Identification and cost of adverse events in metastatic breast cancer in taxane and capecitabine based regimens.

PurposeWe sought to compare the economic impact of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) using taxane- or capecitabine-based treatment regimens as either first- or second-line (FL or SL) therapy in the US.MethodsWe used healthcare claims data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Commercial Databases to conduct a retrospective cohort study comparing the economic impact of AEs amongst taxane- and capecitabine-treated mBC patients in the US. We selected women diagnosed with mBC between 2008-2010 who received a taxane or capecitabine as first- or second-line (FL or SL) chemotherapy. Costs related to hospitalization, outpatient services, emergency department visits, chemotherapy and other medications were tabulated and combined to determine total healthcare costs. The incremental monthly costs associated with the presence of AEs compared to no AEs were estimated using generalized linear models, controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index.ResultsWe identified 15,443 mBC patients meeting inclusion criteria. Adjusted total monthly costs were significantly higher in those who experienced AEs than in those without AEs in both lines of treatment (FL incremental cost: taxanes $1,142, capecitabine$1,817; SL incremental cost: taxanes $1,448, capecitabine$4,437). Total costs increased with the number of AEs and were primarily driven by increased hospitalization amongst those with AEs.ConclusionsAdverse events in taxane- or capecitabine-treated mBC patients are associated with significant increases in costs. Selecting treatment options associated with fewer AEs may reduce costs and improve outcomes in these patients

Implementation of comparative effectiveness research in personalized medicine applications in oncology: current and future perspectives

Personalized medicine (PM) or precision medicine has been defined as an innovative approach that takes into account individual differences in people's genes, environments, and lifestyles in prevention and treatment of disease. In PM, genomic information may contribute to the molecular understanding of disease, to optimize preventive health care strategies, and to fit the best drug therapies to the patient's individual characteristics. Evidence development in the era of genomic medicine is extremely challenging due to a number of factors. These include the rapid technological innovation in molecular diagnostics and targeted drug discoveries, and hence the large number of mutations and multiple ways these may influence treatment decisions. Although the evidence base for PM is evolving rapidly, the main question to be explored in this article is whether existing evidence is also fit for comparative effectiveness research (CER). As a starting point, this paper therefore reflects on the evidence required for CER and the evidence gaps preventing decisions on market access and coverage. The paper then discusses challenges and potential barriers for applying a CER paradigm to PM, identifies common methodologies for designing clinical trials in PM, discusses various approaches for analyzing clinical trials to infer from population to individual level, and presents an example of a clinical trial in PM (The RxPONDER TRIAL) demonstrating good practice. The paper concludes with a future perspective, including modeling approaches for evidence synthesi

Estimating The Costs And Cost-effectiveness Of Promoting Mammography Screening Among US-based Latinas

Purpose: We characterize the costs and cost-effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW)-based intervention to promote screening mammography among US-based non-adherent Latinas. Methods: The parent study was a randomized controlled trial for 536 Latinas aged 42-74 years old who had sought care within a safety net health center in Western Washington. Participants were block-randomized within clinic to the control arm (usual care) or intervention arm (CHW-led motivational interviewing intervention). We used the perspective of the organization implementing promotional activities to characterize costs and cost-effectiveness. Cost data were categorized as program set-up and maintenance (initial training, booster/annual training) program implementation (administrative activities, intervention delivery); and, overhead/miscellaneous expenses. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost of screening for each additional woman screened between the intervention and control arms. Results: The respective costs per participant for standard care and the intervention arm were $69.96 and$300.99. There were no study arm differences in 1-year QALYs among women who completed a 12-month follow-up survey (intervention= 0.8827, standard care = 0.8841). Most costs pertained to program implementation and administrative activities specifically. The incremental cost per additional woman screened was $2,595.32. Conclusions: Our findings are within the ranges of costs and cost-effectiveness for other CHW programs to promote screening mammography among underserved populations. Our strong study design and focus on non-adherent women provides important strengths to this body of work, especially give implementation and dissemination science efforts regarding CHW-based health promotion for health disparity populations