cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22704497
title: Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among migraine patients: a German claims database analysis

description: Despite migraine being one of the most common neurological diseases, affected patients are often not effectively treated. This analysis describes the burden of migraine in Germany and assesses real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of preventive-treated migraine patients from the perspective of Statutory Health Insurance. A retrospective analysis was conducted using InGef Research Database claims data from 2018–2019. Migraine patients were stratified into cohorts by acute and preventive treatment status. Patients on preventive treatment were further stratified according to the type of prophylaxis received. Disease burden in preventively treated migraine patients was reported <i>via</i> treatment patterns, pathways, and comorbidities. HCRU was assessed through outpatient provider visits, hospitalizations, and sick leave. 160,164 adult migraine patients were identified, of which 55,378 (34.6%) were prescribed preventive treatment with conventional (<i>n</i> = 25,984, 46.9%), calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody (CGRP mAb) (<i>n</i> = 613, 1.1%), or off-label therapies (<i>n</i> = 28,781, 52.0%). 936 (1.7%) patients received Botulinum Neurotoxin Type A (BoNTA). CGRP mAb-treated patients had a high rate of triptan prescriptions (2018: 95.5%; 2019: 88.9%), migraine-related hospitalizations (2018: 33.0%; 2019: 21.0%), and sick leave (2018: 26.8%; 2019: 22.5%). A high proportion of CGRP mAb- and BoNTA-treated patients was diagnosed with abdominal and pelvic pain (34.3% and 36.2%) and low back pain (34.1% and 35.3%). These patients also showed a high prevalence of depressive episodes (49.1% and 50.1%) and chronic pain disorders (37.5% and 32.9%). This study focused on descriptive analyses which do not allow for assessment of causality when comparing treatment groups. Disease burden was high in patients receiving CGRP mAbs suggesting that patients treated preventively with CGRP mAbs shortly after product launch in Germany were severely affected, chronic migraine patients. The same may be true for patients receiving BoNTA who also showed an increased disease burden.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22704497.v2
title: Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among migraine patients: a German claims database analysis

description: Despite migraine being one of the most common neurological diseases, affected patients are often not effectively treated. This analysis describes the burden of migraine in Germany and assesses real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of preventive-treated migraine patients from the perspective of Statutory Health Insurance. A retrospective analysis was conducted using InGef Research Database claims data from 2018–2019. Migraine patients were stratified into cohorts by acute and preventive treatment status. Patients on preventive treatment were further stratified according to the type of prophylaxis received. Disease burden in preventively treated migraine patients was reported <i>via</i> treatment patterns, pathways, and comorbidities. HCRU was assessed through outpatient provider visits, hospitalizations, and sick leave. 160,164 adult migraine patients were identified, of which 55,378 (34.6%) were prescribed preventive treatment with conventional (<i>n</i> = 25,984, 46.9%), calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody (CGRP mAb) (<i>n</i> = 613, 1.1%), or off-label therapies (<i>n</i> = 28,781, 52.0%). 936 (1.7%) patients received Botulinum Neurotoxin Type A (BoNTA). CGRP mAb-treated patients had a high rate of triptan prescriptions (2018: 95.5%; 2019: 88.9%), migraine-related hospitalizations (2018: 33.0%; 2019: 21.0%), and sick leave (2018: 26.8%; 2019: 22.5%). A high proportion of CGRP mAb- and BoNTA-treated patients was diagnosed with abdominal and pelvic pain (34.3% and 36.2%) and low back pain (34.1% and 35.3%). These patients also showed a high prevalence of depressive episodes (49.1% and 50.1%) and chronic pain disorders (37.5% and 32.9%). This study focused on descriptive analyses which do not allow for assessment of causality when comparing treatment groups. Disease burden was high in patients receiving CGRP mAbs suggesting that patients treated preventively with CGRP mAbs shortly after product launch in Germany were severely affected, chronic migraine patients. The same may be true for patients receiving BoNTA who also showed an increased disease burden.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22704497.v1
title: Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among migraine patients: A German claims database analysis

