Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention informed by real-world data

Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitors following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CYP2C19 genotype can guide DAPT selection, prescribing ticagrelor or prasugrel for loss-of-function (LOF) allele carriers (genotype-guided escalation). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are traditionally grounded in clinical trial data. We conduct a CEA using real-world data using a 1-year decision-analytic model comparing primary strategies: universal empiric clopidogrel (base case), universal ticagrelor, and genotype-guided escalation. We also explore secondary strategies commonly implemented in practice, wherein all patients are prescribed ticagrelor for 30 days post PCI. After 30 days, all patients are switched to clopidogrel irrespective of genotype (nonguided de-escalation) or to clopidogrel only if patients do not harbor an LOF allele (genotype-guided de-escalation). Compared with universal clopidogrel, both universal ticagrelor and genotype-guided escalation were superior with improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALY’s). Only genotype-guided escalation was cost-effective ($42,365/QALY) and demonstrated the highest probability of being cost-effective across conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. In the secondary analysis, compared with the nonguided de-escalation strategy, although genotype-guided de-escalation and universal ticagrelor were more effective, with ICER of$188,680/QALY and $678,215/QALY, respectively, they were not cost-effective. CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet prescribing is cost-effective compared with either universal clopidogrel or universal ticagrelor using real-world implementation data. The secondary analysis suggests genotype-guided and nonguided de-escalation may be viable strategies, needing further evaluation

Health Care Utilization and Costs Associated With Systemic First-Line Metastatic Melanoma Therapies in the United States

PURPOSE: US Food and Drug Administration approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Our aim was to assess health care resource utilization and costs for patients with metastatic melanoma treated with systemic therapies in first line between January 2012 and December 2017. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic melanoma using MarketScan data. We included patients diagnosed with melanoma and secondary malignant neoplasm who used pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, BRAF-inhibitor (BRAF-i) plus MEK inhibitor (MEK-i), BRAF-i or MEK-i monotherapy, or chemotherapy in first line. We compared health care utilization and costs per patient per month (PPPM) using two-part and generalized linear models. RESULTS: We identified 1,870 patients, including 185 pembrolizumab, 103 nivolumab, 689 ipilimumab, 185 nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 214 BRAF-i plus MEK-i, 240 BRAF-i or MEK-i monotherapy, and 254 chemotherapy users. Highest PPPM rates of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and outpatient visits were observed in patients with ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy (adjusted difference v pembrolizumab [aDiff], 0.18, 0.12, and 0.88, respectively; all P &lt; .001). Ipilimumab monotherapy users (aDiff, 0.07 and 0.93; all P &lt; .001) and chemotherapy users (aDiff, 0.10 and 2.63; all P &lt; .001) showed higher PPPM rates of hospitalizations and outpatient visits compared with pembrolizumab users, respectively. Utilization rates in nivolumab, BRAF-i plus MEK-i, and BRAF-i or MEK-i groups were similar to the pembrolizumab group. Highest PPPM total costs and drug-related costs were observed in the ipilimumab group ($80,139 US dollars [USD] and$70,051 USD; all P &lt; .001), followed by the ipilimumab plus nivolumab ($71,689 USD and$56,217 USD; all P &lt; .001) and the BRAF-i plus MEK-i group ($31,184 USD and$19,648 USD; all P &lt; .001). PPPM costs in the nivolumab group were similar to the pembrolizumab group. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in health care resource utilization and costs were found across first-line metastatic melanoma regimens. Utilization rates were highest in patients using ipilimumab-containing therapies. High drug costs constituted a major fraction of total PPPM health care costs. </jats:sec

Trends, characteristics, race, and ethnicity associated with nonadherence to antidepressants among breast cancer survivors with depression

