Delea, Thomas E.

e19504 Background: Initiation of bsAbs requires SUD with close monitoring, typically in IP settings, to mitigate early toxicities. As bsAb use expands, it is crucial to understand the financial viability for administering bsAbs, particularly non–PPS-exempt hospitals paid via a capitated, DRG-based method where costs may exceed payout. We compared net costs and payments for Medicare pts initiating bsAbs in the IP setting at non-PPS-exempt hospitals and explored cost variations for hospital characteristics and adverse events (AEs). Methods: Using Medicare FFS Parts A/B claims (10/25/21–10/20/24), pts ≥65 years with MM, IP bsAb initiation, and 12 mos continuous pre-index coverage were identified. Pts receiving other MM therapies <30 days post-index or treated in PPS-exempt hospitals were excluded. Hospital costs were estimated by applying revenue center–specific Medicare cost–charge ratios from CMS Hospital Cost Reports to IP facility charges. Outpatient (OP) bsAb costs were estimated using ASP/unit administered/wasted at the time of the claim. Costs for other OP services were estimated using revenue center–specific cost–charge ratios. Medicare payments were defined as total allowed amounts on IP and OP claims, and net cost as payments minus estimated costs. IP resource use and net cost recovery by academic vs nonacademic hospital, length of stay (LOS), and AEs were analyzed. Results: Of 3074 pts with a bsAb claim, 1129 met inclusion criteria. Mean IP LOS was 9 days (range 1–68). Hospital mean estimated IP cost/day for index hospitalization was $3963. Mean estimated costs for index hospitalization were $36964 per pt for IP SUD and $28366 for mean Medicare payments with a mean loss of $8598 per pt (median −$5616). Payments exceeded estimated costs on average by $2764–8149 for 1–4-day hospitalizations and roughly equal costs for hospitalizations at 5 days. For pts with LOS of 6–9 days and ≥10 days, payments were lower than costs by $6735 and $16659, respectively, suggesting a loss. For pts with subsequent OP administrations (74%) observable in this sample, cumulative payments and costs were assessed following the index hospitalization, mean cumulative longitudinal payments were ≥ cumulative costs within 2–3 mos. IP stay net losses were higher among pts with infection (−$6406 vs no infection), neutropenia (−$7006), and febrile neutropenia (−$10018). Payment patterns and estimated costs were similar across hospital types. Conclusions: Results suggest a large financial burden on non-PPS-exempt hospitals for IP-administered bsAb SUD. While shorter LOS for IP SUD generally did not result in financial losses, longer LOS was associated with disproportionately higher costs relative to payments. Care models (e.g. OP SUD) are key to manage initiation costs and ensure delivery of care for bsAbs remains financially sustainable.

Background As therapeutic advances have increased life expectancy for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (RR) multiple myeloma (MM), second primary malignancies (SPMs) have become an increasingly important safety consideration. Prior studies have demonstrated that treatment with alkylators, autologous stem cell transplantation, and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), specifically lenalidomide, are associated with increased risk of SPM. Pts who are triple-class exposed (TCE), defined as prior exposure to an IMiD, a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb), represent an increasingly large subgroup of RRMM pts. The objective of this study was to describe the incidence and characteristics of SPMs in Medicare-insured pts with TCE RRMM initiating a new line of therapy (LOT). Methods Adult pts with an incident diagnosis (Dx) of MM (≥2 outpatient Dx 30-365 days apart OR ≥1 inpatient Dx AND 6 months of continuous eligibility prior to initial Dx) during the study period (Nov 14, 2006-Dec 31, 2020) who were TCE (≥1 claim each for an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 mAb) were selected from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse (TCE pts were assumed to have RRMM based on exposure). The first LOT after TCE was defined as the index LOT and the associated date of initiation was defined as the index date. Pts with SPMs prior to the index date were excluded. SPMs were identified based on having ≥2 outpatient Dx of SPM (of the same cancer type) 30-365 days apart OR ≥1 inpatient Dx of SPM. Dx of SPM included Dx of invasive malignancies or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), excluding MM, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, plasma cell leukemia, non-melanoma skin cancers, or primary bone malignancies that were preceded by a Dx of bone metastases. The incidence of SPM was calculated per 100 person years (PY) of follow-up, considering only the first SPM for each pt. Cumulative incidence of SPM (with death as a competing risk) was also calculated. For pts who experienced SPM, overall survival (OS) and measures of healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs (in 2021 USD, on a per patient per month [PPPM] basis) were calculated. Results A total of 3,088 TCE RRMM pts were identified, of whom 989 had no evidence of SPM prior to the index date (Table). These 989 pts had a mean age of 75.2 years, a mean of 2.9 prior LOTs and a mean of 3.1 years since MM Dx. Over a median follow-up of 7.1 months, 166 pts (19.3 per 100 PY) experienced an SPM, including 93 (10.8 per 100 PY) with a solid tumor and 73 (8.5 per 100 PY) with a hematologic malignancy. The