The economic burden of switching targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among rheumatoid arthritis patients

Aims: To estimate real world healthcare costs and resource utilization of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients associated with targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARD) switching in general and switching to abatacept specifically.

Materials and methods: RA patients initiating a tDMARD were identified in IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims data (2010–2016), and outcomes measured included monthly healthcare costs per patient (all-cause, RA-related) and resource utilization (inpatient stays, outpatient visits, emergency department [ED] visits). Generalized linear models were used to assess (i) average monthly costs per patient associated with tDMARD switching, and (ii) among switchers only, costs of switching to abatacept vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi. Negative binomial regressions were used to determine incident rate ratios of resource utilization associated with switching to abatacept.

Results: Among 11,856 RA patients who initiated a tDMARD, 2,708 switched tDMARDs once and 814 switched twice (to a third tDMARD). Adjusted average monthly costs were higher among patients who switched to a second tDMARD vs non-switchers (all-cause: $4,785 vs $3,491, p?p?p?p?=?.021), and numerically lower all-cause costs ($4,444 vs $4,741, p?=?0.188). Switchers to TNFi relative to abatacept had more frequent inpatient stays after switch (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.85, p?=?.031), and numerically higher ED visits (IRR = 1.32, p?=?.093). Outpatient visits were less frequent for TNFi switchers (IRR = 0.83, p?Limitations and conclusions: Switching to another tDMARD was associated with higher healthcare costs. Switching to abatacept, however, was associated with lower RA-related costs, fewer inpatient stays, but more frequent outpatient visits compared to switching to a TNFi.     

Productivity cost model of the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept

Background: The cost of the biological drug abatacept may be partly offset by reductions in the cost of productivity losses due to employee absences and reduced effectiveness at work because of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: This was a 1-year productivity cost model based on epidemiologic and economic data. The setting was private industry in the US and the primary outcome measure was the difference in the costs of lost productivity and drug treatment with and without abatacept (‘cost difference’).

Results: The lost productivity cost of RA for a firm of 10,000 was $1.69 million, largely due to the cost of RA-related absenteeism ($1.55 million) rather than to worker displacement ($0.12 million) or care-giving for spouses with RA ($0.02 million). In the base case analysis (excluding presenteeism), 37% of the acquisition cost of abatacept was offset by reductions in the cost of RA-related productivity losses. In some industry groups (Utilities and Finance), and in models that included presenteeism, reductions in lost productivity costs exceeded the abatacept cost.

Conclusions: Much of the acquisition cost of abatacept may be offset by reductions in the cost of productivity losses due to RA. Abatacept treatment could be cost saving in some industry groups.     

Derivation of severity index for rheumatoid arthritis and its association with healthcare outcomes

Abstract

Objectives:

To develop a claims-based severity index for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database.

Methods:

Adult patients with at least two RA diagnoses 2 months apart were identified between 10/1/2008–09/30/2009. Patients were required to have at least 12 months continuous health plan enrollment before and after the index date (first RA diagnosis date) for an overall study period of 10/1/2007–09/30/2010. A severity index for rheumatoid arthritis (SIFRA, a proprietary algorithm of SIMR, Inc. [STATinMED Research]) was developed by calculating a weighted sum of 34 RA-related indicators assessed by an expert Delphi panel of six rheumatologists, including laboratory, clinical, and functional status, extra-articular manifestations, surgical history, and medications, during a 1-year pre-index period. Separate SIFRA versions were derived for patients with and without laboratory information. Correlations between SIFRA and previously validated claims-based indexes for RA severity (CIRAS), and other traditional comorbidity indexes were calculated during the pre-index period. The relationship between SIFRA and follow-up healthcare outcomes was also examined using histograms.

Results:

The Spearman’s rank correlations between SIFRA and CIRAS were 0.525 for SIFRA without and 0.539 with laboratory data. The correlations between SIFRA and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (0.1503 without, 0.1135 with laboratory data), Elixhauser Index (ELIX) (0.105 without, 0.079 with laboratory data), and Chronic Disease Score (CDS) (0.255 without, 0.239 with laboratory data) were low. Histograms showed that patients in the upper tercile of SIFRA incurred $9123 more all-cause and $1326 more RA-related healthcare costs during the 1-year post-index period than patients in the lower tercile. Using SIFRA in combination with CCI, CDS, or ELIX significantly increased the percentage of variation explained in outcomes measures.