description: Despite migraine being one of the most common neurological diseases, affected patients are often not effectively treated. This analysis describes the burden of migraine in Germany and assesses real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of preventive-treated migraine patients from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance. A retrospective analysis was conducted using InGef Research Database claims data from 2018-2019. Migraine patients were stratified into cohorts by acute and preventive treatment status. Patients on preventive treatment were further stratified according to type of prophylaxis received. Disease burden in preventively treated migraine patients was reported via treatment patterns, pathways, and comorbidities. HCRU was assessed through outpatient provider visits, hospitalizations, and sick leave. 160,164 adult migraine patients were identified, of which 55,378 (34.6%) were prescribed preventive treatment with conventional (n = 25,984, 46.9%), calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody (CGRP mAb) (n = 613, 1.1%), or off-label therapies (n = 28,781, 52.0%). 936 (1.7%) patients received Botulinum Neurotoxin Type A (BoNTA). CGRP mAb-treated patients had a high rate of triptan prescriptions (2018: 95.5%; 2019: 88.9%), migraine-related hospitalizations (2018: 33.0%; 2019: 21.0%), and sick leave (2018: 26.8%; 2019: 22.5%). A high proportion of CGRP mAb- and BoNTA-treated patients was diagnosed with abdominal and pelvic pain (34.3% and 36.2%) and low back pain (34.1% and 35.3%). These patients also showed a high prevalence of depressive episodes (49.1% and 50.1%) and chronic pain disorders (37.5% and 32.9%). This study focused on descriptive analyses which do not allow for assessment of causality when comparing treatment groups. Disease burden was high in patients receiving CGRP mAbs suggesting that patients treated preventively with CGRP mAbs shortly after product launch in Germany were severely affected chronic migraine patients. The same may be true for patients receiving BoNTA who also showed an increased disease burden.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.21718252
title: Health care resource utilization patterns among patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis: analysis of Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or other-atypical antipsychotics

description: Pimavanserin (PIM) is the only FDA-approved atypical antipsychotic (AAP) for hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP). Comparative real-world analyses demonstrating its benefits are needed. To evaluate health care resource utilization (HCRU) outcomes among PDP patients treated with PIM vs. other-AAPs. Retrospective cohort analysis of Parts A, B, and D claims from 100% Medicare sample from 01 January 2013–31 December 2019 was conducted. PDP Patients initiating (i.e. index date) continuous monotherapy (PIM vs. other-AAPs) for ≥12-months during 01 January 2014–31 December 2018 without 12-months pre-index AAP use were selected after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) on 31 variables (sex, race, region, age, and 27 Elixhauser comorbidities). HCRU outcomes included: annual all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization (short-term stay, long-term stay, and SNF-stay [skilled nursing facility]) rates, annual all-cause and psychiatric-ER visit rates, mean per-patient-per-year (PPPY) hospitalizations, and average length of stay (ALOS). PIM and other-AAPs were compared using generalized linear models (GLM) controlled for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, coexisting-dementia, and coexisting insomnia. Of 12,164 PDP patients, 48.41% (<i>n</i> = 5,889) were female, and mean age was 77 (±8.14) years. Among 1:1 matched patients (<i>n</i> = 842 in each), 37.8% (<i>n</i> = 319) on PIM vs. 49.8% (<i>n</i> = 420) on other-AAPs (<i>p</i> &lt; .05) reported ≥1 all-cause hospitalizations, respectively. Specifically, short-term and SNF-stay among PIM patients vs. other-AAPs were: 34% (<i>n</i> = 286) vs. 46.2% (<i>n</i> = 389) and 20.2% (<i>n</i> = 170) vs. 31.8% (<i>n</i> = 267) (<i>p</i> &lt; .05), respectively. Similarly, 9.6% (<i>n</i> = 81) of PIM vs. 14.6% (<i>n</i> = 123) of other-AAPs patients had ≥1 psychiatric hospitalization (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). Furthermore, ≥1 all-cause and psychiatric ER visit among PIM vs. other-AAPs were 61.6% (<i>n</i> = 519) vs. 69.4% (<i>n</i> = 584) and 5.2% (<i>n</i> = 43) vs. 10.2% (<i>n</i> = 86) (<i>p</i> &lt; .05), respectively. PIM also had significantly lower ALOS, and mean PPPY short-term hospitalization and SNF-stays. In this analysis of PDP patients, PIM monotherapy resulted in nearly 12% and 7% lower all-cause hospitalizations and ER visits vs. other-AAPs.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.21718252.v1
title: Health care resource utilization patterns among patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis: analysis of Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or other-atypical antipsychotics

