Miller‐Wilson, Lesley‐Ann

Abstract Disclosure: L. Miller-Wilson: Employee of Immunovant, Inc. N. Princic: Employee of Merative. K. Evans: Employee of Merative. N. Atreja: Employee of Immunovant, Inc. K. Tollefsen: Employee of Immunovant, Inc.. D. Toro-Tobón: None. Objectives: Graves’ disease (GD) is an autoimmune condition responsible for most cases of hyperthyroidism in the United States. An estimated 20%-50% of patients with GD will also develop thyroid eye disease (TED). Current treatments for GD focus on managing hyperthyroidism, but frequent monitoring, dose adjustments, and the high rate of relapse after discontinuation of antithyroid drugs can increase treatment costs and complicate long-term management. This study describes healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients with GD, with and without TED. Methods: This retrospective analysis utilized claims data from the Merative™ MarketScan® Research Databases. Individuals aged ≥18 years with ≥2 claims for a GD diagnosis from January 1, 2017-December 31, 2023 were included (first claim = index). To ensure a newly diagnosed cohort, patients with a history of GD-specific treatment or a GD diagnosis in the 12 months preceding the index were excluded. The final GD cohort was stratified into patients who had evidence of TED at any time during the 12-month pre-index period through 90 days post-index, and those who did not. Propensity score matching was used to balance patients with GD (with and without TED) with non-GD controls (1:3) on demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. Both GD cases (with and without TED) and controls were required to have ≥12 months of post-index follow-up. HCRU and costs were compared between cases and controls during a fixed 12-month post-index period. Categorical outcomes were compared using chi-squared tests, while continuous endpoints were compared using paired t-tests. Results: The analysis included 1,767 GD cases with TED matched with 5,301 controls (mean age, 53.1 years [standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.00]; 77% female [SMD, 0.00]; mean Charlson comorbidity score, 0.9 [SMD, 0.02]) and 43,120 GD cases without TED matched with 129,360 controls (mean age, 49.8 years [SMD, 0.00]; 78% female [SMD, 0.00]; mean Charlson comorbidity score, 0.7 [SMD, 0.01]). Compared with matched controls, patients with GD and TED had 78% more inpatient visits (0.16 vs 0.09), 104% more outpatient visits (65.06 vs 31.86), and 43% more prescriptions (30.21 vs 21.13) during the 12-month post-index period, while patients with GD without TED had 75% more inpatient visits (0.14 vs 0.08), 83% more outpatient visits (52.15 vs 28.48), and 38% more prescriptions (24.27 vs 17.56) (p<0.001 for all). Annual mean healthcare costs were 305% higher ($56,584 vs. $13,981) among GD patients with TED and 65% higher ($19,913 vs $12,076) in those without TED compared with matched controls. Conclusion: Patients with GD had significantly higher HCRU and healthcare costs than matched controls in the 12 months following diagnosis, and this difference was notably greater among GD patients who also had TED. More effective treatments are needed to address the health and financial burden of GD. Presentation: Monday, July 14, 2025

ABSTRACT Objective To estimate the incidence, prevalence, patient characteristics and healthcare utilization patterns of moderate to severe thyroid eye disease (TED) in the United States. Design Retrospective review of medical and prescription claims data from the Inovalon deidentified claims database. Patients Patients with moderate to severe TED were identified based on specific and sensitive definitions using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes selected by a group of TED specialists. Results The incident moderate to severe TED population included 3364 and 1730 patients using the sensitive and specific definitions, respectively. After adjusting for age and gender, corresponding incidence rates in the sensitive and specific populations were 8.97 (13.49 in women and 4.27 in men) and 4.37 (6.59 in women and 2.05 in men) per 100,000 person‐years, respectively. The prevalent population included 16,310 and 8018 patients using the sensitive and specific definitions, respectively, corresponding to adjusted prevalence rates of 44.13 (66.00 in women and 21.39 in men) and 20.55 (31.18 in women and 9.50 in men) per 100,000 persons. A preponderance of women was observed, and comorbidity rates were high, with > 40% of prevalent patients experiencing hypertension. Steroids were the most frequently prescribed medication. The impact of teprotumumab was not captured, since this study only included claims data through 2019. Conclusions The estimated incidence and prevalence rates of TED demonstrate the considerable impact of this disease in the United States, making the creation of a specific ICD code imperative for effective healthcare planning and management.

