急性髓性白血病患者接受阿扎胞苷口服维持治疗与不接受维持治疗的医疗利用率和成本:美国索赔数据库研究》。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Uma Borate, Karen Seiter, Ravi Potluri, Debasish Mazumder, Manoj Chevli, Thomas Prebet, Lona Gaugler, Maria Strocchia, Alberto Vasconcelos, Jan Sieluk
{"title":"急性髓性白血病患者接受阿扎胞苷口服维持治疗与不接受维持治疗的医疗利用率和成本:美国索赔数据库研究》。","authors":"Uma Borate,&nbsp;Karen Seiter,&nbsp;Ravi Potluri,&nbsp;Debasish Mazumder,&nbsp;Manoj Chevli,&nbsp;Thomas Prebet,&nbsp;Lona Gaugler,&nbsp;Maria Strocchia,&nbsp;Alberto Vasconcelos,&nbsp;Jan Sieluk","doi":"10.1007/s12325-024-02947-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The substantial economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) could be reduced with post-remission maintenance therapies that delay relapse. Real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data and costs among patients with AML receiving oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) maintenance therapy or no maintenance are not well understood. We characterize HCRU and costs among these patients in clinical practice in the USA.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data from IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus (January 1, 2016–June 30, 2022) were used. Patients ≥ 18 years who were newly diagnosed with AML, received first-line systemic induction therapy, and attained disease remission were eligible. Patients receiving Oral-AZA maintenance and those receiving no maintenance (“watch and wait” [W&amp;W]) were matched 1:3 on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM) and followed until hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or end of continuous insurance enrollment, whichever occurred first. Outcomes included treatment patterns, inpatient and outpatient visits, and costs.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>After PSM, the Oral-AZA cohort included 43 patients and the W&amp;W cohort 129. Of the 43 patients receiving Oral-AZA, 88.4% started at the recommended dose of 300 mg and 11.6% at 200 mg. The Oral-AZA cohort had significantly (<i>p</i> = 0.0025) longer median (95% CI) time to relapse from the index maintenance date (median not reached [NR; 9.0 months–NR] vs 3.3 months [0.8 months–NR]), and fewer per person per month (PPPM) hospitalizations (0.23 vs 0.61; <i>p</i> = 0.0005) and overall outpatient visits (5.77 vs 7.58; <i>p</i> = 0.0391) than the W&amp;W cohort. Despite higher AML drug costs PPPM in the Oral-AZA cohort ($16,401 vs $10,651 for W&amp;W), total healthcare costs PPPM were lower ($25,786 vs $38,530 for W&amp;W; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001).</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with Oral-AZA maintenance in clinical practice had prolonged remission and lower HCRU and costs than patients receiving no maintenance therapy. These findings underscore the clinical and economic value of Oral-AZA in clinical practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7482,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Therapy","volume":"41 11","pages":"4049 - 4064"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12325-024-02947-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare Utilization and Costs Among Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Oral Azacitidine Maintenance Therapy Versus No Maintenance: A US Claims Database Study\",\"authors\":\"Uma Borate,&nbsp;Karen Seiter,&nbsp;Ravi Potluri,&nbsp;Debasish Mazumder,&nbsp;Manoj Chevli,&nbsp;Thomas Prebet,&nbsp;Lona Gaugler,&nbsp;Maria Strocchia,&nbsp;Alberto Vasconcelos,&nbsp;Jan Sieluk\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12325-024-02947-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The substantial economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) could be reduced with post-remission maintenance therapies that delay relapse. Real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data and costs among patients with AML receiving oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) maintenance therapy or no maintenance are not well understood. We characterize HCRU and costs among these patients in clinical practice in the USA.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data from IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus (January 1, 2016–June 30, 2022) were used. Patients ≥ 18 years who were newly diagnosed with AML, received first-line systemic induction therapy, and attained disease remission were eligible. Patients receiving Oral-AZA maintenance and those receiving no maintenance (“watch and wait” [W&amp;W]) were matched 1:3 on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM) and followed until hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or end of continuous insurance enrollment, whichever occurred first. Outcomes included treatment patterns, inpatient and outpatient visits, and costs.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>After PSM, the Oral-AZA cohort included 43 patients and the W&amp;W cohort 129. Of the 43 patients receiving Oral-AZA, 88.4% started at the recommended dose of 300 mg and 11.6% at 200 mg. The Oral-AZA cohort had significantly (<i>p</i> = 0.0025) longer median (95% CI) time to relapse from the index maintenance date (median not reached [NR; 9.0 months–NR] vs 3.3 months [0.8 months–NR]), and fewer per person per month (PPPM) hospitalizations (0.23 vs 0.61; <i>p</i> = 0.0005) and overall outpatient visits (5.77 vs 7.58; <i>p</i> = 0.0391) than the W&amp;W cohort. Despite higher AML drug costs PPPM in the Oral-AZA cohort ($16,401 vs $10,651 for W&amp;W), total healthcare costs PPPM were lower ($25,786 vs $38,530 for W&amp;W; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001).</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with Oral-AZA maintenance in clinical practice had prolonged remission and lower HCRU and costs than patients receiving no maintenance therapy. These findings underscore the clinical and economic value of Oral-AZA in clinical practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Therapy\",\"volume\":\"41 11\",\"pages\":\"4049 - 4064\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12325-024-02947-1.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-024-02947-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-024-02947-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:急性髓性白血病(AML)造成的巨大经济负担可以通过延迟复发的缓解后维持疗法来减轻。目前尚不清楚接受口服阿扎胞苷(Oral-AZA)维持治疗或不接受维持治疗的急性髓性白血病患者的实际医疗资源利用率(HCRU)数据和成本。我们对美国临床实践中这些患者的 HCRU 和费用进行了描述:采用 IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus(2016 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 6 月 30 日)的数据。年龄≥18岁、新诊断为急性髓细胞白血病、接受一线系统诱导治疗并获得疾病缓解的患者符合条件。接受口服阿扎环唑维持治疗的患者与不接受维持治疗的患者("观察和等待"[W&W])在基线特征上采用倾向评分匹配法(PSM)进行1:3匹配,并随访至造血干细胞移植或连续参保结束(以先发生者为准)。结果包括治疗模式、住院和门诊就诊情况以及费用:PSM后,Oral-AZA队列包括43名患者,W&W队列包括129名患者。在接受口服氨酚烷胺治疗的 43 名患者中,88.4% 开始时的推荐剂量为 300 毫克,11.6% 为 200 毫克。与 W&W 队列相比,Oral-AZA 队列的中位(95% CI)复发时间(未达到中位数 [NR; 9.0 个月-NR] vs 3.3 个月 [0.8 个月-NR])明显更长(p = 0.0025),每人每月(PPPM)住院次数(0.23 vs 0.61; p = 0.0005)和门诊总次数(5.77 vs 7.58; p = 0.0391)也更少。尽管口服-AZA队列的急性髓细胞性药物成本(PPPM)较高(16,401美元对W&W队列的10,651美元),但医疗保健总成本(PPPM)较低(25,786美元对W&W队列的38,530美元;P 结论:口服-AZA队列的急性髓细胞性药物成本(PPPM)较高,但医疗保健总成本(PPPM)较低:与未接受维持治疗的患者相比,在临床实践中接受口服-AZA维持治疗的新诊断急性髓细胞白血病患者的缓解时间更长,HCRU和费用更低。这些发现凸显了口服 AZA 在临床实践中的临床和经济价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Healthcare Utilization and Costs Among Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Oral Azacitidine Maintenance Therapy Versus No Maintenance: A US Claims Database Study

