口服抗癌靶向药物的净健康效益、服用量和支出之间的关系。

IF 9.9 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1093/jnci/djae110
Kelsey S Lau-Min, Yaxin Wu, Shavon Rochester, Justin E Bekelman, Genevieve P Kanter, Kelly D Getz
{"title":"口服抗癌靶向药物的净健康效益、服用量和支出之间的关系。","authors":"Kelsey S Lau-Min, Yaxin Wu, Shavon Rochester, Justin E Bekelman, Genevieve P Kanter, Kelly D Getz","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Targeted cancer drugs (TCDs) have revolutionized oncology but vary in clinical benefit and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework uses survival, toxicity, and symptom palliation data to quantify the net health benefit (NHB) of cancer drugs. We evaluated associations between NHB, uptake, and spending on oral TCDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18-64 years with an incident oral TCD pharmacy claim in 2012-2020 in a nationwide deidentified commercial claims dataset. TCDs were categorized as having high (>60), medium (40-60), and low (<40) NHB scores. We plotted the uptake of TCDs by NHB category and used standard descriptive statistics to evaluate patient OOP and total spending. Generalized linear models evaluated the relationship between spending and TCD NHB, adjusted for cancer indication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 8524 patients with incident claims for 8 oral TCDs with 9 first-line indications in advanced melanoma, breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Medium- and high-NHB TCDs accounted for most TCD prescriptions. Median OOP spending was $18.78 for the first 28-day TCD supply (interquartile range [IQR] = $0.00-$87.57); 45% of patients paid $0 OOP. Median total spending was $10 118.79 (IQR = $6365.95-$10 600.37) for an incident 28-day TCD supply. Total spending increased $1083.56 for each 10-point increase in NHB score (95% confidence interval = $1050.27 to $1116.84, P < .01 for null hypothesis H0 = $0).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low-NHB TCDs were prescribed less frequently than medium- and high-NHB TCDs. Total spending on oral TCDs was high and positively associated with NHB. Commercially insured patients were largely shielded from high OOP spending on oral TCDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":14809,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378307/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association between oral targeted cancer drug net health benefit, uptake, and spending.\",\"authors\":\"Kelsey S Lau-Min, Yaxin Wu, Shavon Rochester, Justin E Bekelman, Genevieve P Kanter, Kelly D Getz\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnci/djae110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Targeted cancer drugs (TCDs) have revolutionized oncology but vary in clinical benefit and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework uses survival, toxicity, and symptom palliation data to quantify the net health benefit (NHB) of cancer drugs. We evaluated associations between NHB, uptake, and spending on oral TCDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18-64 years with an incident oral TCD pharmacy claim in 2012-2020 in a nationwide deidentified commercial claims dataset. TCDs were categorized as having high (>60), medium (40-60), and low (<40) NHB scores. We plotted the uptake of TCDs by NHB category and used standard descriptive statistics to evaluate patient OOP and total spending. Generalized linear models evaluated the relationship between spending and TCD NHB, adjusted for cancer indication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 8524 patients with incident claims for 8 oral TCDs with 9 first-line indications in advanced melanoma, breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Medium- and high-NHB TCDs accounted for most TCD prescriptions. Median OOP spending was $18.78 for the first 28-day TCD supply (interquartile range [IQR] = $0.00-$87.57); 45% of patients paid $0 OOP. Median total spending was $10 118.79 (IQR = $6365.95-$10 600.37) for an incident 28-day TCD supply. Total spending increased $1083.56 for each 10-point increase in NHB score (95% confidence interval = $1050.27 to $1116.84, P < .01 for null hypothesis H0 = $0).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low-NHB TCDs were prescribed less frequently than medium- and high-NHB TCDs. Total spending on oral TCDs was high and positively associated with NHB. Commercially insured patients were largely shielded from high OOP spending on oral TCDs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378307/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae110\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae110","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:靶向抗癌药物(TCDs)给肿瘤学带来了革命性的变化,但其临床获益和患者自付费用(OOP)却各不相同。ASCO 价值框架使用生存期、毒性和症状缓解数据来量化抗癌药物的净健康效益(NHB)。我们评估了口服 TCD 的净健康效益、服用量和支出之间的关联:我们对全国范围内去标识化商业索赔数据集中 2012-2020 年发生口服 TCD 药房索赔的 18-64 岁患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。TCD 被分为高(>60)、中(40-60)和低(结果:我们纳入了 8524 名患者,他们在晚期黑色素瘤、乳腺癌、肺癌和胰腺癌的九个一线适应症中使用了八种口服 TCD。中度和高度 NHB TCD 占 TCD 处方的大多数。首批 28 天 TCD 用药的自付费用中位数为 18.78 美元(IQR 为 0.00 美元至 87.57 美元);45% 的患者自付费用为 0 美元。28 天 TCD 意外用药的总支出中位数为 10,118.79 美元(IQR 为 6,365.95 美元-10,600.37 美元)。NHB 分数每增加 10 分,总支出增加 1,083.56 美元(95% CI 1,050.27-1,116.84 美元,p):低 NHB TCD 的处方频率低于中 NHB 和高 NHB TCD。口服 TCD 的总支出很高,且与 NHB 呈正相关。商业保险患者在口服 TCD 上的高额 OOP 支出在很大程度上受到了保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Association between oral targeted cancer drug net health benefit, uptake, and spending.

