The Effects of Adverse Events and Associated Costs on Value-Based Care for Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

IF 2.3 Q2 ECONOMICS

Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-12-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.36469/001c.124367

Prachi Bhatt, Jared Hirsch, Paul Cockrum, George Kim, Gabriela Dieguez

{"title":"The Effects of Adverse Events and Associated Costs on Value-Based Care for Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.","authors":"Prachi Bhatt, Jared Hirsch, Paul Cockrum, George Kim, Gabriela Dieguez","doi":"10.36469/001c.124367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Rising oncology healthcare costs have led to value-based care reimbursement models that coordinate care and improve quality while reducing overall spending. These models are increasingly important for traditional Medicare and other payers. Objectives: To compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs), AE-associated excess costs, and total cost of care (TCOC) of 3 cohorts receiving first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from 2018 to 2022 using the Medicare 100% Research Identifiable Files. We examined 3 cohorts receiving mPDAC treatment: FOLFIRINOX (FFX) (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, 5-FU bolus and infusion); modified FFX, (5-FU infusion only); and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem/abrax). We compared the incidence of clinically significant AEs, TCOC, components of TCOC, and costs related to AEs/treatment toxicity. Results: Patient AE rates ranged from 6.2% to 51.7%. AEs occurred more frequently in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components. Patients receiving brand name gem/abrax had lower rates of febrile neutropenia (6.2%) and neutropenia (22.2%) than those receiving FFX with no 5-FU bolus (febrile neutropenia, 9.9%; neutropenia, 36.9%) and FFX with all 4 components (febrile neutropenia, 6.9%; neutropenia, 30.4%). Rates of most nonhematologic AEs were higher in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components, with diarrhea occurring in 28.3%, abdominal pain in 31.5%, and nausea/vomiting in 41.5% of patients. TCOC was lower in the gem/abrax cohort: <math><mn>6505</mn> <mi>v</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>F</mi> <mi>F</mi> <mi>X</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mn>5</mn> <mo>-</mo> <mi>F</mi> <mi>U</mi> <mi>b</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>u</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mo>(</mo></math> 6995) and FFX with all 4 components ( <math><mn>7142</mn> <mo>)</mo> <mi>p</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>r</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>r</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mo>.</mo> <mi>T</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>v</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>p</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>f</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>y</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>u</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>g</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>E</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>x</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>f</mi></math> 5993 per administration, while the development of any studied nonhematological AE was associated with a mean per-administration excess cost of $3665. Discussion: Treatment decisions intended to minimize chemotherapy costs may lead to suboptimal decisions if the goal is to reduce TCOC. Our research suggests FFX is more costly than gem/abrax (TCOC per administration). Patients receiving gem/abrax were older and had higher baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index scores; however, other factors may be important in driving cost differences. Conclusions: Irrespective of drug cost, chemotherapy leading to a significant increase in AEs is associated with higher TCOC.","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"11 2","pages":"161-167"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664866/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36469/001c.124367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rising oncology healthcare costs have led to value-based care reimbursement models that coordinate care and improve quality while reducing overall spending. These models are increasingly important for traditional Medicare and other payers. Objectives: To compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs), AE-associated excess costs, and total cost of care (TCOC) of 3 cohorts receiving first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from 2018 to 2022 using the Medicare 100% Research Identifiable Files. We examined 3 cohorts receiving mPDAC treatment: FOLFIRINOX (FFX) (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, 5-FU bolus and infusion); modified FFX, (5-FU infusion only); and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem/abrax). We compared the incidence of clinically significant AEs, TCOC, components of TCOC, and costs related to AEs/treatment toxicity. Results: Patient AE rates ranged from 6.2% to 51.7%. AEs occurred more frequently in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components. Patients receiving brand name gem/abrax had lower rates of febrile neutropenia (6.2%) and neutropenia (22.2%) than those receiving FFX with no 5-FU bolus (febrile neutropenia, 9.9%; neutropenia, 36.9%) and FFX with all 4 components (febrile neutropenia, 6.9%; neutropenia, 30.4%). Rates of most nonhematologic AEs were higher in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components, with diarrhea occurring in 28.3%, abdominal pain in 31.5%, and nausea/vomiting in 41.5% of patients. TCOC was lower in the gem/abrax cohort: $6505 v s F F X w i t h n o 5 - F U b o l u s ($ 6995) and FFX with all 4 components ( $7142) p e r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n y s t u d i e d h e m a t o l o g i c A E w a s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a m e a n e x c e s s c o s t o f$ 5993 per administration, while the development of any studied nonhematological AE was associated with a mean per-administration excess cost of $3665. Discussion: Treatment decisions intended to minimize chemotherapy costs may lead to suboptimal decisions if the goal is to reduce TCOC. Our research suggests FFX is more costly than gem/abrax (TCOC per administration). Patients receiving gem/abrax were older and had higher baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index scores; however, other factors may be important in driving cost differences. Conclusions: Irrespective of drug cost, chemotherapy leading to a significant increase in AEs is associated with higher TCOC.