Impact of Dosing Frequency of Oral Oncolytics on Refill Adherence Among Patients with Hematological Malignancies

Abstract Background : With advances in oral oncolytics for hematologic malignancies, it is important to consider dosing frequency and treatment (tx) adherence, as prior data have shown poor adherence to oral cancer medications may result in inferior tx outcomes (Huang WC, Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 2016; Muluneh B, J Oncol Pract, 2018). There is limited evidence regarding the impact of dosing frequency on tx adherence among patients with hematological malignancies treated with oral oncolytics. The objective of this study was to characterize real-world demographic and clinical characteristics, and compare refill adherence, among patients with hematological malignancies receiving once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) oral oncolytics. Methods : This retrospective cohort study used multi-year (2012-2020) commercial claims data from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics ® Data Mart Database and included adults (≥18 yr) with a diagnosis of a hematological malignancy identified using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes. The exposure of interest was receipt of an oral oncolytic, and the date of the first observed oral oncolytic (QD or BID) was considered the index date. All patients were required to have continuous health plan enrollment for ≥6 mo prior and ≥6 mo after the index date. The 6-mo period prior to the index date was considered the baseline period for determining patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and prior medication use. To minimize the effect of the differences in observable baseline patient characteristics between the QD and BID groups on refill adherence, 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching was used. Tx refill adherence to QD and BID oral oncolytics was measured using two established metrics: proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR). PDC, a conservative measure of refill adherence, was considered for primary analysis as it measures total days of drug coverage within a pre-specified follow-up period; whereas MPR which was included for sensitivity analysis, measures total drug supplied within the pre-specified follow-up period. PDC and MPR were measured at pre-defined time periods of 3 and 6 mo, and from the index date until the end of the follow-up period (variable-length follow-up). Patients with drug coverage for ≥80% (PDC or MPR ≥0.8) of pre-defined time periods were considered tx refill adherent. Results: The study identified 5,874 adults with hematological malignancies, of whom 4,938 (84.1%) received QD oral oncolytics and 936 (15.9%) received BID oral oncolytics. Before 1:1 PS matching, there were significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age (67.5 yr QD vs 61.6 yr BID, P<0.001), insurance type (Medicare, 65.4% QD vs 46.8% BID, P<0.001), being previously untreated (67.6% QD vs 63.7% BID, P=0.019), and Charlson's comorbidity score (mean: 1.61 QD vs 1.44 BID, P<0.001). After 1:1 PS matching, demographics, baseline comorbidities, cancer histology, and line of therapy were well-balanced. The matched cohort comprised 936 patients receiving QD oral oncolytics and 936 patients receiving BID oral oncolytics. Table 1 summarizes refill adherence among patients with hematological malignancies receiving QD versus BID oral oncolytics. The proportion of patients with ≥80% of drug coverage during follow-up was higher for QD versus BID recipients at 3 mo: numerically higher by PDC (70.8% vs 66.9%, P=0.065) and statistically significantly higher by MPR (72% vs 67.8%, P=0.049). The proportion of adherent patients was significantly higher for QD vs BID for both PDC and MPR at 6 mo (PDC: 62% vs 56.8%, P=0.024; MPR: 62.7% vs 57.5%, P=0.021) and at variable-length follow-up (PDC: 82.4% QD vs 77.7% BID, P=0.011; MPR: 84.9% QD vs 80.9%, P=0.020). These results suggest QD dosing is associated with improved tx adherence to oral hematological oncolytics compared to BID dosing. Conclusions: This study demonstrates significantly higher refill adherence in patients receiving QD versus BID oral hematological oncolytics at 6 mo and variable-length follow-up, highlighting the potential benefit of dosing convenience in improving adherence to oral oncolytics in the real-world setting. As suboptimal tx adherence may result in reduced tx effectiveness, real-world characterization of refill adherence rates of oral oncolytics can better inform on tx effectiveness outside of a controlled clinical trial environment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Challagulla: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Current Employment; AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kebede: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; ObsEva: Other. Rege: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company (paid to institution): Consultancy. Volodarsky: AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Current Employment. Osei-Bonsu: AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Current Employment. Karve: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Download Full-text

Real-World Survival Among Patients with Intermediate- to High-Risk Myelofibrosis in the United States: Impact of Ruxolitinib Approval

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-140820 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 46-47

Author(s):