latter included 27 (3.1 per 100 PY) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and 18 (2.1 per 100 PY) with MDS. The cumulative incidence of SPM (95% confidence interval [CI]) at 12, 24, and 36 months was 15.2% (12.8-17.9%), 19.7% (16.8-22.8%), and 23.8% (20.2-27.6%), respectively (Figure). Median (95% CI) OS from SPM Dx was 7.9 months (5.4-10.9). Kaplan-Meier estimated probability of survival (95% CI) at 12, 24, and 36 months following SPM Dx was 40.3% (31.6-48.9%), 27.6% (18.6-37.4%), and 9.5% (2.1-23.8%), respectively. Mean (95% CI) total costs after SPM were $22,514 ($19,105-$26,404) PPPM. Conclusions The incidence of SPM in Medicare-insured TCE RRMM pts is high. Many SPMs in these pts, such as AML, are life-threatening and may interfere with or prevent MM treatment. Pts with SPMs have poor survival and high HRU and costs. With increasing OS for RRMM pts due to therapeutic advancements, there is a need for effective treatments that are not associated with increased risk of SPMs.

Introduction Data on the economic burden of disease progression among multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have had a stem cell transplant (SCT) in the US are limited. This study evaluated the impact of disease progression on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among these patients in the US. Methods Adult patients (pts) with a confirmed MM diagnosis (Dx), defined as ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient claims 30-365 days apart who initiated a course of MM therapy (Rx) during the study period (Jan 1, 2006 to Dec 31, 2016) and received SCT during the first year after the initial diagnosis of MM were identified from the Truven Analytics MedStat MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare and Coordination of Benefits databases. The first date with Dx for MM was defined as the "Dx date" and line of therapy (LOT) was identified based on an adaptation of a previously-developed algorithm. Pts were excluded if they had a gap in enrollment during the period beginning 6-month before the Dx date through 30-days after the first LOT (1L) initiation date, received MM Rx, unclassified antineoplastic medications, or SCT before the Dx date, or had missing information required to identify LOT or assess baseline characteristics or study outcomes. The 12 months after initiation of each LOT was designated the "event identification period" for progression. Disease progression was defined as advancement to next LOT, diagnosis or procedure codes indicative of bone metastasis, hypercalcemia, soft tissue plasmacytoma, skeletal related events, or acute kidney disease while off MM Rx, or death. The "event date" for progression was defined as date with evidence of progression. For each pt with progression, one pt without progression was randomly selected and assigned an event date to ensure that the distribution of time from LOT initiation to event date for pts without progression was the same as the distribution of time from LOT initiation to event date for pts with progression. For each LOT (L1-L3), annual HCRU and costs from index date, defined as 30-day before the event date, through disenrollment or end of the study period were compared for pts with vs without progression using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for differences between groups in baseline characteristics including year of index date, age, gender, region, plan type, Medicare status, comorbidities, and pre-index HRU and healthcare costs. All costs were adjusted to 2016 US $. In a subgroup analysis, HCRU and costs were evaluated for LOTs initiated from 2013 to 2016 to reflect patterns of treatment in current era. Results Of the 28,184 adult MM pts who received ≥1 MM Rx during the study period, 3226 qualified for the study, including 837 pts with progression and 2389 without progression during 1L. The corresponding numbers for 2L, and 3L were 412 and 589, and 226 and 196, respectively. Mean age at index date was 57 years; 57% were male. After IPTW, all baseline characteristics were well balanced in all LOTs with standardized mean differences <0.1 for most baseline characteristics. The mean number of hospitalizations per year was greater for pts with progression in all LOTs, with differences ranging from 1.11 (95%CI 0.85, 1.37) for 2L to 0.34 (95%CI 0.21, 0.47) for 1L. In all LOTs, annual costs of inpatient and outpatient services were greater for pts with progression while costs of outpatient prescriptions were greater among patient without progression. Total healthcare costs were greater for pts with vs without progression in all LOTs with hospitalizations and outpatient visit costs being key drivers. Total incremental annual costs in those who progressed were higher by $13,386 (1L), $105,004 (2L), and $70,206 (3L). When the analysis was restricted to LOTs initiated between 2013 and 2016, the incremental costs in pts who progressed were generally greater in the most recent era: $43,381 (1L), $113,797 (2L), and $115,327 (3L). Conclusions For MM pts receiving drug Rx and SCT the economic burden of disease progression is substantial across all LOTs. Incremental costs of progression are largely attributable to hospitalizations and outpatient visits. Treatments that prevent or delay progression are likely to yield important reductions in downstream disease management costs. These savings should be considered in frameworks assessing the value of innovative treatments for MM. Disclosures