patients were aged 21-64 years and 97% had type 2 diabetes. Among patients with ≥1 available HbA1C result during 2011 (103,992), 48.3% (50,193) had an average HbA1C ≥7.0%. Among patients initiating insulin, 79.6% (22,205) had an average HbA1C ≥7.0%. Conclusion: The observed provider and patient populations support the feasibility of the prospective study. Sampling of patients from HVPs is efficient while minimizing bias as patient characteristics are similar to those from LVPs. The study also highlights unmet needs for improved glycemic control since approximately half of patients with diabetes are not on goal. Keywords: diabetes mellitus, claims analysis, prospective study design, insulin delivery