Publications

BACKGROUND

With total and out-of-pocket spending for oral oncolytics rising, there is increased interest in choosing oncology treatments based on their clinical value relative to cost.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if out-of-pocket spending varied for higher versus lower benefit oral oncology drugs reimbursed by commercial insurers.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of commercial insurer prescription drug claims filed between 2007 and 2014 for 13 oral oncolytics approved before 2009. We calculated mean monthly out-of-pocket payment for each fill by patient. We then categorized oral oncolytics by their overall and progression-free survival benefits for each FDA-approved indication, using evidence from published studies. We assessed the relationship of survival benefit with mean monthly out-of-pocket payment, adjusting for demographic and plan characteristics.

RESULTS

Our population included 44,113 patients aged 18-65 years (mean 52.5 [SD 9.4]) with a cancer diagnosis who filled 731,354 prescriptions. The most commonly represented oncolytics were imatinib (37.4% of fills), lenalidomide (17.7% of fills), and dasatinib (10.0% of fills). Approximately 32.3% of fills were for drug-indication pairs with an overall survival benefit of 4+ years. In adjusted analyses, there was no clear pattern to suggest that out-of-pocket payments differed with drug indication-specific survival benefits. Drugs for indications providing > 0 to 1 year of overall survival benefit were significantly more likely to have a lower out-of-pocket payment versus those prescribed off-label, but there were no significant differences in out-of-pocket payments between drugs and associated indications in any other survival category versus drugs used off-label.

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-pocket payments for oral oncolytics were not clearly related to indication-specific value in commercially insured patients. This finding suggests that despite increased attention to value- and indication-based drug pricing, cost sharing for oral oncolytics does not currently reflect these goals.

DISCLOSURES

This project was supported by Research Scholar Grant RSGI-14-030-01-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society; the NIH Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) K12 Program; the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (UL1TR001111) Grant; and K24CA181510 from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have no disclosures. Data from this study were presented at the 2017 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 5, 2017, in Chicago, Illinois.

More information on risk factors for death from tuberculosis in the United States could help reduce the tuberculosis mortality rate, which has remained steady for more than a decade. To identify risk factors for tuberculosis-related death in adults. We performed a retrospective study of 1,304 adults with tuberculosis who died before treatment completion and 1,039 frequency-matched control subjects who completed tuberculosis treatment in 2005 to 2006 in 13 states reporting 65% of U.S. tuberculosis cases. We used in-depth record abstractions and a standard algorithm to classify deaths in persons with tuberculosis as tuberculosis-related or not. We then compared these classifications to causes of death as coded in death certificates. We used multivariable logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios for predictors of tuberculosis-related death among adults compared with those who completed tuberculosis treatment. Of 1,304 adult deaths, 942 (72%) were tuberculosis related, 272 (21%) were not, and 90 (7%) could not be classified. Of 847 tuberculosis-related deaths with death certificates available, 378 (45%) did not list tuberculosis as a cause of death. Adjusting for known risks, we identified new risks for tuberculosis-related death during treatment: absence of pyrazinamide in the initial regimen (adjusted odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-6.0); immunosuppressive medications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-5.6); incomplete tuberculosis diagnostic evaluation (adjusted odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-3.3), and an alternative nontuberculosis diagnosis before tuberculosis diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.2). Most persons who died with tuberculosis had a tuberculosis-related death. Intensive record review revealed tuberculosis as a cause of death more often than did death certificate diagnoses. New tools, such as a tuberculosis mortality risk score based on our study findings, may identify patients with tuberculosis for in-hospital interventions to prevent death.