• Curr Med Res Opin · Aug 2015

    Costs, resource utilization, and treatment patterns for patients with metastatic melanoma in a commercially insured setting.

    • Edmond L Toy, Francis Vekeman, Michael C Lewis, Alan K Oglesby, and Mei Sheng Duh.
    • a a Analysis Group Inc. , Denver , CO , USA.
    • Curr Med Res Opin. 2015 Aug 1; 31 (8): 1561-72.

    ObjectiveTo estimate real-world healthcare costs, resource utilization, and treatment patterns among metastatic melanoma (MM) patients who received a therapy recommended in current treatment guidelines during 2011 and 2012, following approval in the US of novel therapies (ipilimumab and vemurafenib).Research Design And MethodsAdministrative claims data were used in a retrospective, longitudinal, open cohort study. Adult MM patients were identified using ICD-9 codes. Therapy-based patient cohorts and index dates were defined by the first receipt of a therapy of interest: ipilimumab, vemurafenib, paclitaxel (alone and in combination), interleukin-2, dacarbazine (alone and in combination), or temozolomide. The follow-up period extended until the end of eligibility or data availability. A multivariate regression model was used to compare outcomes of the ipilimumab and vemurafenib cohorts, controlling for baseline and demographic characteristics.Main Outcome MeasuresDirect healthcare costs (2013 US dollars) and utilization (incidence rates) were measured on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis for each treatment cohort. Treatment patterns were assessed, including the frequency of patients receiving a second therapy of interest.ResultsThe study population included 834 patients (265 ipilimumab, 234 vemurafenib, 174 paclitaxel, 104 interleukin-2, 46 dacarbazine, and 11 temozolomide). Costs ranged from $10,879 PPPM (temozolomide) to $35,472 PPPM (ipilimumab). Adjusted total costs were $18,337 PPPM higher for the ipilimumab vs. the vemurafenib cohort (p < 0.001), primarily due to higher outpatient costs. Multivariate analysis did not find significant differences in resource utilization between ipilimumab and vemurafenib, except that ipilimumab patients had fewer outpatient visits (excluding treatment visits). Ipilimumab and vemurafenib patients received a second therapy of interest (12% and 11%, respectively) less frequently than interleukin-2 and dacarbazine patients.ConclusionsThe cost and resource utilization burden of MM is high and varies substantially across treatment cohorts. The two novel therapies, ipilimumab and vemurafenib, have quickly been adopted and are the most frequently used therapies. The results observed during the approximately 6 month follow-up period may not be representative of the full clinical experience of patients with MM.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.