description: Pimavanserin (PIM) is the only FDA-approved atypical antipsychotic (AAP) for hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP). Comparative real-world analyses demonstrating its benefits are needed. To evaluate health care resource utilization (HCRU) outcomes among PDP patients treated with PIM vs. other-AAPs. Retrospective cohort analysis of Parts A, B, and D claims from 100% Medicare sample from 01 January 2013–31 December 2019 was conducted. PDP Patients initiating (i.e. index date) continuous monotherapy (PIM vs. other-AAPs) for ≥12-months during 01 January 2014–31 December 2018 without 12-months pre-index AAP use were selected after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) on 31 variables (sex, race, region, age, and 27 Elixhauser comorbidities). HCRU outcomes included: annual all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization (short-term stay, long-term stay, and SNF-stay [skilled nursing facility]) rates, annual all-cause and psychiatric-ER visit rates, mean per-patient-per-year (PPPY) hospitalizations, and average length of stay (ALOS). PIM and other-AAPs were compared using generalized linear models (GLM) controlled for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, coexisting-dementia, and coexisting insomnia. Of 12,164 PDP patients, 48.41% (<i>n</i> = 5,889) were female, and mean age was 77 (±8.14) years. Among 1:1 matched patients (<i>n</i> = 842 in each), 37.8% (<i>n</i> = 319) on PIM vs. 49.8% (<i>n</i> = 420) on other-AAPs (<i>p</i> &lt; .05) reported ≥1 all-cause hospitalizations, respectively. Specifically, short-term and SNF-stay among PIM patients vs. other-AAPs were: 34% (<i>n</i> = 286) vs. 46.2% (<i>n</i> = 389) and 20.2% (<i>n</i> = 170) vs. 31.8% (<i>n</i> = 267) (<i>p</i> &lt; .05), respectively. Similarly, 9.6% (<i>n</i> = 81) of PIM vs. 14.6% (<i>n</i> = 123) of other-AAPs patients had ≥1 psychiatric hospitalization (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). Furthermore, ≥1 all-cause and psychiatric ER visit among PIM vs. other-AAPs were 61.6% (<i>n</i> = 519) vs. 69.4% (<i>n</i> = 584) and 5.2% (<i>n</i> = 43) vs. 10.2% (<i>n</i> = 86) (<i>p</i> &lt; .05), respectively. PIM also had significantly lower ALOS, and mean PPPY short-term hospitalization and SNF-stays. In this analysis of PDP patients, PIM monotherapy resulted in nearly 12% and 7% lower all-cause hospitalizations and ER visits vs. other-AAPs.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24099469
title: US cost-effectiveness analysis of polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

description: We evaluated the pharmacoeconomic value of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) versus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). A 3-state partitioned survival model was used to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and cost impacts of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP. Analyses utilized mixture-cure survival modelling, assessed a lifetime horizon, discounted all outcomes at 3% per year, and examined both payer and societal perspectives. Progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), drug utilization, treatment duration, adverse reactions, and subsequent treatment inputs were based on data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492). Costs included drug acquisition/administration, adverse reaction management, routine care, subsequent treatments, end-of-life care, and work productivity. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP were $70,719/QALY gained and $88,855/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. The $32,824 higher total cost of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP was largely due to higher drug costs ($122,525 vs $27,694), with cost offsets including subsequent treatment (–$52,765), routine care (–$1,781), end-of-life care (–$383), and work productivity (–$8,418). Pola-R-CHP resulted in an increase of 0.47 LYs and 0.46 QALYs versus R-CHOP. Pola-R-CHP was cost-effective in 60.9% and 58.0% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. There was uncertainty around the OS extrapolation in the model, and costs were derived from different sources. Recommended prophylactic medications were not included; prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for all patients was assumed to be equal across treatment arms in POLARIX. Work productivity loss was estimated from a general population and was not specific to patients with DLBCL. Pola-R-CHP was projected to be cost-effective versus R-CHOP in previously untreated DLBCL, suggesting that Pola-R-CHP represents good value relative to R-CHOP in this setting.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24099469.v2
title: US cost-effectiveness analysis of polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

description: We evaluated the pharmacoeconomic value of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) versus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). A 3-state partitioned survival model was used to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and cost impacts of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP. Analyses utilized mixture-cure survival modelling, assessed a lifetime horizon, discounted all outcomes at 3% per year, and examined both payer and societal perspectives. Progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), drug utilization, treatment duration, adverse reactions, and subsequent treatment inputs were based on data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492). Costs included drug acquisition/administration, adverse reaction management, routine care, subsequent treatments, end-of-life care, and work productivity. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP were $70,719/QALY gained and $88,855/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. The $32,824 higher total cost of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP was largely due to higher drug costs ($122,525 vs $27,694), with cost offsets including subsequent treatment (–$52,765), routine care (–$1,781), end-of-life care (–$383), and work productivity (–$8,418). Pola-R-CHP resulted in an increase of 0.47 LYs and 0.46 QALYs versus R-CHOP. Pola-R-CHP was cost-effective in 60.9% and 58.0% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. There was uncertainty around the OS extrapolation in the model, and costs were derived from different sources. Recommended prophylactic medications were not included; prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for all patients was assumed to be equal across treatment arms in POLARIX. Work productivity loss was estimated from a general population and was not specific to patients with DLBCL. Pola-R-CHP was projected to be cost-effective versus R-CHOP in previously untreated DLBCL, suggesting that Pola-R-CHP represents good value relative to R-CHOP in this setting.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24013958.v1
title: Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of switching from bivalent to nonavalent vaccine for human papillomavirus in Norway: incorporating the full health impact of all HPV-related diseases

