Economic evaluation of rituximab in addition to standard of care chemotherapy for adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Expenditures in Young Adults with Hodgkin Lymphoma: NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers vs. Other Sites

BACKGROUND

Outcomes among Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) patients diagnosed between 22 and 39 years are worse than among those diagnosed <21 years, and have not seen the same improvement over time. Treatment at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) mitigates outcome disparities, but may be associated with higher expenditures.

METHODS

We examined cancer-related expenditures among 22-39 year-old HL patients diagnosed between 2001-2016 using de-identified administrative claims data (OptumLabs® Data Warehouse) (CCC: n=1,154; non-CCC: n=643). Adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical characteristics and months enrolled, multivariable general linear models modeled average monthly health-plan paid (HPP) expenditures, and incidence rate ratios compared CCC/non-CCC monthly visit rates.

RESULTS

In the year following diagnosis, CCC patients had higher HPP-expenditures ($12,869 vs. $10,688, p=0.001), driven by higher monthly rates of CCC non-treatment outpatient hospital visits (p=0.001) and per-visit expenditures for outpatient hospital chemotherapy ($632 vs. $259); higher CCC inpatient expenditures ($1,813 vs. $1,091, p=0.001) were driven by 3.1-times higher rates of chemotherapy admissions (p=0.001). Out-of-pocket expenditures were comparable (p=0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Young adults with Hodgkin lymphoma at CCCs saw higher health plan expenditures, but comparable out-of-pocket expenditures. Drivers of CCC expenditures included outpatient hospital utilization (monthly rates of non-therapy visits and per-visit expenditures for chemotherapy).

IMPACT

Higher HPP-expenditures at CCCs in the year following HL diagnosis likely reflect differences in facility structure and comprehensive care. For young adults, it is plausible to consider incentivizing CCC care to achieve superior outcomes while developing approaches to achieve long-term savings.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

Cost-effectiveness and drug wastage of immunotherapeutic agents for hematologic malignancies: a systematic review

Introduction: Novel immunotherapeutic agents (e.g. monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific T-cell engagers) as treatment options for hematologic malignancies continue to emerge. These agents have been used as the standard of care in specific disease states and are associated with high costs. Value assessment of these therapies is of critical importance for coverage and reimbursement decision-making.Areas covered: We identified 15 immunotherapeutic agents through the U.S. FDA approvals for hematologic malignancies until 2018 and systematically reviewed related cost-effectiveness studies. Additionally, we examined whether drug wastage was accounted for in these studies.Expert opinion: We reviewed 51 studies for 14 identified immunotherapeutic agents that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Three studies were observational-based, one study was model-based and incorporated observational data. The remaining studies were model-based with the majority of the model parameters extracted from randomized control trials (RCTs). Among 43 model-based economic evaluations, 13 studies accounted for drug wastage. Most of the studies showed favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of immunotherapeutic agents-containing regimens when compared with no immunotherapeutic agents-containing regimens. Alemtuzumab, brentuximab vedotin, and daratumumab were not considered cost-effective across all the studies. Further investigations are warranted to establish the value of recent immunotherapeutic agents for hematologic malignancies.

Expenditures among young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia by site of care

BACKGROUND

Individuals diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between the ages of 22 and 39 years experience worse outcomes than those diagnosed when they are 21 years old or younger. Treatment at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) mitigates these disparities but may be associated with higher expenditures.

METHODS

Using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), the cancer-related expenditures were examined among patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014. Multivariable generalized linear model with log-link modeled average monthly health-plan-paid (HPP) expenditures and amount owed by the patient (out-of-pocket [OOP]). Cost ratios were used to calculate excess expenditures (CCC vs non-CCC). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) compared CCC and non-CCC monthly visit rates. Models adjusted for sociodemographics, comorbidities, adverse events, and months enrolled.

RESULTS

Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were comparable between CCC (n = 160) and non-CCC (n = 139) patients. Higher monthly outpatient expenditures in CCC patients ($15,792 vs $6404; P < .001) were driven by outpatient hospital HPP expenditures. Monthly visit rates and per visit expenditures for nonchemotherapy visits (IRR = 1.6; P = .001; CCC = $8247, non-CCC = $1191) drove higher outpatient hospital expenditures among CCCs. Monthly OOP expenditures were higher at CCCs for outpatient care (P = .02). Inpatient HPP expenditures were significantly higher at CCCs ($25,918 vs $13,881; ꞵ = 0.9; P < .001) before accounting for adverse events but were no longer significant after adjusting for adverse events (ꞵ = 0.4; P = .1). Hospitalizations and length of stay were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Young adults with ALL at CCCs have higher expenditures, likely reflecting differences in facility structure, billing practices, and comprehensive patient care. It would be reasonable to consider CCCs comparable to the oncology care model and incentivize the framework to achieve superior outcomes and long-term cost savings.

LAY SUMMARY

Health care expenditures in young adults (aged 22-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are higher among patients at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) than those at non-CCCs. The CCC/non-CCC differences are significant among outpatient expenditures, which are driven by higher rates of outpatient hospital visits and outpatient hospital expenditures per visit at CCCs. Higher expenditures and visit rates of outpatient hospital visits among CCCs may also reflect how facility structure and billing patterns influence spending or comprehensive care. Young adults at CCCs face higher inpatient HPP expenditures; these are driven by serious adverse events.

Monoclonal Antibodies, Bispecific Antibodies and Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Oncohematology

Background:

The therapeutic outcomes and the prognosis of patients with various hematologic malignancies are not always ideal with the current standard of care.

Objective:

The aim of this study is to analyze the results of the use of monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates for the therapy of malignant hemopathies.

Methods:

A mini-review was achieved using the articles published in Web of Science and PubMed between January 2017 and January 2020 and the new patents were made in this field.

Results:

Naked monoclonal antibodies have improved the therapeutic results obtained with standard of care, but they also have side effects and the use of some of them can lead to the loss of the target antigen through trogocytosis, which explains the resistance that occurs during therapy. The results obtained with naked monoclonal antibodies have been improved by a better monoclonal antibody preparation, the use of bispecific antibodies (against two antigens on the target cell surface or by binding both surface antigen on target cells and T-cell receptor complex, followed by cytotoxic T-lymphocytes activation and subsequent cytolysis of the target cell), the use of monoclonal or bispecific constructs in frontline regimens, combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy, including through the use of antibody-drug conjugates (which provides a targeted release of a chemotherapeutic agent).

Conclusion:

Immunotherapy and immuno-chemotherapy have improved the outcome of the patients with malignant hemopathies through a targeted, personalized therapy, with reduced systemic toxicity, which in some cases can even induce deep complete remissions, including minimal residual disease negativity.