Healthcare Utilization and Costs Among Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Oral Azacitidine Maintenance Therapy Versus No Maintenance: A US Claims Database Study

Abstract

Introduction

The substantial economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) could be reduced with post-remission maintenance therapies that delay relapse. Real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data and costs among patients with AML receiving oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) maintenance therapy or no maintenance are not well understood. We characterize HCRU and costs among these patients in clinical practice in the USA.

Methods

Data from IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus (January 1, 2016–June 30, 2022) were used. Patients ≥ 18 years who were newly diagnosed with AML, received first-line systemic induction therapy, and attained disease remission were eligible. Patients receiving Oral-AZA maintenance and those receiving no maintenance (“watch and wait” [W&W]) were matched 1:3 on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM) and followed until hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or end of continuous insurance enrollment, whichever occurred first. Outcomes included treatment patterns, inpatient and outpatient visits, and costs.

Results

After PSM, the Oral-AZA cohort included 43 patients and the W&W cohort 129. Of the 43 patients receiving Oral-AZA, 88.4% started at the recommended dose of 300 mg and 11.6% at 200 mg. The Oral-AZA cohort had significantly (p = 0.0025) longer median (95% CI) time to relapse from the index maintenance date (median not reached [NR; 9.0 months–NR] vs 3.3 months [0.8 months–NR]), and fewer per person per month (PPPM) hospitalizations (0.23 vs 0.61; p = 0.0005) and overall outpatient visits (5.77 vs 7.58; p = 0.0391) than the W&W cohort. Despite higher AML drug costs PPPM in the Oral-AZA cohort ($16,401 vs $10,651 for W&W), total healthcare costs PPPM were lower ($25,786 vs $38,530 for W&W; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with Oral-AZA maintenance in clinical practice had prolonged remission and lower HCRU and costs than patients receiving no maintenance therapy. These findings underscore the clinical and economic value of Oral-AZA in clinical practice.