P0187COMPARING OPAL-HK DATA TO REAL-WORLD DATA FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM: HOW EFFECTIVE IS PATIROMER AT ACHIEVING NORMOKALAEMIA?

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Ali ◽  
Georgiana Cornea ◽  
Michele Intorcia ◽  
Philip A Kalra

Abstract Background and Aims The first phase of the published OPAL-HK study showed that Patiromer, an oral potassium binder, was effective at reducing serum potassium levels in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3 to 4. This phase was a 4-week, single-group treatment phase. Given the lack of a control arm, the aim of our study was to use real-world data from a large CKD cohort to provide a control comparison to evaluate the efficacy of Patiromer in normalising serum potassium. Method The initial phase of OPAL-HK comprised 243 patients with CKD G3-4 with a baseline serum potassium of 5.1 to <6.5mmol/L. To acquire a comparative matched cohort, patients were selected from the Salford Kidney Study (SKS), a prospective observational cohort study in the United Kingdom that has been recruiting patients aged ≥18 years old with CKD G3-5 since 2002. A 3-step process was applied to generate a propensity matched cohort. First, patients were chosen if they had an outpatient potassium level at any point after recruitment into SKS between 5.1mmol/L to <6.5mmol/L and whose next outpatient potassium level was checked 24 to 42 days (3.5 to 6 weeks) later (n=755). Second, all key OPAL-HK inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. This left 162 patients who were then accurately matched in a 1:1 fashion to the 243 OPAL-HK patients using propensity score matching based on 6 baseline variables: age, gender, eGFR, diabetes mellitus, heart failure and potassium level. This produced a cohort of 87 SKS patients matched to their 87 OPAL-HK partner patients. We compared the two patient groups for the following OPAL-HK study endpoints: the mean change in serum potassium from baseline to follow-up at week 4, and the proportion of patients with a serum potassium of 3.8 to <5.1mmol/L at week 4. Results The groups were extremely well matched: between SKS vs. OPAL-HK, the mean (±SD) age was 63.9±13.3 vs. 63.7±9.5years (p=0.93); mean eGFR was 30.9±11.6 vs. 31.2±11.7ml/min/1.73m2 (p=0.85); 45 vs. 46 patients were diabetics (p=0.88); 29 vs. 24 had heart failure (p=0.41) and the mean potassium was 5.5±0.3mmol/L in both groups (p=0.68). The follow-up in the SKS cohort was 31±5 days. At the end of follow-up, the mean potassium level remained 5.5±0.3mmol/L in SKS patients but had reduced to 4.5±0.5mmol/L in the OPAL-HK group (p<0.001), a mean (±SE) change of -1.00±0.06mmol/L. For the secondary endpoint, 74% of patients in OPAL-HK reached the target potassium range of 3.8 to <5.1mmol/L at week 4 compared with 0% from the comparator SKS cohort (see Figure). Conclusion Using real-world data as a tightly-matched control arm for the first phase of the OPAL-HK study, Patiromer is shown to be effective at reducing potassium levels in patients with CKD G3-4.