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Shreekant Parasuraman ◽

Jingbo Yu ◽

Anne Shah ◽

Shambhavi Kumar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Index Date ◽

Time Frame ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

Approval Time ◽

Risk Of Mortality ◽

Death Date

Background The myeloproliferative neoplasm myelofibrosis (MF) is associated with reduced overall survival (OS) compared with the general population (Hultcrantz M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30[24]:2995-3001; Price GL, et al. PLoS One. 2014;9[3]:e90299). The Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in November 2011 for the treatment of adult patients with intermediate- or high-risk MF based on data from the phase 3 COMFORT trials, which showed significantly improved OS in patients who received RUX (Verstovsek S, et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10:156). Understanding the clinical benefit of RUX in real-world practice requires an understanding of changes in patient outcomes for those exposed to RUX compared with those never exposed to RUX, both before and after approval. The aim of this analysis was to assess the OS of patients newly diagnosed with intermediate- to high-risk MF before RUX approval, and for those who were RUX-unexposed vs -exposed in the post-RUX approval time frame. Study Design and Methods All data from the Medicare Fee-for-Service claims database (Parts A/B/D) from January 2010 to December 2017 were used to identify patients who were ≥65 years old (intermediate-1 or higher risk MF due to age) with ≥1 inpatient claim or ≥2 outpatient claims with a documented MF diagnosis. The index date was the date of the first qualifying MF claim; ≥12 months of pre-index continuous medical and pharmacy enrollment was required. Patients with evidence of an MF diagnosis ≤12 months before the index date were excluded. Patients with a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, hematologic malignancies (leukemias, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas), or solid tumors either ≤12 months before, on, or any time after index were also excluded in a stepwise manner. The study sample was classified into 3 groups: patients diagnosed with MF pre-RUX approval (index year 2010-2011; no post-index exposure to RUX); those diagnosed with MF post-RUX approval and unexposed to RUX (index year 2012-2017); and those diagnosed with MF post-RUX approval and exposed to RUX (index year 2012-2017). One-year survival rate and risk of mortality were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. OS was measured from the index date until death or end of follow-up. Patients without a death date were censored at disenrollment or the end of the study period, whichever occurred first. Results Among eligible patients with an MF diagnosis (N=1677), median age was 78 years, 39.8% were male, and 84.1% were white. The analysis included 278 patients diagnosed pre-RUX approval (all RUX-unexposed) and 1399 diagnosed post-RUX approval (RUX-unexposed, n=1127; RUX-exposed, n=272). Median follow-up for the pre- and post-RUX approval groups was 12.5 and 11.3 mo (RUX-unexposed, 10.2 mo; RUX-exposed, 14.0 mo), respectively. In the pre-RUX approval group, 119 (42.8%) patients had a valid death date compared with 436 (31.2%) in the post-RUX approval group (RUX unexposed, n=382 [33.9%]; RUX exposed, n=54 [19.9%]). The 1-year survival rate (95% CI) was 55.6% (49.4%-61.3%) for the pre-RUX approval group, 72.5% (69.5%-75.2%) for the post-RUX approval RUX-unexposed group, and 82.3% (76.7%-86.7%) for the post-RUX approval RUX-exposed group (Figure). The risk of mortality was lowest among RUX-exposed patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.50; P<0.0001 vs the pre-RUX approval group). Patients in the post-RUX approval group who had never been exposed to RUX also had a lower risk of mortality, although less pronounced than RUX-exposed patients, compared with the pre-RUX approval group (adjusted HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.80; P<0.0001). Conclusions In this real-world study of US patients diagnosed with intermediate- or high-risk MF, 1-year OS was improved in patients diagnosed after RUX approval compared with before RUX approval. Notably, in the post-RUX approval time frame, 1-year OS was greater for those who received RUX than for those who did not receive RUX. These findings complement the survival benefit results demonstrated in the COMFORT studies using real-world data. Disclosures Verstovsek: Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Parasuraman:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yu:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah:Avalere Health: Current Employment. Kumar:Avalere Health: Current Employment; Incyte Corporation: Other: Avalere Health is a paid consultant of Incyte Corporation. Xi:Avalere Health: Current Employment; Incyte Corporation: Other: Avalere Health is a paid consultant of Incyte Corporation. Harrison:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma Corp: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Real-World Effectiveness of Voxelotor for Treating Sickle Cell Disease in the US

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-140525 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 25-25

Author(s):

