Healthcare costs in patients with metastatic lung cancer receiving chemotherapy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To characterize healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with metastatic lung cancer receiving chemotherapy in the US.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using data from a large private multi-payer health insurance claims database (2000-2006), we identified all patients beginning chemotherapy for metastatic lung cancer. Healthcare resource use (inpatient, outpatient, medications) and costs were tallied over time from date of therapy initiation ("index date") to date of disenrollment from the health plan (in most instances, presumably due to death) or the end of the study period, whichever occurred first. Healthcare utilization and costs were characterized using Kaplan-Meier sample average methods.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The study population consisted of 4068 patients; mean (SD) age was 65 (11) years. Over a median follow-up of 334 days, study subjects averaged 1.5 hospital admissions, 8.9 total inpatient days, and 69 physician office and hospital outpatient visits. Mean (95% CI) cumulative total healthcare costs were $125,849 ($120,228, $131,231). Costs of outpatient medical services and inpatient care constituted 34% and 20% of total healthcare costs, respectively; corresponding estimates for outpatient chemotherapy and other medication were 22% and 24%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our study sheds additional light on the burden of metastatic lung cancer among patients receiving chemotherapy, in terms of total cost thru end of life as well as component costs by setting and type of service, and may be useful in informing medical resource allocation in this patient population.</p

Cost-effectiveness of pregabalin versus venlafaxine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: findings from a Spanish perspective

The objective of the present study was to describe a new model of the cost-effectiveness of treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and its application to a comparison of pregabalin versus venlafaxine extended-release (XR) from a Spanish healthcare perspective. Microsimulation techniques, including Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, number of weeks with minimal or no anxiety (HAM-A ≤ 9), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), were used to predict treatment outcomes for patients with moderate-to-severe GAD who would be treated with pregabalin vs venlafaxine XR. Expected levels of healthcare utilization and unit cost of care are derived from Spanish published sources. We express cost-effectiveness alternatively in terms of incremental cost per additional week with minimal or no anxiety, and incremental cost per QALY gained [in 2007 Euros (€)]. Considering costs of drug treatment only, the incremental cost [mean (95% confidence interval)] of pregabalin (vs venlafaxine XR) would be €96 (€86, €107) per additional week with minimal or no anxiety, and €32,832 (€29,656, €36,308) per QALY gained. When other medical care costs are considered, cost-effectiveness ratios decline to €70 (€61, €80) per additional week with no or minimal anxiety, and €23,909 (€20,820, €27,006) per QALY gained. We conclude that, using a new microsimulation model of the treatment of GAD, pregabalin appears to be cost-effective vs venlafaxine XR in a Spanish healthcare setting

Healthcare costs in women with metastatic breast cancer receiving chemotherapy as their principal treatment modality

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The economic costs of treating patients with metastatic breast cancer have been examined in several studies, but available estimates of economic burden are at least a decade old. In this study, we characterize healthcare utilization and costs in the US among women with metastatic breast cancer receiving chemotherapy as their principal treatment modality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a large private health insurance claims database (2000-2006), we identified all women initiating chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer with no evidence of receipt of concomitant or subsequent hormonal therapy, or receipt of trastuzumab at anytime. Healthcare utilization and costs (inpatient, outpatient, medication) were estimated on a cumulative basis from date of chemotherapy initiation ("index date") to date of disenrollment from the health plan or the end of the study period, whichever occurred first. Study measures were cumulated over time using the Kaplan-Meier Sample Average (KMSA) method; 95% CIs were generated using nonparametric bootstrapping. Findings also were examined among the subgroup of patients with uncensored data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The study population consisted of 1444 women; mean (SD) age was 59.1 (12.1) years. Over a mean follow-up of 532 days (range: 3 to 2412), study subjects averaged 1.7 hospital admissions, 10.7 inpatient days, and 83.6 physician office and hospital outpatient visits. Mean (95% CI) cumulative total healthcare costs were $128,556 ($118,409, $137,644) per patient. Outpatient services accounted for 29% of total costs, followed by medication other than chemotherapy (26%), chemotherapy (25%), and inpatient care (20%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Healthcare costs-especially in the outpatient setting--are substantial among women with metastatic breast cancer for whom treatment options other than chemotherapy are limited.</p

Effect of ivacaftor treatment in patients with cystic fibrosis and the G551D-CFTR mutation: patient-reported outcomes in the STRIVE randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited, rare autosomal recessive disease that results in chronically debilitating morbidities and high premature mortality. We evaluated how ivacaftor treatment affected CF symptoms, functioning, and well-being, as measured by the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R), a widely-used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure. METHODS: STRIVE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, evaluated ivacaftor (150 mg) in CF patients aged 12+ with the G551D-CFTR mutation for 48 weeks. Treatment effect analysis used a mixed-effects repeated measures model. Treatment benefit analyses applied the cumulative distribution function and a categorical analysis of change scores (“improvement,” “no change,” or “decline”). Content-based interpretation examined treatment effect on specific item responses. RESULTS: Data from 152 patients with a baseline CFQ-R assessment were analyzed. The treatment effect analysis favored treatment with ivacaftor over placebo on the Body Image, Eating, Health Perceptions, Physical Functioning, Respiratory, Social Functioning, Treatment Burden, and Vitality scales. Findings were supported by the analysis of categorical change. On all CFQ-R scales, the percentage of patients who improved was greater for ivacaftor. In the content-based analysis, the treatment benefit was characterized by better scores across a broad range of domains. CONCLUSIONS: Results illustrate broad benefits of ivacaftor treatment across many domains: respiratory symptoms, physical and social functioning, health perceptions, and vitality, as measured by the CFQ-R. The breadth of improvements reflects the systemic mechanism of action of ivacaftor compared to other therapies. Findings support the patient-reported value of ivacaftor treatment in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00909532 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0293-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Outcomes and Costs of Risperidone versus Olanzapine in Patients with Chronic Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorders: A Markov Model

AbstractObjectiveTo compare expected outcomes and costs of care in patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders who are treated with risperidone versus olanzapine.MethodsA Markov model was developed to examine outcomes and costs of care in patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders receiving risperidone or olanzapine. The time frame of interest was 1 year. The model focused particular attention on the likelihood of therapy switching and discontinuation as a result of treatment-emergent side effects, as the efficacy of these two agents is similar. Measures of interest included the incidence of relapse and selected side effects including extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), prolactin-related disorders and diabetes, expected change in body weight, and the percentage of patients remaining on initial therapy at the end of 1 year. Costs of antipsychotic therapy and psychiatric and nonpsychiatric services also were examined.ResultsAt 1 year, the rate of EPS was estimated to be slightly higher for risperidone, as was the incidence of symptomatic prolactin-related disorders. The expected incidence of diabetes mellitus, while low, was slightly higher for olanzapine. Approximately 25% and 4% of olanzapine and risperidone patients, respectively, were projected to experience an increase in body weight ≥ 7%. The estimated percentage of patients remaining on initial therapy at the end of 1 year was higher for risperidone than olanzapine (76.9% vs. 45.6%, respectively). Expected mean total costs of care per month of therapy were $2163 for risperidone and$2316 for olanzapine. Results from sensitivity analyses suggest that the probability of therapy discontinuation following weight gain > 5 kg would have to be lower than 0.1 for the number of patients remaining on therapy at the end of 1 year to be the same for risperidone and olanzapine.ConclusionsCompared with risperidone, treatment with olanzapine may result in greater increases in body weight, higher rates of therapy discontinuation, and higher costs of medical-care services