Real-World Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Trifluridine/Tipiracil Plus Bevacizumab or With Regorafenib
Author(s)
Ruizhi Zhao, PhD1, Lyuba Popadic, BA2, Pam Kumparatana, MPH2, Catherine Park, MPI2, Nadeem Khan, MD1.
1Taiho Oncology Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA, 2Komodo Health Inc., New York, NY, USA.
1Taiho Oncology Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA, 2Komodo Health Inc., New York, NY, USA.
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab (FTD/TPI+BEV) and regorafenib (REG) are approved treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the third line setting or later. FTD/TPI+BEV and REG have different toxicity profiles, supportive care needs, and (for BEV) administration routes, which may influence healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), although data are limited. This study assessed real-world HCRU in patients with previously treated mCRC receiving FTD/TPI+BEV or REG.
METHODS: This retrospective study of US claims data from the Komodo Healthcare Map database included patients with mCRC who received FTD/TPI+BEV or REG between Jan-01-2021 and May-31-2024 (index date: first qualifying treatment claim). Patients were required to have prior treatment for mCRC with chemotherapy or targeted therapy, but without prior FTD/TPI+BEV or REG within 18-months of index date. Patients with other primary cancers were excluded. Healthcare visits per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were evaluated.
RESULTS: The study included 1585 patients treated with FTD/TPI+BEV and 1494 with REG. Patients characteristics were broadly similar between cohorts (57.0 vs 58.0 years median age; 8.0 vs 8.1 mean Charlson comorbidity score; 56.4% vs 56.8% male; 35.1% vs 36.1% with prior targeted therapy use). Mean follow-up was 218 days for FTD/TPI+BEV and 240 days for REG. Mean (SD [median]) number of total all-cause healthcare visits PPPM during follow-up was 12.3 (9.2 [9.7]) for FTD/TPI+BEV and 12.5 (10.8 [9.7]) for REG; this included mean outpatient (10.0 vs 9.8), inpatient (0.2 vs 0.2), and emergency room (ER) visits (0.2 vs 0.3). Trends were similar for mean mCRC-related visits (all visits, 8.0 vs 7.4; outpatient, 6.5 vs 5.7; inpatient, 0.1 vs 0.2; ER, 0.1 vs 0.1) and adverse event-related visits (all visits, 2.9 vs 3.0; outpatient, 2.1 vs 2.0; inpatient, 0.1 vs 0.1; ER, 0.1 vs 0.1).
CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world dataset, similar HCRU levels were observed with FTD/TPI+BEV and REG in patients with refractory mCRC.
METHODS: This retrospective study of US claims data from the Komodo Healthcare Map database included patients with mCRC who received FTD/TPI+BEV or REG between Jan-01-2021 and May-31-2024 (index date: first qualifying treatment claim). Patients were required to have prior treatment for mCRC with chemotherapy or targeted therapy, but without prior FTD/TPI+BEV or REG within 18-months of index date. Patients with other primary cancers were excluded. Healthcare visits per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were evaluated.
RESULTS: The study included 1585 patients treated with FTD/TPI+BEV and 1494 with REG. Patients characteristics were broadly similar between cohorts (57.0 vs 58.0 years median age; 8.0 vs 8.1 mean Charlson comorbidity score; 56.4% vs 56.8% male; 35.1% vs 36.1% with prior targeted therapy use). Mean follow-up was 218 days for FTD/TPI+BEV and 240 days for REG. Mean (SD [median]) number of total all-cause healthcare visits PPPM during follow-up was 12.3 (9.2 [9.7]) for FTD/TPI+BEV and 12.5 (10.8 [9.7]) for REG; this included mean outpatient (10.0 vs 9.8), inpatient (0.2 vs 0.2), and emergency room (ER) visits (0.2 vs 0.3). Trends were similar for mean mCRC-related visits (all visits, 8.0 vs 7.4; outpatient, 6.5 vs 5.7; inpatient, 0.1 vs 0.2; ER, 0.1 vs 0.1) and adverse event-related visits (all visits, 2.9 vs 3.0; outpatient, 2.1 vs 2.0; inpatient, 0.1 vs 0.1; ER, 0.1 vs 0.1).
CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world dataset, similar HCRU levels were observed with FTD/TPI+BEV and REG in patients with refractory mCRC.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EE639
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
Oncology