Treatment Switch Patterns and Healthcare Costs in Biologic-Naive Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis

Provide enhanced digital features for this article This Figshare page contains a Summary Slide and Plain Language Summary. If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced digital features for your article then please contact [email protected]. The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content. Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to: • Slide decks • Videos and animations • Audio abstracts • Audio slides</p

Supplemental Material, Supplemental_Table_1._Search_String - The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Pediatric Focal Seizures in the United States

Supplemental Material, Supplemental_Table_1._Search_String for The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Pediatric Focal Seizures in the United States by Sarah N. Gibbs, Jiyoon Choi, Ibrahim Khilfeh, K. Hamzah Ahmed, Irina Yermilov and Eric Segal in Journal of Child Neurology</p

Supplementary material: Switch rates and total cost associated with apremilast and biologics in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis

This is a peer-reviewed supplementary table for the article 'Switch rates and total cost associated with apremilast and biologics in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplementary Table 1. Treatment switch details.Summary: Aim: Real-world treatment data for psoriatic arthritis are limited. We evaluated switch rates, adherence, and costs for patients initiating apremilast versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and interleukin inhibitor (ILi) among biologic-naive psoriatic arthritis patients. Materials & methods: This retrospective analysis used IBM MarketScan claims data to assess treatment switches, adherence and costs. Results: Twelve-month switch rates were significantly lower for apremilast versus TNFi (15.5% vs 26.6%; p Conclusion: Biologic-naive apremilast initiators had lower switch rates versus TNFi initiators and lower total costs versus TNFi or ILi initiators.</p

Supplementary figure: Switch rates and total cost associated with apremilast and biologics in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis

This is a peer-reviewed supplementary figure for the article 'Switch rates and total cost associated with apremilast and biologics in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplementary Figure 1. Mean PPPM healthcare costs pre- and post-switch among patients who switched.Summary: Aim: Real-world treatment data for psoriatic arthritis are limited. We evaluated switch rates, adherence, and costs for patients initiating apremilast versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and interleukin inhibitor (ILi) among biologic-naive psoriatic arthritis patients. Materials & methods: This retrospective analysis used IBM MarketScan claims data to assess treatment switches, adherence and costs. Results: Twelve-month switch rates were significantly lower for apremilast versus TNFi (15.5% vs 26.6%; p Conclusion: Biologic-naive apremilast initiators had lower switch rates versus TNFi initiators and lower total costs versus TNFi or ILi initiators.</p

Characterizing the real-world economic burden of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in the United States

To describe healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Linked data from Flatiron Metastatic PC Core Registry and Komodo’s Healthcare Map were evaluated (01/2016-12/2021). Patients with chart-confirmed diagnoses for metastatic PC without confirmed castration resistance in Flatiron who initiated androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy or advanced therapy for mCSPC in 2017 or later (index date) with a corresponding pharmacy or medical claim in Komodo Health were included. Advanced therapies considered were androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors, chemotherapies, estrogens, immunotherapies, poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, and radiopharmaceuticals. Patients with Of 871 patients included (mean age: 70.6 years), 52% initiated ADT monotherapy as their index treatment without documented advanced therapy use. During baseline, 31% of patients had a PC-related inpatient admission and 94% had a PC-related outpatient visit; mean all-cause costs were $2551 PPPM and PC-related costs were$839 PPPM with $787 PPPM attributable to medical costs. Patients had a mean follow-up of 15 months, during which 38$5950 PPPM with PC-related total costs of $4363 PPPM, including medical costs of$2012 PPPM. All analyses were descriptive; statistical testing was not performed. Treatment effectiveness and clinical outcomes were not assessed. This real-world study demonstrated a significant economic burden in mCSPC patients, and a propensity to use ADT monotherapy in clinical practice despite the availability and guideline recommendations of advanced life-prolonging therapies. Prostate cancer is one of the most common causes of male cancer death. Almost 1/10 men who are diagnosed early develop advanced disease. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which reduces male hormone levels to slow prostate cancer growth, is part of the standard care for early-stage and advanced/metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. This form of cancer still responds to hormonal treatment. Recently, new advanced therapies targeting cancer in different ways than ADT and offering benefits in survival and disease progression have become available and are associated with improved survival compared to treatment with only ADT. However, the usage and costs of these therapies in men with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer are not well-understood. Our study utilized clinical information and health insurance data to examine the treatments and healthcare costs for 871 men with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who received drug treatment between 2017–2021 in the United States. After diagnosis of advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, over half of the men received only ADT without any advanced therapies. Before their disease advanced, patients with early-stage prostate cancer had $2,550 in monthly healthcare costs, increasing to almost$7,000 after the disease became advanced but before starting treatment for this advanced stage. After patients began treatment, costs were ∼$6,000 monthly, with three-quarters of this cost being directly related to prostate cancer. These results emphasize the significant healthcare costs associated with advanced prostate cancer. They underline the importance of considering comprehensive treatment options to enhance patient outcomes and potentially reduce the economic impact of advanced prostate cancer.</p

Biologic initiation rates in systemic-naive psoriasis patients after first-line apremilast versus methotrexate use - Supplemental Tables.docx

   Supplementary Table 1: Patient demographic characteristics and prescriber specialty    Supplementary Table 2: Baseline comorbidities    Supplementary Table 3: Baseline medication use    Supplementary Table 4: Baseline healthcare utilization, and costs    Supplementary Table 5: Number of index medication fills before biologic initiation during the 1-year follow-up period    Supplementary Table 6: First biologic medication used during the 1-year follow-up period among apremilast patients who initiated biologic    Supplementary Table 7: First biologic medication used during the 1-year follow-up period among methotrexate patients who initiated biologic    Supplementary Table 8: Biologic initiation adjusted results</p

Biologic initiation rates in systemic-naive psoriasis patients after first-line apremilast versus methotrexate use - Supplemental Figure.docx

   Supplementary Figure 1: Time to biologic initiation during the 2-year follow-up period among patients with 2 years of follow-up </p

Real-world economic burden of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer before and after first-line therapy initiation

To describe healthcare costs of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) initiating first-line (1L) therapies from a US payer perspective. Patients initiating a Flatiron oncologist-defined 1L mCRPC therapy (index date) on or after mCRPC diagnosis were identified from linked electronic medical records/claims data from the Flatiron Metastatic Prostate Cancer (PC) Core Registry and Komodo’s Healthcare Map. Patients were excluded if they initiated a clinical trial drug in 1L, had Among 459 patients with mCRPC (mean age 70 years, 57% White, 16% Black, 45% commercially-insured, 43% Medicare Advantage-insured, and 12% Medicaid-insured), average baseline all-cause total costs (PPPM) were $4,576 ($4,166 pre-mCRPC progression, $8,278 post-mCRPC progression). Average baseline PC-related total costs were$2,935 ($2,537 pre-mCRPC progression,$6,661 post-mCRPC progression). During an average 1L duration of 8.5 months, mean total costs were $13,746 (all-cause) and$12,061 (PC-related) PPPM. The cost increase following 1L therapy initiation was driven by higher PC-related outpatient and pharmacy costs. PC-related medical costs PPPM increased from $1,504 during baseline to$5,585 following 1L mCRPC therapy initiation. All analyses were descriptive; statistical testing was not performed. Incremental costs of progression to mCRPC are significant, with the majority of costs driven by higher PC-related costs. Using contemporary data, this study highlights the importance of utilizing effective therapies that slow progression and reduce healthcare resource demands despite the initial investment in treatment costs.</p