Treatment Patterns and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients With Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy in England: A Retrospective, Observational Cohort Study
Author(s)
Sophie Guillonneau, MSc1, Omar Saeed, BDS, MPH, MSC2, Ekaterina Smolkina, MSc3, Natalia Petruski-Ivleva, PhD4, Alex Seluzhytsky, MD, MBA4, Manuel Nunez, Pharm D, MS4, Amanda Pulfer, BA5, Achim Wolf, D. Phil.5.
1Sanofi, Gentilly, France, 2Sanofi, Reading, United Kingdom, 3Sanofi, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 4Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA, 5Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom.
1Sanofi, Gentilly, France, 2Sanofi, Reading, United Kingdom, 3Sanofi, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 4Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA, 5Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: To understand the treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) in England.
METHODS: Patients with incident CIDP between 01 January 2005 and 31 July 2020 were identified using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database. Demographics, comorbidities, treatment patterns, and HCRU were assessed.
RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients with CIDP were included in the final analysis (mean age±standard deviation [SD]: 56.4±13.7 years; male: 61%; median follow-up: 5.7 years). The most common comorbidities included hypertension (43% [n=38]) and osteoarthritis (35% [n=31]). Among the patients who received first (80% [n=71]) and second line of therapy (LOT, 58% [n=52]), intravenous/subcutaneous immunoglobulin (IV/SC Ig) was prescribed to 59% (n=42) and 40% (n=21) of patients, while 37% (n=26) and 25% (n=13) of patients received oral corticosteroids, respectively. Treatment switching and interruptions were common, affecting 98% and 81% of patients treated with IV/SC Ig and oral corticosteroids at the first LOT, respectively. General practitioner consultations, outpatient visits, day-case attendances, and prescriptions were reported in ≥90% of patients, with mean event rates of 10.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.3-12.2), 6.6 (5.3-7.9), 6.9 (4.8-9.1), and 50.9 (38.7-63.2) per patient-year (PY), respectively. Over 70% of patients visited accident and emergency departments (95% CI, 0.28-0.48) and had all-cause inpatient admissions (0.41-1.06), with 11% requiring critical care (0.00-0.35) during the study period. Patients’ refractory to first LOT (oral corticosteroids or Ig; 17% [n=15]) were younger (mean age±SD: 52.3±14.7 years; median follow-up: 6.4 years) and had a 15% higher event rate per PY for all-cause healthcare visits than the overall CIDP cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the treatment patterns and HCRU of patients with CIDP in England. Patients experienced frequent treatment switching and healthcare encounters, suggestive of an unmet need in this population.
METHODS: Patients with incident CIDP between 01 January 2005 and 31 July 2020 were identified using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database. Demographics, comorbidities, treatment patterns, and HCRU were assessed.
RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients with CIDP were included in the final analysis (mean age±standard deviation [SD]: 56.4±13.7 years; male: 61%; median follow-up: 5.7 years). The most common comorbidities included hypertension (43% [n=38]) and osteoarthritis (35% [n=31]). Among the patients who received first (80% [n=71]) and second line of therapy (LOT, 58% [n=52]), intravenous/subcutaneous immunoglobulin (IV/SC Ig) was prescribed to 59% (n=42) and 40% (n=21) of patients, while 37% (n=26) and 25% (n=13) of patients received oral corticosteroids, respectively. Treatment switching and interruptions were common, affecting 98% and 81% of patients treated with IV/SC Ig and oral corticosteroids at the first LOT, respectively. General practitioner consultations, outpatient visits, day-case attendances, and prescriptions were reported in ≥90% of patients, with mean event rates of 10.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.3-12.2), 6.6 (5.3-7.9), 6.9 (4.8-9.1), and 50.9 (38.7-63.2) per patient-year (PY), respectively. Over 70% of patients visited accident and emergency departments (95% CI, 0.28-0.48) and had all-cause inpatient admissions (0.41-1.06), with 11% requiring critical care (0.00-0.35) during the study period. Patients’ refractory to first LOT (oral corticosteroids or Ig; 17% [n=15]) were younger (mean age±SD: 52.3±14.7 years; median follow-up: 6.4 years) and had a 15% higher event rate per PY for all-cause healthcare visits than the overall CIDP cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the treatment patterns and HCRU of patients with CIDP in England. Patients experienced frequent treatment switching and healthcare encounters, suggestive of an unmet need in this population.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EE736
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Epidemiology & Public Health, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
Neurological Disorders, No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas