Michael E. D. West

LINKER-MM1 (NCT03761108) is a Phase 1/2 study of linvoseltamab, a human BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are triple-class exposed (TCE) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy (3L+), or triple-class refractory (TCR). The Phase 2 linvoseltamab 200 mg cohort (N = 105) was compared with an external control arm comprising 149 patients from two US electronic health record databases, COTA and Guardian Research Network, treated with real-world (RW) standard-of-care (SOC). Key LINKER-MM1 eligibility criteria were applied to the RW SOC cohort; an independent data review committee assessed data relevance and quality, and cohort comparability. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. The most common SOC regimens were combinations of carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (8.6%) and daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (8.2%). No patients received chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy or bispecific antibodies. Linvoseltamab had a higher objective response rate than RW SOC (weighted odds ratio 3.8 [95% CI: 2.5–6.6]), and longer median progression-free survival (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 0.29 [95% CI: 0.23–0.39]), time to next treatment (wHR 0.20 [95% CI: 0.15–0.26]), and overall survival (wHR 0.41 [95% CI: 0.32–0.52]), demonstrating its potential as an effective treatment for 3L+ and TCE/TCR RRMM.

LINKER-MM1 (NCT03761108) is a Phase 1/2 study of linvoseltamab, a human BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are triple-class exposed (TCE) with ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy (3L+), or triple-class refractory (TCR). To contextualize efficacy data from LINKER-MM1, the Phase 2 linvoseltamab 200 mg cohort (N = 105) was compared with an international external control arm (ECA) comprising 203 patients from participating International Myeloma Working Group sites who met LINKER-MM1 eligibility criteria based on chart reviews. The ECA reflected real-world standard-of-care (RW SOC). An independent data review committee assessed data relevance, quality, and cohort comparability, while a separate independent central review committee evaluated response data. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between the linvoseltamab arm and the ECA. Linvoseltamab had a higher objective response rate (weighted odds ratio 3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.9–4.1]) and longer median progression-free survival (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 0.33 [95% CI: 0.28–0.40]), time to next treatment (wHR 0.34 [95% CI: 0.29–0.44]), and overall survival (wHR 0.72 [95% CI: 0.58–0.98]) than RW SOC. These findings highlight linvoseltamab’s potential as an effective treatment for 3L+ and TCE/TCR RRMM.

Background: The Noom Weight program is a smartphone-based weight management program that uses cognitive behavioral therapy techniques to motivate users to achieve weight loss through a comprehensive lifestyle intervention. Objective: This retrospective database analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of Noom Weight use on health care resource utilization (HRU) and health care costs among individuals with overweight and obesity. Methods: Electronic health record data, insurance claims data, and Noom Weight program data were used to conduct the analysis. The study included 43,047 Noom Weight users and 14,555 non–Noom Weight users aged between 18 and 80 years with a BMI of ≥25 kg/m² and residing in the United States. The index date was defined as the first day of a 3-month treatment window during which Noom Weight was used at least once per week on average. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to balance sociodemographic covariates between the 2 cohorts. HRU and costs for inpatient visits, outpatient visits, telehealth visits, surgeries, and prescriptions were analyzed. Results: Within 12 months after the index date, Noom Weight users had less inpatient costs (mean difference [MD] −US $20.10, 95% CI −US $30.08 to −US $10.12), less outpatient costs (MD −US $124.33, 95% CI −US $159.76 to −US $88.89), less overall prescription costs (MD −US $313.82, 95% CI −US $565.42 to −US $62.21), and less overall health care costs (MD −US $450.39, 95% CI −US $706.28 to −US $194.50) per user than non–Noom Weight users. In terms of HRU, Noom Weight users had fewer inpatient visits (MD −0.03, 95% CI −0.04 to −0.03), fewer outpatient visits (MD −0.78, 95% CI −0.93 to −0.62), fewer surgeries (MD −0.01, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.00), and fewer prescriptions (MD −1.39, 95% CI −1.76 to −1.03) per user than non–Noom Weight users. Among a subset of individuals with 24-month follow-up data, Noom Weight users incurred lower overall prescription costs (MD −US $1139.52, 95% CI −US $1972.21 to −US $306.83) and lower overall health care costs (MD −US $1219.06, 95% CI −US $2061.56 to −US $376.55) per user than non–Noom Weight users. The key differences were associated with reduced prescription use. Conclusions: Noom Weight use is associated with lower HRU and costs than non–Noom Weight use, with potential cost savings of up to US $1219.06 per user at 24 months after the index date. These findings suggest that Noom Weight could be a cost-effective weight management program for individuals with overweight and obesity. This study provides valuable evidence for health care providers and payers in evaluating the potential benefits of digital weight loss interventions such as Noom Weight.