Fonseca: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene, Kite, Janssen, Juno, Merck, Pharmacylics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Prognosticatin of MM based on Genetic Categorization by FISH: Patents & Royalties; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Other: Scientific Advisory Board. Hagiwara:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding. Panjabi:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Other: Owns Amgen stock, Research Funding. Yucel:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Other: Owns Amgen stock, Research Funding. Buchanan:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Other: Owns Amgen stock, Research Funding. Delea:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Previous studies have documented substantial economic burden for multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts). However, data on the economic burden of disease progression in the US are limited. In this study, we estimated effects of disease progression on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among pts with MM who have received at least one line of therapy (LOT) in the US. Methods Data from the Truven Analytics MedStat MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare and Coordination of Benefits databases were used. A retrospective incident user cohort of adult pts with a confirmed diagnosis (Dx), defined as ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient claims 30-365 days apart with diagnosis, of MM who initiated a course of MM therapy during the study period (Jan 1, 2006 to Dec 31, 2016) was identified. The first date with Dx for MM was defined as the "Dx date" and LOT was identified based on a published algorithm. Pts were excluded if they had a gap in enrollment during the period beginning 6-month before the Dx date through 30-days after the first LOT (1L) initiation date, received MM therapy or unclassified antineoplastic medications before the Dx date or stem cell transplant (SCT) at any time during the study period, or had missing information required to identify LOT or assess baseline characteristics or study outcomes. The 12 months after initiation of each LOT was designated the "event identification period" for progression. Disease progression was defined as advancement to the next LOT, ICD-9/10 or CPT/HCPCS diagnosis or procedure codes indicative of bone metastasis, hypercalcemia, soft tissue plasmacytoma, skeletal related events, or acute kidney disease while off MM therapy, or death. The "event date" for progression was defined as date with evidence of progression. For each pt with progression, one pt without progression was randomly selected and assigned an index date to ensure that distribution of time from LOT initiation to event date for pts with progression was the same as that for pts without progression. For each LOT (L1-L4), annual HRU and costs from index date through disenrollment or the end of the study period were compared for pts with vs without progression using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for differences between groups in baseline characteristics including year of index date, age, gender, region, plan type, Medicare status, comorbidities, and pre-index HRU and healthcare costs. All costs were adjusted to 2016 US dollars. In a subgroup analysis, HRU and costs were evaluated for LOTs initiated from 2013 to 2016 to reflect patterns of treatment in current era. Results Of the 28,184 adult MM pts who received one or more MM therapy during the study period, 11,179 qualified for the study, including 4468 and 6598 pts with and without progression during 1L, respectively. The corresponding numbers for 2L, 3L, and 4L were 1563 and 2207, 618 and 714, and 244 and 260, respectively. Mean age at index date was 68 years; 57% were male. After IPTW, all baseline characteristics were well balanced in all LOTs with standardized mean differences <0.1 for all characteristics. The mean number of hospitalizations per year was greater for patents with progression in all LOTs, with differences ranging from 0.46 (95%CI 0.40, 0.52) for 1L to 0.89 (95%CI 0.67, 1.11) for 3L. In all LOTs, annual costs of inpatient and outpatient services were greater for pts with progression while costs of outpatient prescriptions were greater among patient without progression. Total healthcare costs were greater for pts with vs without progression in all LOTs with hospitalizations and outpatient visit costs being key drivers. Total incremental annual costs in those who progressed were higher by $30,381 (1L), $33,064 (2L), $34,495 (3L), and $25,163 (4L). When the analysis was restricted to LOTs initiated between 2013 and 2016, the incremental costs in patients who progressed were greater in the most recent era: $52,739 (1L), $49,012 (2L), $25,329 (3L), and $65,400. Conclusions For MM pts receiving drug therapy, the economic burden of disease progression is substantial across all LOTs and this burden is greater in the most recent era (2013 to 2016). Treatments that prevent or delay progression are likely to yield important reductions in downstream disease management costs. These savings should be considered in frameworks assessing the value of innovative treatments for MM. Disclosures Hagiwara: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Policy Analysis, Inc: Employment. Delea:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Policy Analysis Inc.: Employment. Panjabi:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yucel:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fonseca:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy.