Literature DB >> 30951156

Assessment of Health Care Utilization and Cost of Targeted Drug Delivery and Conventional Medical Management vs Conventional Medical Management Alone for Patients With Cancer-Related Pain.

Lisa J Stearns1, Sanjeet Narang2,3, Robert E Albright4, Krisstin Hammond1, Ying Xia5, Heather Basara Richter6, Gobi K Paramanandam7, Kelly K Haagenson8, Alissa H Doth5.   

Abstract

Importance: Targeted drug delivery (TDD) has potential for cost savings compared with conventional medical management (CMM). Despite positive clinical and economic evidence, TDD remains underused to treat cancer pain. Objective: To assess the cost of TDD and CMM in treating cancer-related pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic evaluation using propensity score-matched analysis was conducted using MarketScan commercial claims data on beneficiaries receiving TDD and CMM or CMM only for cancer pain from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2015. Participants were matched on age, sex, cancer type, comorbidity score, and pre-enrollment characteristics. Data analysis was performed from June 1 to September 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total 2-, 6-, and 12-month costs, number of health care encounters, length of hospital stay, additional components of cost, and health care utilization.
Results: A total of 376 TDD and CMM patients (mean [SD] age, 51.88 [9.98] years; 216 [57.5%] female) and 4839 CMM only patients (mean [SD] age, 51.52 [11.16] years; 3005 [62.1%] female) were identified for study inclusion. After matching, 536 patients were included in the study: 268 patients in the TDD and CMM group and 268 in the CMM only group. Compared with CMM only, TDD and CMM was associated with mean total cost savings of $15 142 (95% CI, $3690 to $26 594; P = .01) at 2 months and $63 498 (95% CI, $4620 to $122 376; P = .03) at 12 months; cost savings at 6 months were not statistically different ($19 577; 95% CI, -$12 831 to $51 984; P = .24). The TDD and CMM group had fewer inpatient visits (2-month mean difference [MD], 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2; P < .001; 6-month MD, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-1.7; P < .001; 12-month MD, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (2-month MD, 6.8 days; 95% CI, 5.0-8.7 days; P < .001; 6-month MD, 6.8 days; 95% CI, 3.1-10.5 days; P < .001; 12-month MD, 10.6 days; 95% CI, 2.9-18.3 days; P = .007). Use of CMM only was associated with greater opioid use at 12 months (MD, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.4-6.0; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with CMM alone, TDD and CMM together were associated with significantly lower cost and health care utilization. The findings suggest that TDD is a cost-saving therapy that should be considered in patients with cancer for whom oral opioids are inadequate or produce intolerable adverse effects and should be expanded as health care systems transition to value-based models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30951156      PMCID: PMC6450326          DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1549

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Netw Open        ISSN: 2574-3805


  10 in total

1.  Conventional Nanosized Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Applications.

Authors:  Cristian Vergallo; Muhammad Nadeem Hafeez; Dalila Iannotta; Hélder A Santos; Nicola D'Avanzo; Luciana Dini; Felisa Cilurzo; Massimo Fresta; Luisa Di Marzio; Celia Christian
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 2.622

2.  Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems Survey: Trends in Utilization in Pain Practice.

Authors:  Alaa Abd-Sayed; Kenneth Fiala; Jacqueline Weisbein; Pooja Chopra; Christopher Lam; Hemant Kalia; Navdeep Jassal; Amitabh Gulati; Dawood Sayed; Timothy Deer
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 2.832

Review 3.  Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Unresponsive Cancer Pain: A Possible Solution in Palliative Oncological Therapy.

Authors:  Federica Paolini; Gianluca Ferini; Lapo Bonosi; Roberta Costanzo; Lara Brunasso; Umberto Emanuele Benigno; Massimiliano Porzio; Rosa Maria Gerardi; Giuseppe Roberto Giammalva; Giuseppe Emmanuele Umana; Francesca Graziano; Gianluca Scalia; Carmelo Lucio Sturiale; Rina Di Bonaventura; Domenico Gerardo Iacopino; Rosario Maugeri
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-07

Review 4.  The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practices and Guidelines for the Interventional Management of Cancer-Associated Pain.

Authors:  Mansoor M Aman; Ammar Mahmoud; Timothy Deer; Dawood Sayed; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Shane E Brogan; Vinita Singh; Amitabh Gulati; Natalie Strand; Jacqueline Weisbein; Johnathan H Goree; Fangfang Xing; Ali Valimahomed; Daniel J Pak; Antonios El Helou; Priyanka Ghosh; Krishna Shah; Vishal Patel; Alexander Escobar; Keith Schmidt; Jay Shah; Vishal Varshney; William Rosenberg; Sanjeet Narang
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 3.133

5.  Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain: An Analysis of a Prospective, Multicenter Product Surveillance Registry.

Authors:  Lisa M Stearns; Alaa Abd-Elsayed; Christophe Perruchoud; Robert Spencer; Krisstin Hammond; Katherine Stromberg; Todd Weaver
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 5.108

6.  Systemic Opioid Reduction and Discontinuation Following Implantation of Intrathecal Drug-Delivery Systems for Chronic Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Authors:  John A Hatheway; Megha Bansal; Christine I Nichols-Ricker
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2019-10-11

7.  Perioperative Opioid Consumption and Clinical Outcomes in Surgical Patients With a Pre-existing Opioid-Based Intrathecal Drug Delivery System.

Authors:  Ryan S D'Souza; Matthew A Warner; Oludare O Olatoye; Brendan J Langford; Danette L Bruns; Darrell R Schroeder; William D Mauck; Kalli K Schaefer; Nafisseh S Warner
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 5.108

8.  Patient Satisfaction Following Intrathecal Targeted Drug Delivery for Benign Chronic Pain: Results of a Single-Center Survey Study.

Authors:  David M Schultz; Vwaire Orhurhu; Faizan Khan; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Alaa Abd-Elsayed
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2020-05-06

9.  The Effectiveness of Cancer Pain Management in a Tertiary Hospital Outpatient Pain Clinic in Thailand: A Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Suratsawadee Wangnamthip; Skaorat Panchoowong; Carolina Donado; Kimberly Lobo; Pimporn Phankhongsap; Pinyo Sriveerachai; Pramote Euasobhon; Pranee Rushatamukayanunt; Sahatsa Mandee; Nantthasorn Zinboonyahgoon; Charles B Berde
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 3.037

10.  Trends in opioid use following balloon kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures.

Authors:  W Ni; C Ricker; M Quinn; N Gasquet; D Janardhanan; C J Gilligan; J A Hirsch
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 4.507

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.