Work

Healthcare resource utilization of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes treated with luspatercept versus erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: a United States healthcare claims database study

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: Objective This study compared the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) treated with luspatercept versus erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs).Methods This real-world retrospective cohort study used claims data from the Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse, a large nationally representative United States database, to identify patients with LR-MDS who initiated luspatercept or ESA between May 1, 2020, and June 30, 2022. Index date was defined as the date of the first claim for luspatercept or ESA. The follow-up period was from the index date to the earliest of the end of clinical activity or end of data availability. All-cause and MDS-related HRU were evaluated for both treatment cohorts and compared using generalized estimating equations with Poisson distribution and robust variance estimator.Results Overall, 243 and 3,515 patients were included in the luspatercept and ESA cohorts, respectively. Patients in both cohorts had a similar median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at index (luspatercept: 77.0 [70.0–79.0] years; ESA: 78.0 [72.0–79.0] years) and median (IQR) follow-up duration (luspatercept: 14.6 [10.4–22.6] months; ESA: 14.4 [9.5–20.9] months). Compared with patients treated with ESA, patients treated with luspatercept had a 26% lower rate of all-cause inpatient visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–0.93; p < 0.05) and a 31% lower rate of all-cause outpatient visits (aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61–0.79; p < 0.001). The rate of MDS-related inpatient visits was also 25% lower among the patients treated with luspatercept versus ESA (aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56–0.99; p < 0.05).Conclusion This study showed that patients with LR-MDS treated with luspatercept required significantly less HRU than patients treated with ESA. Further research is warranted to evaluate the financial impact of this lower HRU burden.

Source: Journal of Medical Economics

DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2025.2498852