Ahmar Urooj Zaidi ◽

Thokozeni Lipato ◽

Ofelia A. Alvarez ◽

Alexander Lonshteyn ◽

Derek Weycker ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Index Date ◽

Health Claims ◽

Transfusion Rate ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Us

Background: Until late 2019, few treatments had been approved by the FDA for treating sickle cell disease (SCD). Voxelotor (Oxbryta®) is a sickle hemoglobin-polymerization inhibitor approved by the FDA in November 2019 for treatment of SCD in adults and adolescents aged ≥12 years under an accelerated approval based on results of the pivotal HOPE study. In HOPE, voxelotor increased average hemoglobin (Hb) by 1.1 g/dL from baseline in patients with 1-10 vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) in the previous year and a Hb level between 5.5 and 10.5 g/dL who were not transfusion dependent. Of the participants on voxelotor 1500 mg, 51% had a Hb response >1.0 g/dL at week 24 (Vichinsky et al, NEJM 2019). This study sought to assess the real-world effectiveness of voxelotor based on data during the first 6 months post FDA approval. Methods: Data on medical and pharmacy claims for patients who were aged ≥12 years and receiving voxelotor from December 2019 to May 2020 were obtained from the Symphony Health claims dataset. For each patient, the date of the first voxelotor claim was defined as the "index date." Patients with at least 1 year's data prior to the index date were included in the analyses. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized descriptively. Standardized annualized rates of transfusions and VOCs per patient per year (PPPY) prior to and after voxelotor initiation were compared. A subset of patients in the Symphony Health claims dataset had Hb lab data available. Patients with at least 1 Hb result within 30 days prior to the index date and at least 1 Hb result after the index date were included for Hb analyses. For these patients, change in Hb and the percentage of patients achieving a >1 g/dL increase in Hb were summarized. Confidence intervals and P values for changes in outcomes were based on bootstrapping. Results: As of May 31, 2020, 1275 patients from the Symphony Health claims datasets were identified who received voxelotor (40% male, mean age 35.7 years). In the year prior to voxelotor initiation, 715 (56.1%) of these patients received hydroxyurea, 121 (9.5%) received L-glutamine, 166 (13.0%) received at least 1 transfusion, 17 (1.3%) were on chronic transfusion (≥8 transfusions per year), and 681 (53.4%) had 1 or more VOCs. Mean (SD) follow-up was 64.9 (40.7) days. Among 1275 patients, 175 and 52 patients had at least 1 Hb level measurement during the 1 year prior to and after voxelotor initiation, respectively. Among the subset of patients with their Hb level tested within 30 days prior to the index date and at least 1 Hb level after index date (n=22), the baseline average Hb level was 8.0 g/dL (SD 1.4, median 7.9 g/dL, range 5.0-11.8 g/dL). Mean increase in Hb from baseline was 1.1-1.3 g/dL (Table 1) depending on the approach used to calculate Hb levels after voxelotor initiation; 55% (95% CI 32%-77%) of patients achieved a Hb increase >1 g/dL after voxelotor initiation. Among all 1275 patients, mean (SD) overall transfusion rates declined from 0.45 (1.67) PPPY pre-index to 0.31 (1.88) post-index, a change of -0.14 PPPY (P=0.005). Among 169 patients who received at least 1 transfusion in the year prior to initiation of voxelotor, the transfusion rate dropped from 3.39 (3.34) to 1.75 (4.30) PPPY, a change of -1.64 PPPY (P<0.001). Among 17 patients receiving chronic transfusions, the transfusion rate dropped from 11.29 (3.12) to 6.74 (7.37) PPPY, a change of -4.56 PPPY (P=0.013) (Table 2). After voxelotor initiation, the annualized rates of VOC were numerically reduced from 3.86 (6.69) to 3.64 (8.54) (P=0.248). To address the potential bias from the relatively short follow-up duration, similar results of transfusion and VOC rates were observed among patients with at least 30 days of follow-up or when only events within 3 months prior to index date were considered. Conclusions: Based on the first 6 months' data after the approval of voxelotor in the US, in real-world practice, voxelotor increases Hb by at least 1 g/dL, consistent with the HOPE randomized controlled trial results. Evidence suggests that transfusion rates decreased after voxelotor initiation. A favorable downward trend in VOC rates was also observed. This real-world evidence provides additional support for the use of this novel therapy in the treatment of hemolytic anemia and its associated complications in the SCD population. Further evaluation with a larger sample size and longer follow-up will help to confirm these findings. Disclosures Zaidi: Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cyclerion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Imara: Consultancy, Honoraria; bluebird bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Emmaus Life Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria. Alvarez:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonshteyn:Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weycker:Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Research Funding; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding. Pham:Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Delea:Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Agodoa:Global Blood Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cong:Global Blood Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs Associated with Obinutuzumab Plus Bendamustine Versus Rituximab Plus Bendamustine for First-Line Treatment of Follicular Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-145607 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3004-3004

Author(s):

Tu My To ◽

Jamie T. Ta ◽

Arpamas Seetasith ◽

Rongrong Wang ◽

Dominic Lai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Real World ◽

Index Date ◽

Healthcare Resource ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

First Line ◽

The Past

Abstract Background: Obinutuzumab (G) is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved in the US for the first-line (1L) treatment of follicular lymphoma (FL), relapsed or refractory FL, and 1L chronic lymphocytic leukemia. G plus chemotherapy (G-chemo) demonstrated superior progression-free survival versus (vs) rituximab (R) plus chemotherapy (R-chemo) in patients with previously untreated FL in the Phase III, randomized GALLIUM study (NCT01332968; Marcus et al. N Engl J Med 2017). R-bendamustine (R-benda) and G-bendamustine (G-benda) are among the most commonly used chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) regimens for FL (Ta et al. J Clin Oncol 2021), and information on comparative healthcare resource use (HRU) and real-world costs associated with G-chemo vs R-chemo in previously untreated FL patients is limited. The aim of this study was to compare HRU and costs for G-benda and R-benda for the 1L treatment of FL using US claims databases. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus and IBM® MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. We identified patients aged ≥18 years, who had ≥1 inpatient claim or ≥2 outpatient claims with a diagnosis of FL from February 1, 2015 to September 30, 2020, and received 1L R-benda or G-benda between February 1, 2016 and March 31, 2020. The first claim for FL treatment was the index date. All patients had ≥12 months of pre- and ≥6 months of post-index continuous enrollment in medical and pharmacy benefits. Patients with other primary cancers, FL treatment, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), or stem cell transplant during the pre-index period, or clinical trial participation or end-stage renal disease during the study period were excluded. Patients initiating 1L G-benda were propensity score matched 1:2 with patients initiating 1L R-benda based on age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), region, and insurance type. All-cause and FL-related (i.e. claim with a FL diagnosis in any position) HRU and costs (2020 USD) per patient per month (PPPM) during the follow-up period were reported. Patients were followed until the earliest of initiation of second-line therapy, end of continuous follow-up, or end of data availability. Results: Overall, 270 patients were included; of these, 90 (33.3%) patients receiving G-benda were matched to 180 (66.7%) patients receiving R-benda for 1L treatment of FL. 45.2% were male, and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age and CCI at index date were 59.1 (9.9) years and 1.7 (1.1), respectively. Median follow-up was 7.4 months. After matching, baseline characteristics were well-balanced between R-benda and G-benda patients (standardized mean difference [SMD] <0.1). Both all-cause and FL-related HRU were similar between R-benda and G-benda treated patients across all service categories (Figure 1). Total all-cause mean [SD] PPPM costs were also similar in G-benda vs R-benda patients ($21,378 [$15,242] vs $21,352 [$14,145]; p=0.77) (Figure 2). The majority of the total costs were FL-related and comparable across both patient groups: $17,353 ($11,370) for G-benda vs $17,724 ($13,530) for R-benda (p=0.71). Specifically, FL-treatment related costs PPPM were $17,070 ($14,064) for G-benda; this is comparable to $16,138 ($11,828) PPPM for R-benda (p=0.39). Conclusions: Our study found similar total costs of care and HRU among patients receiving 1L G-benda versus those receiving R-benda, providing real-world economic evidence that complements clinical trial data supporting the use of G-chemo for 1L treatment of FL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures To: Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Ta: Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment. Seetasith: Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang: The SPHERE Institute: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novavax, Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Oragenics, Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lai: Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shapouri: Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Download Full-text

