Real-World Assessment of Health Care Costs for Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Following Initiation of First-Line Chemotherapy.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Ambulatory Care
/ economics
Antineoplastic Agents
/ administration & dosage
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ administration & dosage
Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal
/ drug therapy
Cohort Studies
Deoxycytidine
/ administration & dosage
Female
Fluorouracil
/ administration & dosage
Follow-Up Studies
Health Care Costs
/ trends
Hospitalization
/ economics
Humans
Irinotecan
/ administration & dosage
Leucovorin
/ administration & dosage
Male
Middle Aged
Oxaliplatin
/ administration & dosage
Pancreatic Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Retrospective Studies
Gemcitabine
Journal
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
ISSN: 2376-1032
Titre abrégé: J Manag Care Spec Pharm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101644425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
entrez:
26
6
2020
pubmed:
26
6
2020
medline:
2
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Management of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA) places a significant financial burden on the U.S. health care system because of such factors as treatment with multidrug chemotherapy regimens, management of chemotherapy-related adverse events, and disease- or treatment-related hospitalizations. Depending on functional status, first-line chemotherapy regimens that are guideline recommended include To describe health care costs following initiation of first-line treatment with AG or FFX among patients with mPDA. Retrospective cohorts of first-line AG and FFX initiators were constructed from the MarketScan database (2014-2017). The index date was the date of first-line AG or FFX initiation. Included patients had insurance enrollment for 6 months before the index date. Total cumulative health care costs and costs from outpatient services, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, chemotherapy administrations, and pharmacy dispensing were assessed within 12 months after the index date (i.e., 0-1, 0-2, …, 0-12 months). Patient-level cost data began accruing from the first paid claim and continued accruing until the censoring date. A total of 2,199 patients with mPDA initiated first-line AG (n = 1,352) or FFX (n = 847). Compared with AG initiators, FFX patients were younger (mean age 59 vs. 63 years) and had better baseline health status, with fewer having diabetes (43% vs. 57%) or coronary artery disease (12% vs. 22%). Median follow-up was 5.4 and 7.2 months for AG and FFX, respectively. Median first-line treatment duration was 2.1 months with AG and 2.3 months with FFX. Six months following first-line treatment initiation, total cumulative health care costs (median) were $85,714 (95% CI = $79,683-$91,788) and $114,116 (95% CI = $105,816-$119,591) for AG and FFX initiators, respectively. Outpatient services contributed the largest fractional cost for both groups. Total health care costs for patients with mPDA who initiated FFX or AG are driven mostly by outpatient rather than inpatient costs. Further research, using comparative methodology, is warranted to fully understand cost drivers and whether higher costs for FFX patients relate primarily to use of FFX or higher underlying use of outpatient care among FFX patients. This study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. Oestreicher and Yeganegi were employees of Halozyme Therapeutics at the time of the study and were involved in study design, data interpretation, and the decision to submit the data for publication. Bullock reports advisory board fees from Eisai, Exelixis, Bayer, and Taiho and consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Rowan reports consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, during the conduct of the study. Chiorean reports grants and consulting fees from Celgene and Halozyme Therapeutics; grants from Lilly, Stemline, Ignyta, Roche, Merck, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Incyte, Macrogenics, Rafael, and AADi; and consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Array, Eisai, Ipsen, Five Prime Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Vicus, and Legend, outside the submitted work.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Management of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA) places a significant financial burden on the U.S. health care system because of such factors as treatment with multidrug chemotherapy regimens, management of chemotherapy-related adverse events, and disease- or treatment-related hospitalizations. Depending on functional status, first-line chemotherapy regimens that are guideline recommended include
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To describe health care costs following initiation of first-line treatment with AG or FFX among patients with mPDA.
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective cohorts of first-line AG and FFX initiators were constructed from the MarketScan database (2014-2017). The index date was the date of first-line AG or FFX initiation. Included patients had insurance enrollment for 6 months before the index date. Total cumulative health care costs and costs from outpatient services, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, chemotherapy administrations, and pharmacy dispensing were assessed within 12 months after the index date (i.e., 0-1, 0-2, …, 0-12 months). Patient-level cost data began accruing from the first paid claim and continued accruing until the censoring date.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 2,199 patients with mPDA initiated first-line AG (n = 1,352) or FFX (n = 847). Compared with AG initiators, FFX patients were younger (mean age 59 vs. 63 years) and had better baseline health status, with fewer having diabetes (43% vs. 57%) or coronary artery disease (12% vs. 22%). Median follow-up was 5.4 and 7.2 months for AG and FFX, respectively. Median first-line treatment duration was 2.1 months with AG and 2.3 months with FFX. Six months following first-line treatment initiation, total cumulative health care costs (median) were $85,714 (95% CI = $79,683-$91,788) and $114,116 (95% CI = $105,816-$119,591) for AG and FFX initiators, respectively. Outpatient services contributed the largest fractional cost for both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Total health care costs for patients with mPDA who initiated FFX or AG are driven mostly by outpatient rather than inpatient costs. Further research, using comparative methodology, is warranted to fully understand cost drivers and whether higher costs for FFX patients relate primarily to use of FFX or higher underlying use of outpatient care among FFX patients.
DISCLOSURES
BACKGROUND
This study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. Oestreicher and Yeganegi were employees of Halozyme Therapeutics at the time of the study and were involved in study design, data interpretation, and the decision to submit the data for publication. Bullock reports advisory board fees from Eisai, Exelixis, Bayer, and Taiho and consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Rowan reports consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, during the conduct of the study. Chiorean reports grants and consulting fees from Celgene and Halozyme Therapeutics; grants from Lilly, Stemline, Ignyta, Roche, Merck, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Incyte, Macrogenics, Rafael, and AADi; and consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Array, Eisai, Ipsen, Five Prime Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Vicus, and Legend, outside the submitted work.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32584677
doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2020.26.7.872
pmc: PMC10391015
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
folfirinox
0
Oxaliplatin
04ZR38536J
Deoxycytidine
0W860991D6
Irinotecan
7673326042
Leucovorin
Q573I9DVLP
Fluorouracil
U3P01618RT
Gemcitabine
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Pragmatic Clinical Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
872-878Références
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019 May 19;11:1758835919850367
pubmed: 31205510
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Apr 05;11(4):
pubmed: 30959763
Lancet. 2016 Jul 2;388(10039):73-85
pubmed: 26830752
Cancer Manag Res. 2017 Apr 21;9:141-148
pubmed: 28461766
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Aug;15(8):1028-1061
pubmed: 28784865
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 10;34(23):2784-96
pubmed: 27247222
Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2017 May;10(5):559-565
pubmed: 28286977
Adv Ther. 2018 Oct;35(10):1564-1577
pubmed: 30209750
Digestion. 2016;94(4):222-229
pubmed: 28030863
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 5:v56-68
pubmed: 26314780
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2015 Sep;46(3):201-11
pubmed: 25972062
Cancer. 2012 Oct 15;118(20):5132-9
pubmed: 22415469
Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2018 Sep;5(3):149-159
pubmed: 29946913
J Med Econ. 2013 Dec;16(12):1379-86
pubmed: 24074258
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Jan;67(1):7-30
pubmed: 28055103
Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Oct;10(10):1153-1160
pubmed: 28795609
J Med Econ. 2017 Apr;20(4):345-352
pubmed: 27919186
Med Oncol. 2016 May;33(5):48
pubmed: 27067436
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Sep 1;22(17):3524-30
pubmed: 15337801
PLoS Med. 2010 Apr 20;7(4):e1000267
pubmed: 20422030