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in the United States, and half of breast cancer survivors experience major depressive disorders (hereafter depression). Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures evaluating depression treatment practices recommend uninterrupted antidepressant treatment for 3 months in the acute phase and 3 months in the continuation phase for the general population. However, little is known about the extent of and trends in antidepressant nonadherence among breast cancer survivors with depression, which may impact adherence to breast cancer treatment, potentially leading to breast cancer recurrence and other adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine the trends and characteristics associated with antidepressant nonadherence among breast cancer survivors with depression in the United States. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results linked with Medicare data (2010-2019) for women with breast cancer and depression who newly initiated antidepressant use. Using HEDIS measures of nonadherence (ie, antidepressant prescription coverage ≤84 days of the 114-day acute phase or ≤180 days of the 231-day continuation phase), we calculated the annual crude prevalence of antidepressant nonadherence and examined trends using unadjusted logistic regression. Multivariable logistic regression identified characteristics associated with antidepressant nonadherence. RESULTS: Among 9,452 eligible breast cancer survivors with depression (aged ≥65 years = 84% and White race = 82%), the crude prevalence of antidepressant nonadherence decreased from 2010 to 2019 for both the acute (49% to 40%; Ptrend&lt;0.001) and continuation (67% to 57%; Ptrend&lt;0.001) phases. Factors significantly associated with higher odds of antidepressant nonadherence in both the acute and continuation phases included Black race (odds ratios [ORs] [95% CI] for the acute/continuation phases: 2.0 [1.7-2.4]/2.0 [1.7-2.3]) and Hispanic ethnicity (1.5 [1.1-1.9]/2.2 [1.6-2.9]) compared with White race; receiving the first antidepressant from an oncologist vs a psychiatrist (1.4 [1.1-1.8]/1.6 [1.2-2.0]); and using antidepressants not recommended for older adults by the Beers criteria (2.2 [1.6-2.9]/2.0 [1.4-2.7]). Factors associated with lower odds of antidepressant nonadherence in both phases included receiving lymph node dissection (0.7 [0.5-0.9]/0.7 [0.5-0.9]), receiving endocrine therapy (0.9 [0.8-0.9]/0.8 [0.7-0.9]), having a higher National Cancer Institute comorbid index (0.8 [0.7-0.8]/0.9 [0.8-0.9]), having a follow-up visit with a psychiatrist (0.9 [0.8-0.9]/0.9 [0.8-0.9]), and switching to different antidepressants (0.7 [0.6-0.8]/0.7 [0.7-0.8]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite antidepressant nonadherence prevalence decreasing from 2010 to 2019, over half of breast cancer survivors with depression and Medicare were nonadherent in the continuation phase. Patients with identified nonadherence risk factors may benefit from close monitoring and targeted interventions. DISCLOSURES: Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic reported grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA044985 and R01DA050676), the National Institute on Aging (R21AG060308), the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH121907), Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, the Richard King Mellon Foundation at the University of Pittsburgh, the Clinical and Translational Science Institute of the University of Florida, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Foundation, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs outside the submitted work; in addition, Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic has a patent pending for U1195.70174US00. Haesuk Park reported grants from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance American Thrombosis Investigator Initiated Research Program (ARISTA-USA) outside the submitted work. Juan M. Hincapie-Castillo reported grants from Merck outside the submitted work. Debbie Wilson reported grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Aging, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme, and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work; and serving as an editorial board member for the Journal of Pharmacy Technology. Ching-Yuan Chang's contributions to this manuscript were made while at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy. Ching-Yuan Chang is currently employed by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vertex did not fund or have any involvement in this study or publication. Vakaramoko Diaby is currently employed by Otsuka, Inc. Otsuka did not fund or have any involvement in this study or publication. No other disclosures were reported

Association Between Trajectories of Prescription Opioid Use and Risk of Opioid Use Disorder and Overdose Among US Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer Survivors

Abstract Purpose To examine the association between prescription opioid use trajectories and risk of opioid use disorder (OUD) or overdose among nonmetastatic breast cancer survivors by treatment type. Methods This retrospective cohort study included female nonmetastatic breast cancer survivors with at least 1 opioid prescription fill in 2010–2019 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results linked Medicare data. Opioid mean daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) calculated within 1.5 years after initiating active breast cancer therapy. Group-based trajectory models identified distinct opioid use trajectory patterns. Risk of time to first OUD/overdose event within 2.5 years after breast cancer therapy initiation was calculated for distinct trajectory groups using Cox proportional hazards models. Analyses were stratified by treatment type. Results Four opioid use trajectories were identified for each treatment group. For 38,265 survivors with systemic endocrine therapy, 3 trajectories were associated with increased OUD/overdose risk compared with early discontinuation: minimal dose (&lt; 5 MME; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 4.46 [95% CI = 3.09–6.43]), very low dose (5–25 MME; 15.60 [10.74–22.67]), and moderate dose (51–90 MME; 58.55 [39.92–85.86]). For 9,558 survivors with adjuvant chemotherapy, 3 trajectories were associated with higher OUD/overdose risks compared with early discontinuation: minimal dose (aHR = 3.80 [95% CI = 1.98–7.32]), low dose (26–50 MME; 11.66 [6.01–22.61]), and high dose (91–150 MME; 16.49 [5.90-46.09]). For 3,550 survivors with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, low-dose opioid use was associated with higher OUD/overdose risk (aHR = 5.60 [95% CI = 1.91–16.45]) compared with minimal-dose use. Conclusions Among Medicare nonmetastatic breast cancer survivors receiving systemic endocrine therapy or adjuvant chemotherapy, compared with early discontinuation, moderate-dose and high-dose opioid use were associated with 17- to 59-fold higher OUD/overdose risk. For females receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, low-dose opioid use was associated with 6-fold higher OUD/overdose risk compared with minimal-dose use. Breast cancer survivors at high-risk of OUD/overdose may benefit from targeted interventions (e.g., pain clinic referral).</jats:p