Abstract Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in adults in the United States. Despite compelling evidence of improved outcomes in colorectal cancer, screening rates are not optimal. This study aimed to characterize colorectal cancer screening trends over the last two decades and assess the impact of various screening modalities on overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Using National Health Interview Survey data from 2005 to 2021, we examined colorectal cancer screening [colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography] rates among adults ages 50–75 years (n = 85,571). A pseudo-time-series cross-sectional (pseudo-TSCS) analysis was conducted including a random effects generalized least squares regression model to estimate the relative impact of each modality on changes in colorectal cancer screening rates. Among 50 to 75 year olds, the estimated colorectal cancer screening rate increased from 47.7% in 2005 to 69.9% in 2021, with the largest increase between 2005 and 2010 (47.7%–60.7%). Rates subsequently plateaued until 2015 but increased from 63.5% in 2015 to 69.9% in 2018. This was primarily driven by the increased use of mt-sDNA (2.5% in 2018 to 6.6% in 2021). Pseudo-TSCS analysis results showed that mt-sDNA contributed substantially to the increase in overall screening rates (77.3%; P < 0.0001) between 2018 and 2021. While colorectal cancer screening rates increased from 2005 to 2021, they remain below the 80% goal. The introduction of mt-sDNA, a noninvasive screening test may have improved overall rates. Sustained efforts are required to further increase screening rates to improve patient outcomes and offering a range of screening options is likely to contribute to achieving this goal. Prevention Relevance: This retrospective study highlights the importance of convenient stool-based colorectal cancer screening options to achieve the national goal of 80% for overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Empowering screening-eligible individuals with a choice for their colorectal cancer screening tests is imperative.

67 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality among men and women combined in the United States (US). Although the national screening rate has increased over the years, it remains below the target of 80% recommended by the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable for improved CRC outcomes. In most recent years, and particularly during COVID-19, screening-eligible individuals preferred at-home, non-invasive screening options over invasive tests such as colonoscopy due to convenience and accessibility. The objective of this study was to understand the CRC screening trends over the last two decades, and the impact of various screening modalities on the overall CRC screening rate. Methods: Using National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2005 onwards, we examined CRC screening (colonoscopy, mt-sDNA, FIT/FOBT, and sigmoidoscopy) rates among adults aged 50-75 years. A pseudo-time-series cross-sectional (pseudo TSCS) analysis was conducted including random effects Generalized Least Square (GLS) regression model to estimate the relative impact of each modality on the overall increase in CRC rates from 2018 to 2021. Results: Among 50-75 years old individuals, the estimated CRC screening use increased by 32% from 2005 to 2021 (47.7% to 69.9%). Between 2018 to 2021, the rates increased from 64% to 70%, driven largely by increased use of mt-sDNA, a 62.1% increase from 2018 to 2021 (2.5% to 6.6%). During this time period, colonoscopy utilization increased by 4.4% (61.2% to 64.0%), while FOBT/FIT utilization increased by 3.6% (5.3% to 5.5%). A pseudo-TSCS analysis showed that mt-sDNA contributed substantially to the overall CRC screening rate increase during years 2018-2021 (77.3%; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: While CRC screening rates are increasing, they remain below the national goal of 80%. Mt-sDNA as a home-based, non-invasive screening, recommended at a 3-year interval, has been leveraged to improve overall CRC screening rates, particularly to address the screening backlog created during the COVID-19 pandemic. A collaborative approach between healthcare providers and screening-eligible individuals is needed to empower patients with choice for their CRC screening modality to achieve the national goal.

e13631 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening disruptions have been observed with the COVID-19 pandemic, putting patients at risk for more advanced-stage disease at the time of diagnosis. We estimated the impact of increased use of stool-based tests for screening during the COVID-19 pandemic on near-term clinical outcomes in a simulated United States (US) population. Methods: A previously developed budget impact model was adapted to assess the impact of increasing use of multi-target stool DNA [mt-sDNA] or fecal immunochemical [FIT] tests to offset the COVID-19 related disruption in colonoscopy screening. Adults, ages 50 – 75 years, at average risk for CRC were included over a 3-year time horizon (2020 – 2023) to explore the impact of increased screening for CRC using mt-sDNA or FIT, from the perspective of a US payer. Compared to the base case (S0; 85% colonoscopy and 15% non-invasive tests), the estimated number of missed CRCs and advanced adenomas (AAs) were determined for four COVID-19-affected screening scenarios: S1, 9 months of CRC screening at 50% capacity, followed by 21 months at 75% capacity; S2, S1 followed by increasing stool-based testing by an average of 10% over 3-years; S3, 18 months of CRC screening at 50% capacity, followed by 12 months of 75% capacity; and S4, S3 followed by increasing stool-based testing by an average of 13% over 3-years. Results: Increasing the proportional use of mt-sDNA, the detection of AAs improved by 6.0% (Scenario 2 versus 1) to 8.4% (Scenario 4 versus 3) and the number of missed CRCs decreased by 15.1% to 17.3% respectively. Increasing FIT utilization improved the detection of AAs by 3.3% (Scenario 2 versus 1) to 4.6% (Scenario 4 versus 3) and the number of missed CRCs decreased by 12.9% (Scenario 2 versus 1) to 14.9% (Scenario 4 versus 3). Across all scenarios, the number of AAs detected was higher for mt-sDNA than for FIT, and the number of missed CRCs was lower for mt-sDNA than for FIT. Conclusions: Using home-based stool tests for average-risk CRC screening can mitigate the consequences of reduced colonoscopy screening resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Use of mt-sDNA led to fewer missed CRCs and more AAs detected, compared to FIT.