Background: Targeted cancer drugs (TCDs) have revolutionized oncology but vary in clinical benefit and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework uses survival, toxicity, and symptom palliation data to quantify the net health benefit (NHB) of cancer drugs. We evaluated associations between NHB, uptake, and spending on oral TCDs.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18-64 years with an incident oral TCD pharmacy claim in 2012-2020 in a nationwide deidentified commercial claims dataset. TCDs were categorized as having high (>60), medium (40-60), and low (<40) NHB scores. We plotted the uptake of TCDs by NHB category and used standard descriptive statistics to evaluate patient OOP and total spending. Generalized linear models evaluated the relationship between spending and TCD NHB, adjusted for cancer indication.

Results: We included 8524 patients with incident claims for 8 oral TCDs with 9 first-line indications in advanced melanoma, breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Medium- and high-NHB TCDs accounted for most TCD prescriptions. Median OOP spending was $18.78 for the first 28-day TCD supply (interquartile range [IQR] = $0.00-$87.57); 45% of patients paid $0 OOP. Median total spending was $10 118.79 (IQR = $6365.95-$10 600.37) for an incident 28-day TCD supply. Total spending increased $1083.56 for each 10-point increase in NHB score (95% confidence interval = $1050.27 to $1116.84, P < .01 for null hypothesis H0 = $0).

Conclusion: Low-NHB TCDs were prescribed less frequently than medium- and high-NHB TCDs. Total spending on oral TCDs was high and positively associated with NHB. Commercially insured patients were largely shielded from high OOP spending on oral TCDs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
203
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is a reputable publication that undergoes a peer-review process. It is available in both print (ISSN: 0027-8874) and online (ISSN: 1460-2105) formats, with 12 issues released annually. The journal's primary aim is to disseminate innovative and important discoveries in the field of cancer research, with specific emphasis on clinical, epidemiologic, behavioral, and health outcomes studies. Authors are encouraged to submit reviews, minireviews, and commentaries. The journal ensures that submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous and expedited review to publish scientifically and medically significant findings in a timely manner.
期刊最新文献
Long-Term survival across breslow thickness categories: Findings from a Population-Based study of 210,042 Australian melanoma patients. Understanding risk factors for endometrial cancer in young women. Accelerating Progress to Reduce the Cancer Burden through Prevention and Control in the US. Phase III randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant paclitaxel+platinum to 5-fluorouracil+platinum in esophageal/GEJ squamous cell carcinoma. A Comprehensive Analysis of Metastatic Disease following Surgery for Clinically Localized Cutaneous Melanoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1