Comprehensive real-world evidence research in stage III and IV melanoma: Evaluation of a cohort of patients treated at a Portuguese institution.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e18774 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e18774-e18774

Author(s):

Ivo Julião ◽

Jose Luis Cunha ◽

Patricia Redondo ◽

Jessica Rodrigues ◽

Tiago Figueiredo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Real World ◽

Clinical Characteristics ◽

Index Date ◽

Systemic Treatment ◽

Stage Iv ◽

Stage Iii ◽

Line Treatment ◽

Adequate Treatment ◽

Real World Evidence

e18774 Background: Malignant melanoma (MM) is one of the most aggressive skin cancers and its incidence has been increasing worldwide. Deep understanding of patient characteristics and the course of the disease, specially through the evaluation of real-world evidence, is extremely relevant for an adequate treatment approach and better outcomes. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate demographic and clinical characteristics and also treatment outcomes of patients with stage III and IV MM, treated at a Portuguese institution. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with de novo MM stage III/IV or that evolved from earlier MM stages, between 2015 and 2017 (considered the index date). Patients were followed until 12/31/2019. Demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics were evaluated. Survival was assessed, from the index date, using the Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare groups. Results: We included 215 patients with a median age of 66 years (20-96) and 50.2% (n = 108) were male. At index date, 63.7% (n = 137) were stage III. From those, 41.6% (n = 57) progressed to stage IV during follow-up. At diagnosis, the majority of patients had ulceration (53.3%; n = 119), normal LDH ( < 248 U/L; 56.3%; n = 121) and from 110 patients tested for BRAF, 45.4% (n = 50) had a mutation. In earlier stages, 41.8% (n = 81) performed sentinel LN only and from those 61.7% (n = 50) had latter metastatic disease. Complete LND was performed in 49% (n = 95) and 58.9% (n = 56) had a distant relapse. Brain metastasis were diagnosed in 28.4% (n = 61) of the patients, and 50.8% (n = 31) were not eligible for any treatment due to poor clinical status. Systemic treatment was performed in 70 patients with advanced disease. In 1st line, 34 (48.6%) patients underwent anti-PD-1, 28 (40.0%) BRAF/MEKi, 5 (7.1%) BRAFi and 3 (4.3%) chemotherapy. A 2nd line treatment was performed in 21 (30.0%) patients and 2 (9.5%) underwent 3rd line treatment. With a median follow-up of 29 months OS for all patients at 24 months was 54.9% (95% CI; 48.6-62.0): 69.3% (95% CI; 62.0-77.5) for stage III patients and 29.5% (95% CI; 20.9-41.6) for stage IV patients. OS was worst for known risk factors (ulceration, mitotic rate and LDH). OS at 24 months for patients under systemic treatment was 37.4% (95% CI; 26.9-52.0), with no differences between immunotherapy and targeted therapy. Finally, 22 patients were submitted to limb perfusion with an OS of 58.1% (95% CI; 41.2-81.9) at 24 months and a median PFS of 7.4 months (95% CI; 3.9-11.3). Conclusions: Analysis of real-world data is a solid tool in the evaluation, development and improvement of treatment strategies. Demographic and clinical characteristics are comparable to those of other studied cohorts. Longer follow-up of this population and the inclusion of new patients submitted to contemporary approaches will allow improving knowledge and care for melanoma patients in Portugal.

Download Full-text

Treatment patterns among patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes in a real-world setting: Electronic medical record (EMR)-based data.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.8_suppl.247 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽

pp. 247-247

Author(s):

Bruce Jeffrey Dezube ◽

Jill Bell ◽

Aaron Galaznik ◽

Eileen Farrelly ◽

Marlo Blazer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Real World ◽

Index Date ◽

Treatment Guidelines ◽

Specific Treatment ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Limited Information ◽

