We have located links that may give you full text access.
Real-world analysis of cost, health care resource utilization, and supportive care in Hodgkin lymphoma patients with frontline failure.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic burden of frontline failure (FLF) among classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients during and after treatment.
Patients and methods: The population consisted of adult HL patients identified from January 2010 through September 2015 without any other primary cancer prior to HL diagnosis, who also had a frontline (FL) regimen indicative of curative intent. Patients were characterized as FLF (those who restart, switch to any chemotherapy; had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant; or newly initiated radiation therapy [RT] after discontinuing FL) or non-FLF (those not considered as FLF). Direct health care utilization and expenditures were measured over both fixed and variable length follow-up periods and during FL therapy.
Results: There were 77 FLF and 602 non-FLF patients who met the final inclusion criteria. FLF and non-FLF patients were demographically similar with mean age 38.5 years and 47.5% females. Average per patient per month (PPPM) costs were significantly higher for FLF patients during all follow-up (US$20,266 vs US$7,772, P <0.05). Annual total expenditures were significantly higher among FLF patients (US$198,388) vs non-FLF patients (US$37,549). FLF (vs non-FLF) patients had a significantly shorter duration of FL therapy (116 vs 131 days, P =0.024) and higher total PPPM expenditures during FL (US$29,040 vs US$16,369, P <0.05). Annual cost varied by failure type with those who failed due to restart incurring the highest cost (US$269,189) and those who switched incurring the lowest cost (US$46,951). FLF patients had a significantly greater utilization in every health care resource category during follow-up.
Conclusion: FLF (vs non-FLF) patients utilized substantially more health care resources and incurred a substantially higher economic burden. Over 5 years, FLF patients with at least two lines of treatment were projected to incur US$535,846 of health care costs. Further research is needed to determine optimal treatment that could reduce the risk of progression, need for treatment after FL, and enhance long-term clinical and economic outcomes.
Patients and methods: The population consisted of adult HL patients identified from January 2010 through September 2015 without any other primary cancer prior to HL diagnosis, who also had a frontline (FL) regimen indicative of curative intent. Patients were characterized as FLF (those who restart, switch to any chemotherapy; had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant; or newly initiated radiation therapy [RT] after discontinuing FL) or non-FLF (those not considered as FLF). Direct health care utilization and expenditures were measured over both fixed and variable length follow-up periods and during FL therapy.
Results: There were 77 FLF and 602 non-FLF patients who met the final inclusion criteria. FLF and non-FLF patients were demographically similar with mean age 38.5 years and 47.5% females. Average per patient per month (PPPM) costs were significantly higher for FLF patients during all follow-up (US$20,266 vs US$7,772, P <0.05). Annual total expenditures were significantly higher among FLF patients (US$198,388) vs non-FLF patients (US$37,549). FLF (vs non-FLF) patients had a significantly shorter duration of FL therapy (116 vs 131 days, P =0.024) and higher total PPPM expenditures during FL (US$29,040 vs US$16,369, P <0.05). Annual cost varied by failure type with those who failed due to restart incurring the highest cost (US$269,189) and those who switched incurring the lowest cost (US$46,951). FLF patients had a significantly greater utilization in every health care resource category during follow-up.
Conclusion: FLF (vs non-FLF) patients utilized substantially more health care resources and incurred a substantially higher economic burden. Over 5 years, FLF patients with at least two lines of treatment were projected to incur US$535,846 of health care costs. Further research is needed to determine optimal treatment that could reduce the risk of progression, need for treatment after FL, and enhance long-term clinical and economic outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app