description: <b>Aim:</b> The objective of this study was to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of switching from a bivalent to a nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in Norway, incorporating all nonavalent vaccine-preventable HPV-related diseases and in the context of the latest cervical cancer screening program. <b>Methods:</b> A well-established dynamic transmission model of the natural history of HPV infection and disease was adapted to the Norwegian population. We determined the number of cases of HPV-related diseases and subsequent number of deaths, and the economic burden of HPV-related disease under the current standard of care conditions of bivalent and nonavalent vaccinations of girls and boys aged 12 years. <b>Results:</b> Compared to bivalent vaccination, nonavalent vaccination averted an additional 4,357 cases of HPV-related cancers, 421,925 cases of genital warts, and 543 cases of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) over a 100-year time horizon. Nonavalent vaccination also averted an additional 1,044 deaths over the 100-year time horizon when compared with bivalent vaccination. Total costs were higher for the nonavalent strategy (10.5 billion NOK [€1.03 billion] vs. 9.3-9.4 billion NOK [€915-925 million] for bivalent vaccination). A switch to nonavalent vaccination had a higher vaccination cost (4.4 billion NOK [€433 million] vs. 2.7 billion NOK [€266 million] for bivalent vaccination) but resulted in a savings of 627-694 million NOK [€62-68 million] in treatment costs. A switch to nonavalent vaccination demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 102,500 NOK (€10,086) per QALY versus bivalent vaccination. <b>Conclusions:</b> Using a model that incorporated the full range of HPV-related diseases, and the latest cervical cancer screening practices, we found that switching from bivalent to nonavalent vaccination would be considered cost-effective in Norway.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24099469.v1
title: US cost-effectiveness analysis of polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

description: We evaluated the pharmacoeconomic value of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) versus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). A 3-state partitioned survival model was used to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and cost impacts of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP. Analyses utilized mixture-cure survival modelling, assessed a lifetime horizon, discounted all outcomes at 3% per year, and examined both payer and societal perspectives. Progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), drug utilization, treatment duration, adverse reactions, and subsequent treatment inputs were based on data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492). Costs included drug acquisition/administration, adverse reaction management, routine care, subsequent treatments, end-of-life care, and work productivity. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP were $70,719/QALY gained and $88,855/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. The $32,824 higher total cost of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP was largely due to higher drug costs ($122,525 vs $27,694), with cost offsets including subsequent treatment (–$52,765), routine care (–$1,781), end-of-life care (–$383), and work productivity (–$8,418). Pola-R-CHP resulted in an increase of 0.47 LYs and 0.46 QALYs versus R-CHOP. Pola-R-CHP was cost-effective in 60.9% and 58.0% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY gained from societal and payer perspectives, respectively. There was uncertainty around the OS extrapolation in the model, and costs were derived from different sources. Recommended prophylactic medications were not included; prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for all patients was assumed to be equal across treatment arms in POLARIX. Work productivity loss was estimated from a general population and was not specific to patients with DLBCL. Pola-R-CHP was projected to be cost-effective versus R-CHOP in previously untreated DLBCL, suggesting that Pola-R-CHP represents good value relative to R-CHOP in this setting.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22656391
title: Budget impact analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling for untreated advanced or recurrent solid cancers in Japan

description: In Japan, the use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is only available for cancer patients who have no standard of care (SoC), or those who have completed SoC. This may lead to missed treatment opportunities for patients with druggable alterations. In this study, we evaluated the potential impact of CGP testing before SoC on medical costs and clinical outcome in untreated patients with advanced or recurrent biliary tract cancer (BTC), non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSQ-NSCLC), or colorectal cancer (CRC) in Japan between 2022 and 2026. We constructed a decision-tree model reflecting the healthcare environment of Japan, to estimate the clinical outcome and medical costs impact of CGP testing by comparing two groups (with vs without CGP testing before SoC). The epidemiological parameters, detection rates of druggable alterations, and overall survival were collected from literature and claims databases in Japan. Treatment options selected based on druggable alterations were set in the model based on clinical experts’ opinions. In 2026, the number of untreated patients with advanced or recurrent BTC, NSQ-NSCLC, and CRC was estimated to be 8600, 32,103, and 24,896, respectively. Compared with the group without CGP testing before SoC, CGP testing before SoC increased druggable alteration detection and treatment rate with matched therapies in all three cancer types. The medical costs per patient per month were estimated to increase with CGP testing before SoC in the three cancer types by 19,600, 2900, and 2200 JPY (145, 21, and 16 USD), respectively. Only those druggable alterations with matched therapies were considered in the analysis model, while the potential impact of other genomic alterations provided by CGP testing was not considered. The present study suggested that CGP testing before SoC may improve patient outcomes in various cancer types with a limited and controllable increase in medical costs.