TY - JOUR
T1 - Ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis in elderly non-transplant patients
T2 - healthcare resource utilization and costs
AU - Gerds, Aaron T.
AU - Yu, Jingbo
AU - Shah, Anne
AU - Xi, Ann
AU - Kumar, Shambhavi
AU - Scherber, Robyn
AU - Parasuraman, Shreekant
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Aim: This study evaluated real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), direct costs, and overall survival (OS) of patients who were Medicare beneficiaries and were newly diagnosed with myelofibrosis (MF) who filled ≥1 prescription of ruxolitinib versus those who did not. Patients and Methods: This was a study of the US Medicare fee-for-service database. Beneficiaries were aged ≥65 years with an MF diagnosis (index) between January 1, 2012 − December 31, 2017. Data were summarized descriptively. OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Patients with ≥1 prescription fill of ruxolitinib (n = 2,787) had lower mean rates (per patient per month [PPPM]) versus patients who did not fill a prescription for ruxolitinib (n = 7,262) for hospitalizations (0.16 vs 0.32), length of inpatient stay (0.16 vs 2.44 days), emergency department visits (0.10 vs 0.14), physician office visits (4.68 vs 6.25), skilled nursing facility stays (0.02 vs 0.12), home health/durable medical equipment services (0.32 vs 0.47), and hospice visits (0.30 vs 1.70). Monthly medical costs were numerically lower in patients who had ≥1 fill of ruxolitinib versus those who did not fill a prescription for ruxolitinib ($6,553 vs $12,929), largely driven by inpatient costs ($3,428 vs $6,689). Pharmacy costs were $10,065 and $987 in patients who filled versus did not fill ≥1 prescription for ruxolitinib, respectively; total PPPM all-cause healthcare costs were $16,618 and $13,916, respectively. The median OS was 37.5 and 18.7 months for the cohorts of patients who filled versus did not fill ≥1 prescription for ruxolitinib, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.59 − 0.67). Conclusions: Ruxolitinib is associated with reduced HCRU and direct costs of medical care in addition to increased survival, suggesting it to be a cost-effective advance for patients with MF.
AB - Aim: This study evaluated real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), direct costs, and overall survival (OS) of patients who were Medicare beneficiaries and were newly diagnosed with myelofibrosis (MF) who filled ≥1 prescription of ruxolitinib versus those who did not. Patients and Methods: This was a study of the US Medicare fee-for-service database. Beneficiaries were aged ≥65 years with an MF diagnosis (index) between January 1, 2012 − December 31, 2017. Data were summarized descriptively. OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Patients with ≥1 prescription fill of ruxolitinib (n = 2,787) had lower mean rates (per patient per month [PPPM]) versus patients who did not fill a prescription for ruxolitinib (n = 7,262) for hospitalizations (0.16 vs 0.32), length of inpatient stay (0.16 vs 2.44 days), emergency department visits (0.10 vs 0.14), physician office visits (4.68 vs 6.25), skilled nursing facility stays (0.02 vs 0.12), home health/durable medical equipment services (0.32 vs 0.47), and hospice visits (0.30 vs 1.70). Monthly medical costs were numerically lower in patients who had ≥1 fill of ruxolitinib versus those who did not fill a prescription for ruxolitinib ($6,553 vs $12,929), largely driven by inpatient costs ($3,428 vs $6,689). Pharmacy costs were $10,065 and $987 in patients who filled versus did not fill ≥1 prescription for ruxolitinib, respectively; total PPPM all-cause healthcare costs were $16,618 and $13,916, respectively. The median OS was 37.5 and 18.7 months for the cohorts of patients who filled versus did not fill ≥1 prescription for ruxolitinib, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.59 − 0.67). Conclusions: Ruxolitinib is associated with reduced HCRU and direct costs of medical care in addition to increased survival, suggesting it to be a cost-effective advance for patients with MF.
KW - Myelofibrosis
KW - cost
KW - myeloproliferative neoplasm
KW - resource utilization
KW - ruxolitinib
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164230546&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85164230546&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13696998.2023.2224017
DO - 10.1080/13696998.2023.2224017
M3 - Article
C2 - 37294103
AN - SCOPUS:85164230546
SN - 1369-6998
VL - 26
SP - 843
EP - 849
JO - Journal of Medical Economics
JF - Journal of Medical Economics
IS - 1
ER -