Patient preferences for treatment attributes in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a discrete choice experiment.

Evidence on treatment preferences of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in the United States (US) is limited and an assessment of treatment preferences in this group is warranted. An online discrete choice experiment survey was conducted (June 2023) among US adults with self-reported moderate-to-severe AD or experience with systemic therapy who had inadequate response to topical treatments. Preference weights estimated from conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate willingness to trade off and attributes' relative importance (RI).

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs of patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer treated with ribociclib versus other CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Aims: To assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs among women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- aBC) treated with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors.

Methods: Women with HR+/HER2- aBC, initiating CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment were identified using IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (Q1/2000-Q3/2018). Based on the first CDK4/6 inhibitor patients received (index therapy), three cohorts were identified: , , and .

Evaluation of access to care issues in patients with breast cancer.

Aims: System-level efforts have been deployed to improve oncology care and access while reducing utilization and costs. Understanding the nature of access to care from the perspective of patients themselves is an unmet need. This study examined access to care in a population of women with breast cancer and its relationship to overall patient satisfaction.

Multiple sclerosis relapse rates and healthcare costs of two versions of glatiramer acetate.

To compare relapse rates and healthcare costs in MS patients treated with Glatopa 20 mg (generic glatiramer acetate) versus Copaxone 20 mg in a US managed care population. A retrospective claims study was conducted using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Patients with ≥1 Glatopa or Copaxone claim between 01 April 2015 (Glatopa) or 01 January 2013 (Copaxone) and 30 April 2018 were included.

Economic modeling for the US of the cost-efficiency and associated expanded treatment access of conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez from reference pegfilgrastim.

For this economic analysis, we aimed to model: (1) the cost-efficiency of prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) compared to reference pegfilgrastim, and (2) the expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis and anti-neoplastic treatment that could be achieved with biosimilar cost-savings on a budget-neutral basis. In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis and using the average sales price (ASP) for the second quarter of 2019 for reference pegfilgrastim, we: conducted an simulation from the payer perspective of the cost-savings of 10-100% conversion from reference to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez using drug price discounting ranging from 10-35%; estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez enabled by these cost-savings; and estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab. The simulations were replicated using fourth quarter 2019 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for reference pegfilgrastim and biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez in a analysis.

Febrile neutropenia hospitalization due to pegfilgrastim on-body injector failure compared to single-injection pegfilgrastim and daily injections with reference and biosimilar filgrastim: US cost simulation for lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Guidelines recommend febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis following myelotoxic chemotherapy with either daily injections of filgrastim (Neupogen) or biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarzio/Zarxio), single-injection pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), or pegfilgrastim administered through an on-body injector (PEG-OBI; Neulasta Onpro). PEG-OBI failure rates up to 6.9% have been reported, putting patients at incremental risk for FN and FN-related hospitalization.

Incidence of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy among patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving filgrastim vs a filgrastim biosimilar.

Background: Filgrastim and other granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are recommended to decrease febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy. Data comparing biosimilar filgrastim-sndz with reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) are limited outside of clinical trials in the US.

Objective: To compare the incidence of FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 between patients treated with filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref.

Cost-savings for biosimilars in the United States: a theoretical framework and budget impact case study application using filgrastim.

Background: Biosimilars can directly reduce the cost of treating patients for whom a reference biologic is indicated by offering a highly similar, lower priced alternative. We examine factors related to biosimilar regulatory approval, uptake, pricing, and financing and the potential impact on drug expenditures in the U.S.

Clinical Outcomes of Treatment with Filgrastim Versus a Filgrastim Biosimilar and Febrile Neutropenia-Associated Costs Among Patients with Nonmyeloid Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy.

Background: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim are used to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Although the biosimilar filgrastim-sndz has been approved in the United States since 2015, limited real-world comparisons of filgrastim-sndz versus reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) have been conducted.

Objective: To compare FN incidence and assess overall FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among U.

Expanded access to cancer treatments from conversion to neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz.

Aim: Biosimilar medicines offer significant cost-savings potential over their reference products, which can be re-allocated to provide access to other cancer treatments on a budget-neutral basis.

Methods: Simulation study using cost data for the USA under consideration of several prophylaxis patterns.

Results: Potential savings from conversion from reference filgrastim to biosimilar filgrastim-sndz are significant.

Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia.

Aims: Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis.

Methods: A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1-14 days' time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL).

Statin treatment patterns and clinical profile of patients with risk factors for coronary heart disease defined by National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.

Objective: To compare clinical characteristics, statin treatment patterns and adherence among patients at different risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) as defined by National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines.

Methods: Patients ≥ 18 years old with ≥ 1 claim for dyslipidemia, ≥ 1 statin claim, or ≥ 1 LDL-C value ≥ 100 mg/dL were identified from 1 January 2007 to 31 July 2012. Patients were classified as low risk (LR) (0-1 risk factor: hypertension, age ≥ 45 years [men] or ≥ 55 years [women], or low HDL-C), moderate/moderately high risk (MR) (≥ 2 risk factors), high risk (HR) (CHD or CHD risk equivalent), or very high risk (VHR) (acute coronary syndrome, or established cardiovascular disease plus diabetes or metabolic syndrome).

Willingness to pay to prevent chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting among patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer.

Objective: Understanding the value patients place on avoiding various aspects of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can help medical professionals assess whether current and emerging treatments are acceptable based on their costs and expected effects. Little is known, however, about the value patients place on avoiding various aspects of CINV. The current study helps fill this gap in the literature.