Nccn Guidelines ◽

Real World Setting

247 Background: Treatment decisions in MDS are based on a prognostic scoring system that divides pts into five distinct risk categories (NCCN 2016). Treatment guidelines for HR MDS pts include hypomethylating agents (HMAs) alone (azacitidine & decitabine), high-intensity induction chemotherapy (IC), & stem cell transplant (SCT) alone or after HMAs. Limited information is available on how these recommendations are applied in practice. This study evaluated the real-world treatment of HR MDS pts. Methods: Newly diagnosed HR MDS pts who were ≥18 years old & initiated first-line therapy (1LT) were retrospectively identified from a large United States EMR database between 1/1/2008 & 7/31/2015. As complete cytogenetics were not available in the database, HR was based on: ICD coding: ≥1 inpatient claim with an HR MDS ICD-9/10 code (ICD-9 code: 238.73; ICD-10 codes: D46.20, D46.21, D46.22), or ≥2 outpatient claims with an MDS ICD-9/10 code, or an adapted HR MDS algorithm (NCCN Guidelines in Oncology for MDS v.1.2016; Greenberg, et al. Blood. 2012;120:2454-65; Schanz et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:820-9). The first MDS claim served as the index date. 1LT was defined as an MDS-specific treatment initiated on or after the index date. Pts were followed until death, progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), loss to follow-up, or end of study (9/30/2015). Results: 720 newly diagnosed HR MDS pts were identified; of these, 229 (32%) pts received MDS-specific treatment. Median time to treatment was 22 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 10, 74). HMAs were the most common agents in the 1LT with 60% (n= 138) & 24% (n=54) receiving azacitidine & decitabine, respectively. Lenalidomide was used in 7.4% of pts (n=17), 4.8% received SCT alone (n=11), & 3.9% (n=9) received IC. At median follow-up of 9.4 months (IQR: 4.3, 18.4), 38% (n=86) died & 28% (n=63) progressed to AML. Conclusions: Despite guidelines, most HR MDS pts in a real-world setting were not treated with MDS-specific treatment. Among treated pts, 1LT with HMAs & azacitidine predominated. Subsequent research is needed to understand reasons for lack of treatment.

Download Full-text

P377 Inadequate response with advanced therapies in real-world patients with Ulcerative Colitis – Results of a German claims database study

Journal of Crohn s and Colitis ◽

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab076.501 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S392-S392

Author(s):

B Bokemeyer ◽

N Picker ◽

T Wilke ◽

L Rosin ◽

H Patel

Keyword(s):

Ulcerative Colitis ◽

Median Time ◽

Real World ◽

Index Date ◽

Sickness Fund ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Advanced Therapy ◽

Advanced Therapies ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background Therapeutic management of Ulcerative Colitis (UC) is challenging, and clinicians are often obliged to attempt a variety of therapies in sequence until an adequate clinical response is achieved. However, real-world data regarding response rates in UC treatment are rare, particularly for later lines of therapy. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the incidence of inadequate response to advanced therapies in patients with UC. Methods This retrospective study was based on claims data from a regional German sickness fund covering the period from 01/2014-06/2019. Patients were included if they had at least two outpatient diagnoses in two different quarters or one inpatient diagnosis of UC (ICD-10: K51) and started a newly introduced advanced therapy (adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib, vedolizumab) in 01/2015-06/2019. Patients were followed from treatment initiation (index date) until the end of the study period or loss to follow-up (median = 23.4 months). Proxies of inadequate response included: discontinuation (a supply gap of >60 days), switch, escalation (as dose increase exceeding 1.5 times the recommended maintenance dose), augmentation with 5-ASA, corticosteroid (CS) dependency (two CS prescriptions were observed starting more than 14 weeks after the index date), UC-related hospitalization, or UC-related surgery. CS dependency and treatment escalation were only assessed in the maintenance phase. Inadequate response in the analyzed sample was evaluated by means of Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results Among 574 UC patients (median age: 39 years; female: 53.5%), in whom an advanced therapy was initiated, 458 (79.8%) received an anti-TNF therapy, 113 (19.7%) vedolizumab and 3 (0.5%) tofacitinib. According to the available baseline period, 72 (12.4%) patients were identified as biologic-experienced. Most patients received CS (86.4%) and/or 5-aminosalicylic acids (81.7%) in the 12-month pre-index period. The median time to inadequate response to the initiated advanced therapy was 4.8 months (IQR: 2.6-11.9; Figure 1) with an inadequate response over 12 months in 75% (Figure 2). There was no significant difference in median time to inadequate response between biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients (4.9 vs. 4.7 months; p-value = 0.285). During the observable follow-up period, 172 (61%) patients switched from their index agent to another advanced therapy. Conclusion From the real-world settings in Germany, we found an inadequate response in UC-patients starting an advanced therapy in 75% of patients over 12 months. There is a need for more effective therapies among these patients.

Download Full-text

Real-World Treatment Patterns Among a Contemporary Cohort of Commercially Insured Mantle Cell Lymphoma Patients in the United States

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-112532 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4845-4845

Author(s):

