US Oncology Research, Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
Adv Ther. 2017 Nov;34(11):2452-2465. doi: 10.1007/s12325-017-0628-2. Epub 2017 Oct 26.
Studies indicate similar survival and toxicity between pazopanib and sunitinib, but few have examined real-world outcomes among elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The purpose of this retrospective claims analysis was to assess real-world overall survival (OS), healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and healthcare costs (both all-cause and associated with RCC diagnosis) among elderly advanced RCC patients starting pazopanib or sunitinib treatment.
Advanced RCC patients aged 65 years or older who started first-line treatment with pazopanib or sunitinib (index drug; the initiation date was the index date) were identified from the 100% Medicare database plus Part D linkage (January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014). Patients were stratified by index drug and matched 1:1 with use of propensity scores based on baseline characteristics. OS was assessed from the index date to death and compared by Kaplan-Meier analyses and univariable Cox models; patients were censored at the end of eligibility/data. Monthly HRU and costs from an intent-to-treat perspective were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
Baseline characteristics were balanced after matching (both N = 522). Treatment with pazopanib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared with treatment with sunitinib (18.2 months vs 14.6 months, respectively; log-rank p = 0.015). Pazopanib was associated with significantly lower monthly all-cause costs compared with sunitinib ($8845 vs $10,416, respectively), as well as lower inpatient costs associated with RCC diagnosis ($1542 vs $2522), fewer monthly inpatient admissions (0.179 vs 0.262), and shorter length of inpatient stay (1.375 days vs 1.883 days; all p ≤ 0.004).
Among elderly Medicare patients with advanced RCC, first-line pazopanib tretament was associated with significantly longer OS, as well as lower healthcare costs and HRU, compared with first-line sunitinib treatment.
研究表明,帕唑帕尼和舒尼替尼的生存和毒性相似,但很少有研究评估老年晚期肾细胞癌(RCC)患者的真实世界结局。本回顾性理赔分析的目的是评估接受帕唑帕尼或舒尼替尼一线治疗的老年晚期 RCC 患者的真实世界总生存期(OS)、医疗资源利用(HRU)和医疗保健费用(包括所有原因和与 RCC 诊断相关的费用)。
从 100%医疗保险数据库加部分 D 链接(2006 年 1 月 1 日至 2014 年 12 月 31 日)中确定年龄在 65 岁或以上开始一线治疗的帕唑帕尼或舒尼替尼(索引药物;起始日期为索引日期)的先进 RCC 患者。根据基线特征,使用倾向评分进行索引药物分层,并进行 1:1 匹配。OS 从索引日期到死亡进行评估,并通过 Kaplan-Meier 分析和单变量 Cox 模型进行比较;在资格/数据结束时对患者进行删失。从意向治疗的角度比较每月 HRU 和成本,采用 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验。
匹配后(各 N=522)基线特征平衡。与舒尼替尼相比,帕唑帕尼治疗的中位 OS 显著延长(分别为 18.2 个月和 14.6 个月;对数秩检验 p=0.015)。与舒尼替尼相比,帕唑帕尼的全因月度成本显著降低(分别为 8845 美元和 10416 美元),与 RCC 诊断相关的住院费用也显著降低(1542 美元和 2522 美元),每月住院入院次数减少(0.179 次和 0.262 次),住院时间缩短(1.375 天和 1.883 天;所有 p≤0.004)。
在接受医疗保险的老年晚期 RCC 患者中,与一线舒尼替尼治疗相比,一线帕唑帕尼治疗与显著延长的 OS 相关,并且与降低医疗保健成本和 HRU 相关。