Healthcare Utilization and Costs Among Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Oral Azacitidine Maintenance Therapy Versus No Maintenance: A US Claims Database Study

Introduction

The substantial economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) could be reduced with post-remission maintenance therapies that delay relapse. Real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data and costs among patients with AML receiving oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) maintenance therapy or no maintenance are not well understood. We characterize HCRU and costs among these patients in clinical practice in the USA.

Methods

Data from IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus (January 1, 2016–June 30, 2022) were used. Patients ≥ 18 years who were newly diagnosed with AML, received first-line systemic induction therapy, and attained disease remission were eligible. Patients receiving Oral-AZA maintenance and those receiving no maintenance (“watch and wait” [W&W]) were matched 1:3 on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM) and followed until hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or end of continuous insurance enrollment, whichever occurred first. Outcomes included treatment patterns, inpatient and outpatient visits, and costs.

Results

After PSM, the Oral-AZA cohort included 43 patients and the W&W cohort 129. Of the 43 patients receiving Oral-AZA, 88.4% started at the recommended dose of 300 mg and 11.6% at 200 mg. The Oral-AZA cohort had significantly (p = 0.0025) longer median (95% CI) time to relapse from the index maintenance date (median not reached [NR; 9.0 months–NR] vs 3.3 months [0.8 months–NR]), and fewer per person per month (PPPM) hospitalizations (0.23 vs 0.61; p = 0.0005) and overall outpatient visits (5.77 vs 7.58; p = 0.0391) than the W&W cohort. Despite higher AML drug costs PPPM in the Oral-AZA cohort ($16,401 vs $10,651 for W&W), total healthcare costs PPPM were lower ($25,786 vs $38,530 for W&W; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with Oral-AZA maintenance in clinical practice had prolonged remission and lower HCRU and costs than patients receiving no maintenance therapy. These findings underscore the clinical and economic value of Oral-AZA in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Therapy
Advances in Therapy 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.60%
发文量
353
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Therapy is an international, peer reviewed, rapid-publication (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance) journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of therapeutics and interventions (including devices) across all therapeutic areas. Studies relating to diagnostics and diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, communications and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world. Advances in Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信