Dataset Information

Retrospective Claims Analysis of Treatment Patterns, Relapse, Utilization, and Cost Among Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Initiating Second-Line Disease-Modifying Therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Real-world studies of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) have reported suboptimal adherence.

Objective

We aimed to describe treatment patterns, relapses, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in MS patients experiencing their first observed DMT switch.

Methods

In this retrospective, claims database study, adult patients were selected if they had an MS diagnosis and DMT claim during the study period (1 January 2009-31 March 2019). Patients who switched to a new DMT between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2018 were included. Adherence, persistence, relapses, and all-cause and MS-related healthcare utilization and costs were reported pre- and post-index.

Results

In total, 1554 MS patients were identified; the mean age was 46 years and most (74%) were female. The majority of patients switched from an injectable DMT (n = 1116; 71.8%), and patients generally switched to an oral DMT (n = 878; 57%). Among patients who switched DMTs, 46.0% (n = 715) were nonadherent, 42% (n = 645) were nonpersistent, and 21.5% (n = 334) relapsed in the 12 months post-switch. An increase in all-cause and MS-related healthcare costs was observed pre- to post-index for all patients. Cost drivers included outpatient visit costs and pharmacy prescriptions. Compared with patients who switched to an injectable DMT, those who switched to an oral DMT had significantly higher persistence and adherence. No significant difference was observed in post-index relapse or all-cause and MS-related total cost of care.

Conclusion

Low adherence and poor persistence remain following an initial DMT switch; however, patients who switched to oral DMTs had higher persistence and adherence.

SUBMITTER: Freeman L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8605953 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to analyze the healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated costs of multiple myeloma (MM) using German claims data.MethodsAnonymized claims data from one of the largest sickness funds in Germany were analyzed. Costs and HCRU were calculated from the perspective of the statutory health insurance. To analyze MM-associated incremental costs in a most recent calendar period for an overall MM population (31 March 2018-31 March 2019), a prevalent cohort of MM patients (continuously insured during 01 January 2010 until 31 March 2019 or death; two or more outpatient and/or one inpatient MM diagnoses [ICD-10: C90.0-] and alive on 31 March 2018) was compared with a control group (not diagnosed with MM) employing propensity-score matching. Additionally, to describe MM-associated HCRU and costs for treated patients per line of treatment (lot), a cohort of newly treated patients was considered (≥ 12 months' pre-index period without MM treatment). Therapy lines were determined based on observed days of medication supply, treatment switches, and treatment discontinuations.ResultsOverall, 2523 prevalent MM patients (52.0% female, mean age: 71.3 years) and 1673 newly treated MM patients (50.2% female, mean age: 73.0 years) met the selection criteria and were included in the analyses. After matching, a non-MM counterpart could be identified for 2474 prevalent out of 2523 MM patients. MM-associated incremental HCRU was characterized by an increased number of hospitalizations and a higher number of outpatient specialist visits (per patient-year [ppy] 0.48 additional hospitalizations and 3.80 additional specialist visits; p < 0.001), being also drivers of the associated total incremental add-on costs (15,381.09 € ppy, p < 0.001). Among newly treated patients, total direct costs ppy increased as patients received subsequent treatments (1st lot: 67,681,55 €; 4th lot+: 114,934.01 €), driven by outpatient MM prescriptions (1st lot: 28,692.32 €; 4th lot+: 62,980.72 €).ConclusionThe economic burden of MM is driven by outpatient prescriptions, inpatient hospitalizations, and outpatient specialist visits. Treatment and overall costs increase substantially when patients move to later lines of treatment.

Project description:ImportanceImmune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for use as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who previously received sorafenib. Pembrolizumab has shown substantial antitumor activity and a favorable toxicity profile as a second-line treatment of HCC. However, considering the high cost of pembrolizumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both the clinical efficacy and cost.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs placebo as second-line therapy in patients with HCC from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsA Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment of HCC with those of placebo using outcome data from the KEYNOTE-240 randomized placebo-controlled trial, which included 413 patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib and randomized patients to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care in a 2:1 ratio.Main outcomes and measuresLife-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the parameter of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed. The study was conducted from January 31 to July 29, 2020.ResultsThe base-case model found that treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with increased overall cost by $47 057 and improved effectiveness by 0.138 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $340 409 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival (range, 0.61-1.00), health utility of placebo (range, 0.59-0.93), price of pembrolizumab (range, $5531-$8297), and price of postprogression therapies (range, $5596-$7944 for pembrolizumab and $4770-$7156 for placebo). The ICER of pembrolizumab was larger than $150 000 per QALY in most of the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The price of pembrolizumab needed to be reduced by 57.7% to $2925 per cycle to achieve cost-effectiveness.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that, at its current price, pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective second-line therapy for HCC in the US, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.