ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018
Real-world analysis of cost, health care resource utilization, and supportive care in Hodgkin lymphoma patients with frontline failure.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bonafede Machaon, Feliciano Joseph, Cai Qian, Noxon Virginia, Princic Nicole, Richhariya Akshara, Straus David J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic burden of frontline failure (FLF) among classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients during and after treatment.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The population consisted of adult HL patients identified from January 2010 through September 2015 without any other primary cancer prior to HL diagnosis, who also had a frontline (FL) regimen indicative of curative intent. Patients were characterized as FLF (those who restart, switch to any chemotherapy; had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant; or newly initiated radiation therapy [RT] after discontinuing FL) or non-FLF (those not considered as FLF). Direct health care utilization and expenditures were measured over both fixed and variable length follow-up periods and during FL therapy.
RESULTS: There were 77 FLF and 602 non-FLF patients who met the final inclusion criteria. FLF and non-FLF patients were demographically similar with mean age 38.5 years and 47.5% females. Average per patient per month (PPPM) costs were significantly higher for FLF patients during all follow-up (US$20,266 vs US$7,772, P<0.05). Annual total expenditures were significantly higher among FLF patients (US$198,388) vs non-FLF patients (US$37,549). FLF (vs non-FLF) patients had a significantly shorter duration of FL therapy (116 vs 131 days, P=0.024) and higher total PPPM expenditures during FL (US$29,040 vs US$16,369, P<0.05). Annual cost varied by failure type with those who failed due to restart incurring the highest cost (US$269,189) and those who switched incurring the lowest cost (US$46,951). FLF patients had a significantly greater utilization in every health care resource category during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: FLF (vs non-FLF) patients utilized substantially more health care resources and incurred a substantially higher economic burden. Over 5 years, FLF patients with at least two lines of treatment were projected to incur US$535,846 of health care costs. Further research is needed to determine optimal treatment that could reduce the risk of progression, need for treatment after FL, and enhance long-term clinical and economic outcomes.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The population consisted of adult HL patients identified from January 2010 through September 2015 without any other primary cancer prior to HL diagnosis, who also had a frontline (FL) regimen indicative of curative intent. Patients were characterized as FLF (those who restart, switch to any chemotherapy; had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant; or newly initiated radiation therapy [RT] after discontinuing FL) or non-FLF (those not considered as FLF). Direct health care utilization and expenditures were measured over both fixed and variable length follow-up periods and during FL therapy.
RESULTS: There were 77 FLF and 602 non-FLF patients who met the final inclusion criteria. FLF and non-FLF patients were demographically similar with mean age 38.5 years and 47.5% females. Average per patient per month (PPPM) costs were significantly higher for FLF patients during all follow-up (US$20,266 vs US$7,772, P<0.05). Annual total expenditures were significantly higher among FLF patients (US$198,388) vs non-FLF patients (US$37,549). FLF (vs non-FLF) patients had a significantly shorter duration of FL therapy (116 vs 131 days, P=0.024) and higher total PPPM expenditures during FL (US$29,040 vs US$16,369, P<0.05). Annual cost varied by failure type with those who failed due to restart incurring the highest cost (US$269,189) and those who switched incurring the lowest cost (US$46,951). FLF patients had a significantly greater utilization in every health care resource category during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: FLF (vs non-FLF) patients utilized substantially more health care resources and incurred a substantially higher economic burden. Over 5 years, FLF patients with at least two lines of treatment were projected to incur US$535,846 of health care costs. Further research is needed to determine optimal treatment that could reduce the risk of progression, need for treatment after FL, and enhance long-term clinical and economic outcomes.