Lindsey E. Roeker ◽

Shaum Kabadi ◽

Chakkarin Burudpakdee ◽

Aimee Near ◽

Keiko Wada ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Index Date ◽

Treatment Patterns ◽

Treatment Regimens ◽

Oral Medications ◽

Mantle Cell ◽

Insured Patients

Abstract Introduction Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with a poor prognosis. The approval of ibrutinib in November 2013 has changed the treatment paradigm for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. There remains a lack of information on the current treatment patterns used in clinical practice in a contemporary cohort of commercially insured patients. We aimed to identify the treatment patterns for MCL overall and by line of therapy (LOT) and to describe patient demographics and clinical characteristics in a large cohort of commercially insured MCL patients. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted with the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US database. Adult patients (≥18 years old) with ≥1 claim for a NCCN-recommended MCL treatment between November 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017 were identified. Index date was the first treatment claim. Patients were also required to have ≥1 diagnosis of MCL during the study period (November 1, 2012 to January 31, 2018), ≥12 months of continuous enrollment prior to index date (pre-index period) and ≥30 days after index date (follow-up period). Patients were excluded if they were ≥65 years at index and not enrolled in Medicare Risk or Medicare Cost, enrolled in a clinical trial during the study period, had evidence of MCL treatment in the pre-index period (except for patients indexed on ibrutinib as it is indicated for MCL patients with ≥1 prior treatment), or had evidence of stem cell transplant (SCT) before index date. The most commonly observed MCL treatment regimens were identified, and demographic and clinical characteristics of patients and treatment durations by regimen were described. Treatment regimen was defined as the combination of all agents observed in the 35-day period after the first MCL treatment claim; treatment duration was defined as the start of treatment until a gap of ≥90 days between end date and next date of treatment or treatment modification. Treatment end date occurred 90 days after the end of the supply for oral medications or 30 days after the last administration for non-oral medications. Results There were 1,785 patients treated with the most commonly observed MCL treatment regimens. The most common regimens, irrespective of LOT, were rituximab monotherapy (including maintenance therapy; n=773, 43.3%), R-CHOP (n=723, 40.5%), B-R (n=436, 24.4%), and ibrutinib monotherapy (n=199, 11.1%). Overall, patients had a median (IQR) age of 57 (52-62) years, and 59.4% were male. Most patients were commercially or self- insured (57.5% and 33.6%, respectively). Patients had a median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 0 (IQR 0-1; mean [SD] 0.9 [1.4]), with the most common CCI components being diabetes (15.7%), chronic pulmonary disease (12.8%), and congestive heart failure (9.5%). During the follow-up period (median [IQR] 22.5 [10.5-35.3] months), in addition to the MCL regimen(s), patients received radiation therapy (17.4%), SCT (10.0%), and/or immunotherapy (0.2%). The use of targeted therapies (i.e. lenalidomide, bortezomib) other than ibrutinib was infrequent. When considering treatment lines, R-CHOP was the most commonly observed first regimen, followed by rituximab, B-R, and ibrutinib; for the second and third observed regimens, rituximab was the most common, followed by ibrutinib (Figure 1). The median (IQR) duration for the first observed regimen was 8.1 (3.9-18.0) months for ibrutinib, 5.0 (3.3-5.6) months for B-R, 4.0 (2.5-4.4) months for R-CHOP, and 1.9 (1.7-4.4) months for rituximab; ibrutinib also had the longest duration in the second and third line (median [IQR] 5.5 [2.4-13.5] months and 8.3 [3.9-12.4] months, respectively). Conclusion This is the largest study of MCL patients describing treatment patterns in current clinical practice among commercially insured patients. MCL patients were most commonly treated with chemoimmunotherapy for all treatment lines while ibrutinib was the second most common LOT2 and LOT3 regimen. As the treatment landscape and clinical practice continues to change with the use of novel agents, future studies are warranted to further study toxicities and outcomes in the real-world setting. Disclosures Kabadi: AstraZeneca: Employment. Burudpakdee:IQVIA received funds from AstraZeneca to conduct the analysis, interpret data, and coauthor the publication.: Consultancy. Near:IQVIA received funds from AstraZeneca to conduct the analysis, interpret data, and coauthor the publication.: Consultancy. Wada:IQVIA received funds from AstraZeneca to conduct the analysis, interpret data, and coauthor the publication.: Consultancy. Mato:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Thrombosis and Risk of Mortality in Newly Diagnosed High-Risk Polycythemia Vera: An Analysis of the Medicare Claims Database in the United States

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-141370 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 9-10

Author(s):