The impact of initial statin treatment decisions on cardiovascular outcomes in clinical care settings: estimates using the Archimedes Model.

Purpose: Many patients treated for dyslipidemia do not achieve recommended cholesterol goals despite the widespread availability of effective statins. Pharmaceutical claims show a strong tendency for patients to remain on their initially assigned treatment. With computer simulations, the impact of initial statin treatment decisions on medium- and long-term cardiovascular outcomes were examined.

Impact of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: 1st generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), and palonosetron, a 2nd generation 5-HT3 RA, are indicated for the prevention of chemotherapy (CT)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately (MEC) and highly emetogenic CT agents (HEC). This study explores the impact of step therapy policies requiring use of an older 5-HT3 RA before palonosetron on risk of CINV associated with hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.

Methods: Patients who received cyclophosphamide post breast cancer (BC) surgery or who were diagnosed with lung cancer on carboplatin (LC-carboplatin) or cisplatin (LC-cisplatin) were selected from PharMetrics' (IMS LifeLink) claims dataset (2005-2008).

The burden of diurnal and nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms.

Aims: To quantify the relationship between the timing of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and the burden of illness.

Patients & Methods: Data from the 2010 National Health and Wellness Survey were used. Regression analyses compared non-GERD controls with GERD patients with diurnal symptoms, nocturnal symptoms, and both diurnal and nocturnal symptoms, controlling for potential confounders.

Impact of initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus ondansetron on risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer receiving multi-day chemotherapy.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) among lung cancer patients receiving multi-day chemotherapy and ondansetron- or palonosetron-initiated prophylactic antiemetic regimens in a community oncology setting.

Methods: The Georgia Cancer Specialists electronic medical records database was used to retrospectively identify lung cancer patients who received multi-day cisplatin or carboplatin regimens with ondansetron or palonosetron on day 1 between April 1, 2006 and July 31, 2009. Uncontrolled CINV events were identified through ICD-9-CM codes (nausea/vomiting), CPT codes (dehydration), rescue medications, nausea/vomiting hospitalizations, and/or antiemetic therapy after last chemotherapy administration of the cycle.

Impact of 5-HT(3) RA selection within triple antiemetic regimens on uncontrolled highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting.

Background: It is recommended that patients initiate triple antiemetic therapy with one of the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs), aprepitant (or its intravenous prodrug fosaprepitant) and dexamethasone prior to the start of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, the impact of 5-HT(3) RA selection within triple antiemetic regimens on the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with HEC has not been well studied.

Aim: To assess the likelihood of an uncontrolled CINV event following antiemetic prophylaxis with the 5-HT(3) RA palonosetron + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone (palonosetron cohort) versus any of the other 5-HT(3) RAs + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone (other 5-HT(3) RA cohort) among single-day HEC cycles.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in patients with cancer treated with low emetogenic chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States.

Background: The incidence of overall (acute and delayed) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events among patients treated with single- and multi-day low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) is not well established. We studied a cohort of patients receiving LEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) versus other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT(3)-RAs) (Group 2), to determine the overall rate of CINV and the proportion of patients experiencing delayed CINV (days 2-7 of a CT cycle) in a hospital outpatient setting.

Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with cancer diagnosis initiating single-day and multi-day LEC for the first time between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective database.

Palonosetron versus other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer on chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient setting.

Background: Despite favorable evidence from clinical trials for single-dose palonosetron versus other commercially available 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), clinical comparative data are scarce from hospital outpatient settings, where these antiemetic agents are used in patients diagnosed with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy (CTH).

Objective: The purpose of our retrospective study was to assess the hospital claims to evaluate the rate of uncontrolled CINV with antiemetic prophylaxis using palonosetron versus other 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists in patients diagnosed with cancer who are receiving CTH (highly emetogenic CTH, moderately emetogenic CTH, low-emetogenic CTH, or minimally emetogenic CTH) treatment in a hospital outpatient setting.

Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years who had cancer and were being treated with CTH and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (Group 2) for the first time between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2009, were identified using a hospital-service database.

Palonosetron versus other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with hematologic malignancies treated with emetogenic chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States.

Objective: This study evaluated the rate of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists (RAs) in patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies (lymphoma and leukemia) and receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in a hospital outpatient setting.

Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years and diagnosed with hematologic malignancies initiating HEC or MEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT₃ RAs (Group 2) for the first time in a hospital outpatient setting between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective Database. Within each cycle, CINV events were identified (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) through ICD-9 codes for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion (from each CT administration day 1 until the end of the CT cycle), or use of rescue medications (day 2 until the end of the CT cycle).

Likelihood of a subsequent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) event in patients receiving low, moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC/MEC/HEC).

Objective: To assess the likelihood of subsequent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events following a first chemotherapy administration CINV event in patients receiving single-day low, moderately, or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC, MEC, or HEC).

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted utilizing Georgia Cancer Specialists, Florida Cancer Specialists, and ACORN electronic medical records databases (April 2006 through July 2009). Patients were included who received more than one single-day LEC, MEC, or HEC administration (oral or intravenous) with no chemotherapy 3 months prior to the first LEC, MEC, or HEC administration.

Clinical and economic burden of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with cancer in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States.

Objective: This study evaluated the overall burden of illness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and associated all-cause costs from a hospital's perspective (costs to the hospital) in patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy (CT) in the US hospital outpatient setting.

Methods: Patients with a cancer diagnosis aged ≥18 years initiating CT in a hospital outpatient setting for the first time between April 1 2007 and March 31 2009 were extracted from the Premier Perspective Database. Patients were followed through eight CT cycles or 6 months post-index date, whichever occurred first.