Abstract

Objective:To refine a claims algorithm for identifying second-line systemic regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on clinical evidence and to compare costs during second-line treatment by targeted therapy administered.Methods:This retrospective analysis of a large US managed care database identified patients diagnosed with mCRC during 1 July 2007–30 June 2011. A claims-based algorithm was developed to identify patients with at least two lines of therapy (LOT) and the second LOT contained one targeted agent: bevacizumab or any anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Medical chart data from 92 patients were used to corroborate and refine the LOT algorithm. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the initial algorithm and refined algorithm for identification of second LOT are presented. The final algorithm was applied to claims data and two mutually exclusive second-line cohorts were examined: patients with bevacizumab- or cetuximab-containing regimens. Second-line healthcare costs were analyzed with generalized linear models adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics.Results:The PPV increased from 50.0% (95% CI = 39.4–60.6) for the initial algorithm to 72.1% (95% CI = 59.2–82.9) for the final algorithm. Mean age in the cohorts (n = 569) was 61 years; 58% were men. Days of therapy were similar for the bevacizumab (n = 450) vs cetuximab (n = 119) cohorts, respectively: 131 vs 148 in first LOT and 123 (both cohorts) in second LOT (p ≥ 0.27). Total costs during second-line treatment in the bevacizumab cohort were lower by $12,318 (p = 0.02) and medical costs were lower by $13,809 (p = 0.01). Monthly total and medical costs were lower by $2728 (p = 0.03) and $3133 (p = 0.01), respectively. Results are based on commercially or Medicare-insured patients and may not be generalizable to Medicaid or uninsured patients.Conclusions:Corroboration of claim-based algorithms with medical chart data improved algorithm performance. Second-line total and medical costs were lower for mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab compared with cetuximab.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.