Naveen Pemmaraju ◽

Aaron T. Gerds ◽

Shreekant Parasuraman ◽

Jingbo Yu ◽

Anne Shah ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Median Time ◽

Research Funding ◽

Index Date ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

Risk Of Mortality ◽

Increased Risk ◽

History Of

Background Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events (TEs), a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Patients aged ≥60 years and/or with a history of thrombosis are considered to have high-risk PV. There is limited contemporary, real-world evidence exploring the effect of TEs on mortality in patients with PV. The aim of this analysis was to compare the risk of mortality in patients newly diagnosed with high-risk PV who experienced a TE vs those who did not experience a TE. Study Design and Methods All data from the Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) claims database (Parts A/B/D) from January 2010-December 2017 were used to identify patients with a PV diagnosis (all high risk based on cohort being ≥65 years of age) with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient claims. The index date was the date of the first qualifying PV claim. Patients with a PV diagnosis or use of cytoreductive therapy within 12 months before the index date (pre-index period) were excluded; ≥12-months continuous medical and pharmacy enrollment pre-index dates was required. The study sample was categorized into TE and non-TE groups based on the occurrence of any of the following events during follow-up: deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or superficial thrombophlebitis. TEs were evaluated from the index date to the end of follow-up. Cox regression analyses with time-varying effects were used to assess mortality risk among patients with PV, with post-index TE as a time-dependent variable, stratified by pre-index TE, and adjusting for patient demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions. Results A total of 56,176 Medicare FFS beneficiaries with PV diagnoses met inclusion criteria. The median age was 73 years, 51.9% were men, and 90.7% were white; 10,110 patients (18.0%) had a history of TE before diagnosis (ie, pre-index). In the follow-up period, 20,105 patients (35.8%) had a TE and 36,071 patients (64.2%) did not have a TE. In the comparison between the TE vs non-TE groups, the median (range) age (75.0 [65-104] vs 73.0 [65-106] years, respectively), mean (SD) Charlson comorbidity index score (3.1 [2.6] vs 2.2 [2.3]), and percentage of patients with a history of cardiovascular events (34.1% vs 23.8%), bleeding (13.3% vs 10.4%), or anemia (28.6% vs 23.4%) were higher (Table 1). Among all patients with PV, the median time from diagnosis to first post-index TE was 7.5 months. Among those with pre-index TE (n=10,093), median time from index to first post-index TE was 0.6 months, whereas patients without pre-index TE (n=46,083) had a median time to first post-index TE of 14.2 months. Among all patients with TE during follow-up, the most common TEs were ischemic stroke (47.5%), transient ischemic attack (30.9%), and acute myocardial infarction (30.5%). The risk of mortality was increased for patients who experienced a TE compared with those who did not (hazard ratio [HR; 95% CI], 9.3 [8.4-10.2]; P<0.0001). For patients who experienced a pre-index TE, the risk of mortality was increased for patients who experienced a subsequent TE during follow-up compared with patients who did not (HR [95% CI], 6.7 [5.8-7.8]; P<0.0001). Likewise, for patients who did not experience a pre-index TE, the risk of mortality was increased for patients who experienced a TE during follow-up compared with patients who did not (HR [95% CI], 13.1 [11.4-15.0]; P<0.0001). Conclusions In this real-world study, approximately one-third of patients with newly diagnosed high-risk PV experienced a TE during follow-up and had a 9-fold increased risk of mortality vs those who did not experience a TE. TE risk mitigation remains an important management goal in patients with PV, particularly in those with prior TE. Disclosures Pemmaraju: Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; SagerStrong Foundation: Other: Grant Support; Affymetrix: Other: Grant Support, Research Funding; MustangBio: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; LFB Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Plexxikon: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; Roche Diagnostics: Honoraria; Cellectis: Research Funding; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria. Gerds:Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Parasuraman:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yu:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah:Avalere Health: Current Employment. Xi:Incyte Corporation: Other: Avalere Health is a paid consultant of Incyte Corporation; Avalere Health: Current Employment. Kumar:Avalere Health: Current Employment; Incyte Corporation: Other: Avalere Health is a paid consultant of Incyte Corporation. Scherber:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Verstovsek:Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Straightforward Transition to Bay 81-8973 Prophylaxis in Patients with Hemophilia A: Prospective Real-World Data from the Taurus Non-Interventional Study Show That Number of Infusions per Week Is Maintained or Reduced

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-116622 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 5045-5045

Author(s):

Michael Wang ◽

Beng Fuh ◽

Philip Maes ◽

Maria Eva Mingot-Castellano ◽

Rubén Berrueco ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Real World ◽

Hemophilia A ◽

Weekly Dose ◽

Real World Data ◽

World Data ◽

Real World Setting ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Dosing Frequency

Abstract BACKGROUND: BAY 81-8973 (Kovaltry®, Bayer) is an unmodified full-length recombinant FVIII indicated for prophylaxis and treatment of bleeds in patients with hemophilia A; BAY 81-8973 was launched in 2016 and has since accumulated 6765 patient-years of exposure. The TAURUS study (NCT02830477) was established to investigate BAY 81-8973 prophylaxis dosing regimens chosen in clinical practice and confirm the established safety and efficacy results from the LEOPOLD clinical trials in a real world setting. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the proportion of patients on specific BAY 81-8973 prophylaxis regimens, bleeds, and patient-reported outcomes at baseline and most recent follow-up. METHODS: TAURUS is an international, open label, prospective, non-interventional, single arm study with a target recruitment of 350 previously treated patients with hemophilia A of all ages with moderate or severe hemophilia A (≤ 5% FVIII:C) with ≥ 50 exposure days to any FVIII product who have been switched to prophylaxis with BAY 81-8973. At baseline, physicians document clinical information including age, BMI, severity of hemophilia, number of target joints, prior treatment regimen, bleed history, inhibitor history, and reason for choosing a specific prophylaxis regimen. Patients/caregivers reported bleeds in ongoing patient diaries, and completed questionnaires on treatment satisfaction (HEMOSAT) and adherence (VERITAS-PRO) at baseline and follow-up. A scheduled interim analysis (30% of patients recruited) was conducted with data collected up to 2 July 2018. RESULTS: At the cut-off, 160 enrolled patients were included in the baseline analysis set, of whom 89 had ≥ 6 months of follow-up data available (median observation period 201 days), 33% of whom had completed one year of the study. Median (range) patient age was 22 (2‒69) years, time since diagnosis was 15 (0.5‒64) years, and most patients (76/89, 85%) had baseline FVIII level of <1%. Treatment assignments are shown in the table. All patients had received pre-study prophylaxis, for a median of 15 years, with 66% of patients using rFVIII-FS as their most recent FVIII treatment prior to BAY 81-8973. Most (91%) had been treated with BAY 81-8973 for <3 months prior to study entry. Pre-study, 72% of patients were treated ≥3 times per week (xW). At baseline, most patients (59%) were assigned treatment ≥3xW (every day, 1%; every other day, 16%; 3xW, 41%). The majority remained on their previous regimen (78% on ≤2xW and 97% on ≥3xW); any changes were mainly a reduction in frequency on BAY 81-8973 vs previous treatment (22%), with only 2% increasing frequency on BAY 81-8973. At last follow up, most patients remained on the same regimen: 60% on ≥3xW (≥ every other day, 17%; 3xW, 42%). Most patients (92%) did not alter their dosing frequency. Of the 8% who changed dosing frequency, the majority (6 patients) changed from ≥3xW to ≤2xW; 1 patient changed from ≤2xW to ≥3xW. The median prescribed weekly dose was 52 IU/kg (64 IU/kg for ≥3xW and 43 IU/kg for ≤2xW) on study, slightly lower than those with previous product: 56 IU/Kg overall, 64 IU/kg for ≥3xW and 50 IU/kg for ≤2xW. Median (Q1; Q3) patient diary-reported annualized joint bleed rates were 1.5 (0.0; 5.3), 1.2 (0.0; 5.3) and 1.4 (0.0; 6.1); for ≤2xW, ≥3xW, and all patients, respectively. HEMO-SAT and VERITAS-PRO data will be presented in the poster. No recruited patients developed inhibitors with BAY 81-8973. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world data from 89 patients show that the range of dosing options available for BAY 81-8973 allowed the majority of patients to become established quickly on this treatment upon switching. In the few instances where patients changed dosing frequency either upon switching to BAY 81-8973 or once established on treatment, most moved to less frequent treatment. Joint bleeding rates confirm and extend findings from the clinical trials and speak to effective bleeding prophylaxis with BAY 81-8973 in a real-world setting. Therefore, BAY 81-8973 treatment may be successfully individualized according to patient need and disease characteristics. Disclosures Wang: Terumo BCT: Other: CPC Clinical Research; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Bayer, Bioverative, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Shire, Genentech, Biomarain, Pfizer, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Genentech, HEMA Biologics, Shire, CSL Behring: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy. Maes:Bayer: Honoraria. Rauchensteiner:Bayer: Employment.