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 834-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Mozessohn ◽  
Matthew Cheung ◽  
Nicole Mittmann ◽  
Craig C. Earle ◽  
Ning Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Azacitidine (AZA) use in higher-risk MDS has been adopted because it improves survival. Despite this, "real-world" data on the economic impact and resource utilization remains unknown. We used the Ontario provincial AZA MDS registry, which captures all AZA-treated patients in the province, to analyze "real-world" data on healthcare use, associated costs and their predictors in AZA treated higher-risk patients. Methods: We linked the provincial MDS AZA registry (single-payer/universal access), which captures baseline characteristics and treatment response for all AZA-treated patients in Ontario, to population-based health system administrative databases. Only higher-risk MDS patients (IPSS intermediate-2, high) and low blast count AML (21-30% blasts) treated from May 30, 2010 to March 16, 2015 were included. Patients were followed for 24 months following first AZA treatment and censored at the earliest of 90 days after last AZA treatment, date of death, time of acute leukemia induction/allogeneic stem cell transplant or March 31, 2016. We estimated healthcare resource utilization and the mean (and overall) standardized 28-day healthcare cost in Canadian dollars ($1 CDN = 0.76 USD$). Quantile regression was used to explore predictors of cost. Negative binomial regression models were used to explore predictors for higher rate of emergency department (ED) visits, and for longer length of stay, with the natural logarithm of length of follow-up as an offset variable in each model. Results: The registry had 652 higher-risk MDS and 225 low blast count AML patients (n = 877) with median follow up of 8 months (IQR 4-13). Median age was 73 years (IQR 66-79), 66.0% were male, 17.8% were secondary MDS and IPSS scores of those calculable were intermediate-2 (64.9%) and high-risk (35.1%). At the time of AZA initiation, 587 patients (66.9%) were transfusion dependent. The median number of cycles received was 6 (range 3 to 11) and median overall survival was 16.1 months (95% CI 13.9 to 18.3). Overall, 705 patients (80.4%) had at least 1 ED visit and 290 (33.1%) had an ED visit during their first cycle of AZA. In addition, 680 patients (77.5%) had at least 1 hospital admission with a mean hospital stay of 17.7 days (95% CI 16.3 to 19.1) over the entire study period. 141 patients (16.1%) required admission to an intensive care unit. Older age (Rate ratio [RR] = 1.33, 95% CI 1.09-1.62), rurality (RR=1.75, 95% CI 1.42-2.15), high IPSS score (RR=1.31, 95% CI 1.06-1.62), and increased comorbidity level were each independent predictors of increased ED visits; while higher comorbidity level (RR=1.51, 95% CI 1.08-2.11), high IPSS score (RR=1.39, 95% CI 1.01-1.92), and transfusion dependence (RR=1.51, 95% CI 1.13-2.01) were associated with longer hospital stays. The overall mean cost was $146,675 per patient (95% CI $139,537 to $153,812) including AZA and $103,580 (95% CI 98,675 to 108,486) excluding AZA drug costs. The mean standardized cost per 28-day period per patient was $17,638 (95% CI $16, 870 to $18,407) with AZA and $13,450 (95% CI $12,730 to $14,170) without AZA drug costs. Inpatient admissions ($4,631, 95% CI $4,010 to $5,251) and non-physician outpatient cancer clinic costs ($6,092, 95% CI $5,851 to $6,333) were the major cost drivers. Excluding AZA costs, the mean standardized 28-day costs were higher in those receiving less than 4 cycles of AZA (n= 295) at $19,408 (95% CI $17,568 to $21,248), compared with those receiving 4 or more cycles (n= 582) at $10,430 (95% CI $10,069 to $10,790) with inpatient admissions as the major driver (mean $10,192, 95% CI $8,594 to $ 10,192 vs. $1,812, 95% CI $1,558 to $2,065). On multivariable analysis, only greater comorbid disease burden (β = $2,074, 95% CI $665 to $3,483) and transfusion dependence (β = $2,402, 95% CI $1,190 to $3,613) were associated with higher median standardized 28-day cost. Conclusions: In our analysis of "real-world" patients with uniformly higher-risk MDS treated with AZA we demonstrate a significant economic impact above and beyond the cost of AZA alone. The costs are higher in patients who are transfusion dependent and have greater comorbidity and appear to be driven by inpatient care and outpatient non-physician ambulatory care. This group of patients are high users of healthcare resources with the majority having ED visits and inpatient admissions. These results will inform patients and providers about the "real-world" anticipated toxicities of AZA. Disclosures Buckstein: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.


Diabetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 928-P
Author(s):  
REEMA MODY ◽  
MARIA YU ◽  
BAL K. NEPAL ◽  
MANIGE KONIG ◽  
MICHAEL GRABNER

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 90-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Du ◽  
Adina Khamitova ◽  
Mattias Kyhlstedt ◽  
Sun Sun ◽  
Mathilde Sengoelge

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 743-750
Author(s):  
Praveen Thokala ◽  
Peter Dodd ◽  
Hassan Baalbaki ◽  
Alan Brennan ◽  
Simon Dixon ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 1291-1298
Author(s):  
D. Stoyanova ◽  
B. Stratmann ◽  
A. Schwandt ◽  
N. Heise ◽  
S. Mühldorfer ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 237428952096822
Author(s):  
Erik J. Landaas ◽  
Ashley M. Eckel ◽  
Jonathan L. Wright ◽  
Geoffrey S. Baird ◽  
Ryan N. Hansen ◽  
...  

We describe the methods and decision from a health technology assessment of a new molecular test for bladder cancer (Cxbladder), which was proposed for adoption to our send-out test menu by urology providers. The Cxbladder health technology assessment report contained mixed evidence; predominant concerns were related to the test’s low specificity and high cost. The low specificity indicated a high false-positive rate, which our laboratory formulary committee concluded would result in unnecessary confirmatory testing and follow-up. Our committee voted unanimously to not adopt the test system-wide for use for the initial diagnosis of bladder cancer but supported a pilot study for bladder cancer recurrence surveillance. The pilot study used real-world data from patient management in the scenario in which a patient is evaluated for possible recurrent bladder cancer after a finding of atypical cytopathology in the urine. We evaluated the type and number of follow-up tests conducted including urine cytopathology, imaging studies, repeat cystoscopy evaluation, biopsy, and repeat Cxbladder and their test results. The pilot identified ordering challenges and suggested potential use cases in which the results of Cxbladder affected a change in management. Our health technology assessment provided an objective process to efficiently review test performance and guide new test adoption. Based on our pilot, there were real-world data indicating improved clinician decision-making among select patients who underwent Cxbladder testing.


BMC Medicine ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura McDonald ◽  
Dimitra Lambrelli ◽  
Radek Wasiak ◽  
Sreeram V. Ramagopalan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document