Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorArend, RC
dc.contributor.authorO'Malley, DM
dc.contributor.authorBanerjee, S
dc.contributor.authorMcLaurin, K
dc.contributor.authorDavidson, R
dc.contributor.authorLong, GH
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-26T16:06:32Z
dc.date.available2022-01-26T16:06:32Z
dc.date.issued2021-11-02
dc.identifier.citationAdvances in therapy, 2021en_US
dc.identifier.issn0741-238X
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/4982
dc.identifier.eissn1865-8652en_US
dc.identifier.eissn1865-8652
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12325-021-01959-5en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12325-021-01959-5
dc.description.abstract<h4>Introduction</h4>We aimed to characterize real-world utilization of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) in women with ovarian cancer (OC).<h4>Methods</h4>This retrospective observational study of claims data from US MarketScan<sup>®</sup> Commercial/Medicare Supplemental databases included women with OC initiating olaparib, niraparib, or rucaparib from January 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Patients were observed from first outpatient prescription until at least 30 days' follow-up. Clinical events of interest (CEIs), based on adverse reactions in PARPi prescribing information, were identified from claims using ICD-9/10 codes. Other outcomes included dose modification, persistence, adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and cost.<h4>Results</h4>Overall, 303, 348, and 162 women with OC received olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib, respectively. During follow-up, risk of any CEI was higher with niraparib versus olaparib (odds ratio 3.36 [95% confidence interval 2.00-5.65]) and niraparib versus rucaparib (2.09 [1.10-3.95]), with no significant difference between rucaparib and olaparib (1.61 [0.93-2.79]). PARPi dose decreases were observed in 21.1%, 35.1%, and 30.2% of olaparib-, niraparib-, and rucaparib-treated patients, respectively. Persistence (no treatment gaps of more than 90 days) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) with olaparib (62.2%) versus niraparib (35.9%) and rucaparib (48.7%); adherence (medication possession ratio, MPR ≥ 80%) was 80.2% versus 38.6% and 63.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). Inpatient admissions and outpatient service use were higher with niraparib and rucaparib versus olaparib, reflected in mean (± standard deviation) total medical costs (excluding pharmacy) of $5393 ± 8828 for olaparib, $7732 ± 14,054 for niraparib, and $6868 ± 7929 for rucaparib.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Differences between the licensed PARPi were observed in the risk of experiencing a CEI, likelihood of dose modifications, ability to receive continuous PARPi therapy, HCRU, and costs.en_US
dc.formatPrint-Electronicen_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.titleUtilization of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of US Healthcare Claims Data.en_US
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-10-08
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s12325-021-01959-5en_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-11-02
dc.relation.isPartOfAdvances in therapyen_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.embargo.termsNot knownen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorBanerjee, Susanaen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/