AbstractBackgroundGuidelines include several options for average‐risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR).MethodsIAR aged 45–75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true‐positive, true‐negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi‐target stool DNA (mt‐sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test.ResultsPreferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt‐sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt‐sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non‐invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy.ConclusionsWhile physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt‐sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR.This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics.

65 Background: There is consensus that the proportion of the average-risk US population up-to-date with CRC screening (58-65%) is insufficient. However, estimates of average risk CRC screening rates are inconsistent and impacted by inclusion of higher-risk individuals, and differing study designs. Accurate measurement of population screening rates is key to addressing gaps in care and assessing the impact of newer CRC screening tests. Methods: The study included individuals aged 50-75 years in a large de-identified claims database, with continuous enrollment during year of analysis, and a variable length baseline enrollment of 1-10 years. Average-risk designation excluded higher risk diagnoses (CRC familial syndromes, colorectal polyp or history of colorectal polyp, history of/current CRC, family history of gastrointestinal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease). Up-to-date status was assessed within guideline-based time periods: colonoscopy (10 years); FIT or FOBT (annually); mt-sDNA (3 years); flexible sigmoidoscopy/CT colonography (5 years). Analyses assessed the proportion estimated as up-to-date and examined the sensitivity to: a) patient population (average-risk only vs. including higher-risk); b) study design (yearly cross-sectional vs. cohort of 50-year-old patients; c) methods (percent in patients with 10 years of enrollment vs. Kaplan Meier (KM) of censored variable pre-screening period). Results: The cross-sectional analysis average-risk population included 5.3 million individuals. Estimates of the proportion of those up-to-date with screening guidelines for average-risk patients varied by study design, population, and estimation method. KM estimates among the average-risk population (50-75) showed 49-50% were up-to-date in each calendar year. Including higher-risk patients in the KM analysis resulted in 70% up-to-date among the mixed average+higher-risk population. Using a cohort study design (average-risk patients aged 60 with 10 years of baseline data), 65% were up-to-date by age 60. Conclusions: In the base case analysis only half of average risk individuals were up-to-date with CRC screening, a rate lower than typically cited. Sensitivity analyses resulted in substantially different estimates and demonstrate the importance of clearly communicating the methodology used to define the study population. Higher rates quoted in the lay press and medical publications may be based on mixed populations of average+higher-risk individuals or on study designs that do not represent the full population at risk.

60 Background: Several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options are considered in guidelines for individuals at average-risk (IAR). These options differ in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision that need to be compared and weighed. This study elicited and compared the relative importance that physicians and IAR place on these screening aspects. Methods: Primary care physicians [PCPs] and gastroenterologists [GIs] who recommended/performed ≥1 screening one month prior to study and adult IAR completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants repeatedly chose between screening tests described by type of test, frequency, true-positive (TP), true-negative (TN), and adenoma TP (physicians only). The instrument was tested in qualitative (physicians: n=6; IAR: n=6) and quantitative pilots (physicians: n=100; IAR: n=202). A mixed logit model was used to estimate relative attribute importance (RAI) and predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test. Generalizability to the population was confirmed. Results: 1,249 IAR and 400 physicians participated. IAR were 46% male and the mean age was 58.9. Physicians were 79% male and their mean age was 53.4. Preferences were most affected by TP rates (IAR RAI=58%; physicians RAI=42%). Physicians also placed high importance (RAI=41%) on adenoma TP rates. TN rates (IAR RAI=33%; physician RAI=9%), frequency (IAR RAI=6%; physician RAI=2%) and type (IAR RAI=4%; physician RAI=6%) were less important. Despite both IAR and physicians placing most importance on precision, preferences for screening modalities differed. On average, physicians preferred colonoscopy, while IAR preferred mt-sDNA over colonoscopy (p<0.001). Both preferred mt-sDNA and colonoscopy over FIT (p<0.001), with a mSEPT9 blood test being least preferred (p<0.001). Preferences of IAR were heterogeneous with individuals who underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy screening preferring colonoscopy and the rest preferring mt-sDNA (p<0.001). Conclusions: While both GI and PCPs overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt-sDNA being preferred on average other modalities. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve screening uptake. [Table: see text]