Download Full-text

Real-World Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients with Indolent Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Differences between Patients Treated First-Line with Ibrutinib or Bendamustine + Rituximab

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113093 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3549-3549

Author(s):

Debra Irwin ◽

Lu Zhang ◽

Kathleen Wilson ◽

Gerard Hoehn ◽

Erika Szabo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Combination Therapy ◽

Healthcare Utilization ◽

Resource Utilization ◽

Real World ◽

Index Date ◽

Healthcare Resource ◽

Healthcare Resource Utilization ◽

Hodgkin's Lymphoma ◽

First Line

Abstract OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine real-world differences in healthcare resource utilization of indolent non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (iNHL) patients treated with first-line ibrutinib monotherapy (IM) or first-line bendamustine + rituximab (BR) combination therapy using U.S. administrative claims data. METHODS: The MarketScan® Research Databases were used to identify patients aged 18 years or older with commercial or Medicare supplemental insurance plans based on their first prescription (index date) of either IM or BR therapy between 02/01/2014 and 08/30/2017. Patients were required to be diagnosed with iNHL and be treatment naïve, as well as be continuously enrolled (CE) for 6 months prior to and at least 30 days following the index date. All-cause and iNHL-related healthcare resource utilization (e.g., inpatient admission (IP) and emergency room (ER) visits) were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period from the index date among the subset of patients with 12 months of continuous enrollment and reported per-patient per-month (PPPM). Statistical differences in the distribution of IP and ER visits between the IM versus BR therapy groups were estimated using chi-squared test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 1,544 iNHL patients were identified, with 207 patients in the IM cohort and 1,337 patients in the BR cohort. The IM cohort was significantly older (mean = 68.3 years; SD = 11.8) then the BR cohort (mean age = 62.1 years; SD = 11.1). The proportion of females was significantly (p<.05) lower in the IM cohort (36%) relative to the BR cohort (49%). The two cohorts did not differ in comorbidity as assessed by National Cancer Institute Comorbidity Index score (IM=0.7 vs. BR=0.8, p=0.40). The results of the comparisons between the two groups with 12 months of follow-up (IM = 110; BR = 745) are provided in Table 1. For all-cause healthcare utilization, the proportion of IM patients experiencing at least one IP admission was significantly higher than the BR cohort as were the PPPM number of admissions. The proportion of patients with at least one ER visit was similar in the IM and BR cohorts. However, the average PPPM number of ER visits was significantly higher in the IM cohort relative to the BR cohort. A similar pattern was found for the iNHL-related healthcare utilization variables with one exception. The proportion of patients with at least one iNHL-related ER visit was significantly higher in the IM relative to the BR cohort. Conclusions: The current study examined differences in healthcare utilization among iNHL-patients treated in a front-line setting with either ibrutinib or BR combination therapy. Results indicated that not only did more ibrutinib patients experience an IP admission and ER visits, including both all-cause and iNHL-related, but they also experienced more repeat admissions and ER visits. These real-world findings highlight the importance of considering the healthcare resource utilization of iNHL patients which may be associated with their first-line therapy. Disclosures Irwin: Teva: Consultancy. Zhang:Teva: Consultancy. Wilson:Teva: Consultancy. Hoehn:Teva: Employment. Szabo:Teva: Employment. Tang:Teva: Employment.

Download Full-text