不良事件和相关费用对转移性胰腺导管腺癌基于价值的护理的影响。

IF 2.5 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-12-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.36469/001c.124367
Prachi Bhatt, Jared Hirsch, Paul Cockrum, George Kim, Gabriela Dieguez
{"title":"不良事件和相关费用对转移性胰腺导管腺癌基于价值的护理的影响。","authors":"Prachi Bhatt, Jared Hirsch, Paul Cockrum, George Kim, Gabriela Dieguez","doi":"10.36469/001c.124367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Rising oncology healthcare costs have led to value-based care reimbursement models that coordinate care and improve quality while reducing overall spending. These models are increasingly important for traditional Medicare and other payers. <b>Objectives:</b> To compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs), AE-associated excess costs, and total cost of care (TCOC) of 3 cohorts receiving first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from 2018 to 2022 using the Medicare 100% Research Identifiable Files. We examined 3 cohorts receiving mPDAC treatment: FOLFIRINOX (FFX) (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, 5-FU bolus and infusion); modified FFX, (5-FU infusion only); and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem/abrax). We compared the incidence of clinically significant AEs, TCOC, components of TCOC, and costs related to AEs/treatment toxicity. <b>Results:</b> Patient AE rates ranged from 6.2% to 51.7%. AEs occurred more frequently in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components. Patients receiving brand name gem/abrax had lower rates of febrile neutropenia (6.2%) and neutropenia (22.2%) than those receiving FFX with no 5-FU bolus (febrile neutropenia, 9.9%; neutropenia, 36.9%) and FFX with all 4 components (febrile neutropenia, 6.9%; neutropenia, 30.4%). Rates of most nonhematologic AEs were higher in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components, with diarrhea occurring in 28.3%, abdominal pain in 31.5%, and nausea/vomiting in 41.5% of patients. TCOC was lower in the gem/abrax cohort: <math><mn>6505</mn> <mi>v</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>F</mi> <mi>F</mi> <mi>X</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mn>5</mn> <mo>-</mo> <mi>F</mi> <mi>U</mi> <mi>b</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>u</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mo>(</mo></math> 6995) and FFX with all 4 components ( <math><mn>7142</mn> <mo>)</mo> <mi>p</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>r</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>r</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mo>.</mo> <mi>T</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>v</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>p</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>f</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>y</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>u</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>g</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>E</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>x</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>f</mi></math> 5993 per administration, while the development of any studied nonhematological AE was associated with a mean per-administration excess cost of $3665. <b>Discussion:</b> Treatment decisions intended to minimize chemotherapy costs may lead to suboptimal decisions if the goal is to reduce TCOC. Our research suggests FFX is more costly than gem/abrax (TCOC per administration). Patients receiving gem/abrax were older and had higher baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index scores; however, other factors may be important in driving cost differences. <b>Conclusions:</b> Irrespective of drug cost, chemotherapy leading to a significant increase in AEs is associated with higher TCOC.</p>","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"11 2","pages":"161-167"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664866/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effects of Adverse Events and Associated Costs on Value-Based Care for Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.\",\"authors\":\"Prachi Bhatt, Jared Hirsch, Paul Cockrum, George Kim, Gabriela Dieguez\",\"doi\":\"10.36469/001c.124367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Rising oncology healthcare costs have led to value-based care reimbursement models that coordinate care and improve quality while reducing overall spending. These models are increasingly important for traditional Medicare and other payers. <b>Objectives:</b> To compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs), AE-associated excess costs, and total cost of care (TCOC) of 3 cohorts receiving first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from 2018 to 2022 using the Medicare 100% Research Identifiable Files. We examined 3 cohorts receiving mPDAC treatment: FOLFIRINOX (FFX) (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, 5-FU bolus and infusion); modified FFX, (5-FU infusion only); and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem/abrax). We compared the incidence of clinically significant AEs, TCOC, components of TCOC, and costs related to AEs/treatment toxicity. <b>Results:</b> Patient AE rates ranged from 6.2% to 51.7%. AEs occurred more frequently in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components. Patients receiving brand name gem/abrax had lower rates of febrile neutropenia (6.2%) and neutropenia (22.2%) than those receiving FFX with no 5-FU bolus (febrile neutropenia, 9.9%; neutropenia, 36.9%) and FFX with all 4 components (febrile neutropenia, 6.9%; neutropenia, 30.4%). Rates of most nonhematologic AEs were higher in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components, with diarrhea occurring in 28.3%, abdominal pain in 31.5%, and nausea/vomiting in 41.5% of patients. TCOC was lower in the gem/abrax cohort: <math><mn>6505</mn> <mi>v</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>F</mi> <mi>F</mi> <mi>X</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mn>5</mn> <mo>-</mo> <mi>F</mi> <mi>U</mi> <mi>b</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>u</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mo>(</mo></math> 6995) and FFX with all 4 components ( <math><mn>7142</mn> <mo>)</mo> <mi>p</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>r</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>r</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mo>.</mo> <mi>T</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>v</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>p</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>f</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>y</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>u</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>g</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>E</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>h</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>x</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>f</mi></math> 5993 per administration, while the development of any studied nonhematological AE was associated with a mean per-administration excess cost of $3665. <b>Discussion:</b> Treatment decisions intended to minimize chemotherapy costs may lead to suboptimal decisions if the goal is to reduce TCOC. Our research suggests FFX is more costly than gem/abrax (TCOC per administration). Patients receiving gem/abrax were older and had higher baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index scores; however, other factors may be important in driving cost differences. <b>Conclusions:</b> Irrespective of drug cost, chemotherapy leading to a significant increase in AEs is associated with higher TCOC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"11 2\",\"pages\":\"161-167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664866/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36469/001c.124367\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36469/001c.124367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:不断上升的肿瘤医疗保健费用导致了基于价值的护理报销模式,协调护理和提高质量,同时减少总体支出。这些模式对传统医疗保险和其他支付者越来越重要。目的:比较3个队列接受转移性胰腺导管腺癌(mPDAC)一线治疗的不良事件(ae)发生率、ae相关的超额费用和总护理成本(TCOC)。方法:我们使用医疗保险100%研究可识别文件对2018年至2022年的行政索赔数据进行回顾性分析。我们检查了3个接受mPDAC治疗的队列:FOLFIRINOX (FFX)(奥沙利铂、伊立替康、亚叶酸素、5-FU丸和输注);改良的FFX(仅5-FU输注);吉西他滨/nab-紫杉醇(gem/abrax)。我们比较了临床显著ae的发生率、TCOC、TCOC成分以及与ae /治疗毒性相关的费用。结果:AE发生率为6.2% ~ 51.7%。所有4种成分均接受FFX治疗的患者发生不良事件的频率更高。接受gem/abrax品牌治疗的患者发热性中性粒细胞减少率(6.2%)和中性粒细胞减少率(22.2%)低于接受FFX治疗但不服用5-FU的患者(发热性中性粒细胞减少,9.9%;中性粒细胞减少症,36.9%)和所有4种成分的FFX(发热性中性粒细胞减少症,6.9%;嗜中性白血球减少症,30.4%)。所有4种成分均接受FFX治疗的患者中,大多数非血液学不良事件发生率较高,其中腹泻发生率为28.3%,腹痛发生率为31.5%,恶心/呕吐发生率为41.5%。TCOC较低的宝石/ abrax群:6505 v s F F X w i t h n o 5 - F U l b o s(6995)和FFX所有4组件(7142)p e r d m我n s t r t i o n。T h e d e v e l o p m e n T o f n y s T u i e d h e m T o d l o g i c a e w s s s o c i T e d w i T h m e n e x c e s s c o s T o f 5993 /政府,而任何的发展研究nonhematological AE与平均per-administration超过3665美元的成本。讨论:如果目标是降低TCOC,以最小化化疗费用为目的的治疗决策可能导致次优决策。我们的研究表明,FFX比gem/abrax更昂贵(每次给药的TCOC)。接受gem/abrax治疗的患者年龄较大,基线Charlson合并症指数评分较高;然而,在造成成本差异方面,其他因素可能也很重要。结论:无论药物成本如何,化疗导致ae显著增加与较高的TCOC相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
The Effects of Adverse Events and Associated Costs on Value-Based Care for Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

