Supplementary data: Real-world use of inotuzumab ozogamicinis associated with lower health care costs than blinatumomab in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the first relapsed/refractory setting

dataset

posted on 2024-02-05, 12:42 authored by Alexander Russell-Smith, Louise Murphy, Amy Nguyen, Cori Blauer-Peterson, Marilou Terpenning, Feng Cao, Shiqiang Li, Tim Bancroft, Noah Webb, Stephanie Dorman, Richa Shah

These are peer-reviewed supplementary tables for the article 'Real-world use of inotuzumab ozogamicinis associated with lower health care costs than blinatumomab in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the first relapsed/refractory setting' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Supplementary Table 1: Unweighted baseline demographic characteristics among patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first relapsed/refractory setting
Supplementary Table 2: Inverse probability treatment weighted baseline comorbidities for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia receiving InO and Blina in the first relapsed/refractory setting

Aim: To compare all-cause and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients receiving inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for ALL in the first relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Patients & methods: We studied retrospective claims for adult commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with ALL receiving InO (n = 29) or Blina (n = 23) from 1 January 2015 to 16 February 2021. Mean per-patient-per-month (PPPM) HCRU and total costs were described and multivariable-adjusted PPPM total all-cause and ALL-related predicted costs were calculated. Results: Mean monthly ALL-related hospitalizations were the same for patients receiving InO and Blina (PPPM = 0.8 stays); however, the length of ALL-related hospital stay was almost twice as long among patients receiving Blina versus InO (ALL-related: InO = 7.6 days; Blina = 14.1 days; p = 0.346). In multivariable models, total ALL-related costs were 43% lower for InO compared with Blina (PPPM costs: InO = $93,767; Blina = $163,470; p = 0.021). Conclusion: In the first R/R setting, patients who used InO had significantly lower all-cause and ALL-related costs compared with patients who used Blina, in part driven by hospitalization patterns.