BACKGROUND The Noom Weight program is a smartphone-based weight management program that uses cognitive behavioral therapy techniques to motivate users to achieve weight loss through a comprehensive lifestyle intervention. OBJECTIVE This retrospective database analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of Noom Weight use on health care resource utilization (HRU) and health care costs among individuals with overweight and obesity. METHODS Electronic health record data, insurance claims data, and Noom Weight program data were used to conduct the analysis. The study included 43,047 Noom Weight users and 14,555 non–Noom Weight users aged between 18 and 80 years with a BMI of ≥25 kg/m² and residing in the United States. The index date was defined as the first day of a 3-month treatment window during which Noom Weight was used at least once per week on average. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to balance sociodemographic covariates between the 2 cohorts. HRU and costs for inpatient visits, outpatient visits, telehealth visits, surgeries, and prescriptions were analyzed. RESULTS Within 12 months after the index date, Noom Weight users had less inpatient costs (mean difference [MD] −US $20.10, 95% CI −US $30.08 to −US $10.12), less outpatient costs (MD −US $124.33, 95% CI −US $159.76 to −US $88.89), less overall prescription costs (MD −US $313.82, 95% CI −US $565.42 to −US $62.21), and less overall health care costs (MD −US $450.39, 95% CI −US $706.28 to −US $194.50) per user than non–Noom Weight users. In terms of HRU, Noom Weight users had fewer inpatient visits (MD −0.03, 95% CI −0.04 to −0.03), fewer outpatient visits (MD −0.78, 95% CI −0.93 to −0.62), fewer surgeries (MD −0.01, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.00), and fewer prescriptions (MD −1.39, 95% CI −1.76 to −1.03) per user than non–Noom Weight users. Among a subset of individuals with 24-month follow-up data, Noom Weight users incurred lower overall prescription costs (MD −US $1139.52, 95% CI −US $1972.21 to −US $306.83) and lower overall health care costs (MD −US $1219.06, 95% CI −US $2061.56 to −US $376.55) per user than non–Noom Weight users. The key differences were associated with reduced prescription use. CONCLUSIONS Noom Weight use is associated with lower HRU and costs than non–Noom Weight use, with potential cost savings of up to US $1219.06 per user at 24 months after the index date. These findings suggest that Noom Weight could be a cost-effective weight management program for individuals with overweight and obesity. This study provides valuable evidence for health care providers and payers in evaluating the potential benefits of digital weight loss interventions such as Noom Weight.

Medicine has always been a service industry (as opposed to a manufacturing industry), as there is a shift from volume to value in health care, this point is becoming increasingly important. The delivery of good care extends beyond the technical aspects of performing a complex operation or prescribing the right type of medicine. Intuitively physicians have always understood the value of the physician-patient relationship, and its correlation to a good outcome. As patients are increasingly being forced to spend a greater portion of their personal income on health care through high-deductible plans and larger co-pays, physicians have to differentiate themselves through the delivery of great service beyond the delivery of superior health outcomes. Understanding the service-profit chain can help physicians succeed in the transition to a value-based health care system.