Background: Rising oncology healthcare costs have led to value-based care reimbursement models that coordinate care and improve quality while reducing overall spending. These models are increasingly important for traditional Medicare and other payers. Objectives: To compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs), AE-associated excess costs, and total cost of care (TCOC) of 3 cohorts receiving first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from 2018 to 2022 using the Medicare 100% Research Identifiable Files. We examined 3 cohorts receiving mPDAC treatment: FOLFIRINOX (FFX) (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, 5-FU bolus and infusion); modified FFX, (5-FU infusion only); and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem/abrax). We compared the incidence of clinically significant AEs, TCOC, components of TCOC, and costs related to AEs/treatment toxicity. Results: Patient AE rates ranged from 6.2% to 51.7%. AEs occurred more frequently in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components. Patients receiving brand name gem/abrax had lower rates of febrile neutropenia (6.2%) and neutropenia (22.2%) than those receiving FFX with no 5-FU bolus (febrile neutropenia, 9.9%; neutropenia, 36.9%) and FFX with all 4 components (febrile neutropenia, 6.9%; neutropenia, 30.4%). Rates of most nonhematologic AEs were higher in patients receiving FFX with all 4 components, with diarrhea occurring in 28.3%, abdominal pain in 31.5%, and nausea/vomiting in 41.5% of patients. TCOC was lower in the gem/abrax cohort: 6505 v s F F X w i t h n o 5 - F U b o l u s ( 6995) and FFX with all 4 components ( 7142 ) p e r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n y s t u d i e d h e m a t o l o g i c A E w a s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a m e a n e x c e s s c o s t o f 5993 per administration, while the development of any studied nonhematological AE was associated with a mean per-administration excess cost of $3665. Discussion: Treatment decisions intended to minimize chemotherapy costs may lead to suboptimal decisions if the goal is to reduce TCOC. Our research suggests FFX is more costly than gem/abrax (TCOC per administration). Patients receiving gem/abrax were older and had higher baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index scores; however, other factors may be important in driving cost differences. Conclusions: Irrespective of drug cost, chemotherapy leading to a significant increase in AEs is associated with higher TCOC.

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
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Validity and Predictors of Medical Claims Coding for the Identification of Patients with Obesity. Impact of Acute Kidney Injury on Hospitalization Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing Cardiac Procedures with Cardiopulmonary Bypass in the United States. Natural History and Treatment Outcomes of Congenital Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura: A Retrospective Longitudinal Cohort Study. Evaluating AI Performance in Systematic Literature Reviews for HEOR: A Case Study. Adult T-cell Leukemia/Lymphoma in Japan: Real-World Treatment Patterns, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Costs.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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