Limitations:

Patients in the VHA database may not represent typical RA patients since the database generally contains older, economically disadvantaged men with a high disease burden. Validity of the score is indirectly based on disease activity score 28 (DAS28), which measures disease activity rather than severity.

Conclusions:

SIFRA was found to have moderate correlations with the previously validated CIRAS score, and demonstrated evidence of being a significant determinant of total and RA-related healthcare costs for RA patients. This study suggests that SIFRA could be an important methodological tool to control for severity in RA-related outcomes research. The algorithm can be applied to any claims dataset.     

Reoperations in intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures

Objective: This study evaluated the frequency of reoperation within 1 year of initial intramedullary fixation for patients with pertrochanteric hip fracture and compared 1-year healthcare resource utilization and cost burden for patients with and without reoperation.

Methods: This is a retrospective evaluation of medical claims from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Standard Analytic File. Patients aged ≥65?years who underwent fixation with an intramedullary implant for a pertrochanteric fracture between 2013 and 2015 were included. Healthcare resources that were evaluated included skilled nursing facility (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), readmissions, and outpatient hospital visits. All-cause payments for these services comprised overall cost burden. Generalized Linear Models were used to evaluate healthcare resources and cost burden over 1-year post-surgery and to adjust for confounding between patients with and without a reoperation.

Results: A total of 6,423 Medicare patients were included in the analysis. Mean (SD) age was 82.4 (7.8) years, 76.0% were female, and 93.3% were white. A second hip surgery within 1 year after the index fixation procedure was performed in 414 patients (6.4%): 121 (29.2%) contralateral, 115 (27.8%) ipsilateral, and 178 (43.0%) without specified laterality. After adjusting for confounding factors, Medicare patients with ipsilateral reoperations had statistically significantly higher readmissions (100% vs 32.5%, p?p?=?0.018), admissions to a SNF (88.5% vs 80.4%, p?=?0.024), and admissions to an IRF (38.8% vs 22.0%, p?p?Conclusions: Patients who require a second hip surgery after initial fixation with an intramedullary implant for pertrochanteric hip fractures have significantly higher 1-year healthcare resource utilization and 63.5% higher costs than patients without reoperation.     

Health-related quality-of-life,work productivity,and economic burden among patients with Parkinson’s disease in Japan

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to characterize the burden of Parkinson’s disease (PD) by examining health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), impairments to work productivity and daily activities, healthcare resource use, and associated costs among Japanese patients with PD.

Materials and methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study used data from the 2009–2014 Japan National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) (n?=?144,692). HRQoL (Short Form 36-Item Health Survey version 2), impairments to work productivity and daily activities (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire), healthcare resource utilization, and annual costs were compared between respondents with PD (n?=?133) and controls without PD (n?=?144,559). The effect of PD on outcomes was estimated using propensity score weighting and multivariable regression models.

Results: HRQoL was lower in patients with PD compared to the control group, with reduced physical (41.3 vs 51.3) and mental (35.7 vs 45.4) component summary scores and health state utility scores (0.62 vs 0.77; p?<?.001 for all). Patients with PD also reported higher levels of absenteeism (19.3% vs 3.3%), presenteeism (45.2% vs 18.5%), overall work impairment (52.8% vs 20.3%), and activity impairment (49.6% vs 20.8%) than controls without PD (p?<?.001 for all). In addition, patients with PD had higher healthcare resource utilization, direct (¥3,856,921/$37,994 vs ¥715,289/$7,046), and indirect (¥2,573,938/$25,356 vs ¥902,534/$8,891) costs compared with controls without PD (p?<?.001 for both).

Limitations: Data were cross-sectional and did not allow for causal inferences. Although the NHWS demographically represents the Japanese adult population, it is unclear whether it adequately represents the adult population with PD in Japan.

Conclusions: PD was associated with poorer HRQoL, greater work productivity loss, and higher direct and indirect costs. The findings suggest that an unmet need exists among patients with PD in Japan. Improving PD treatment and management could benefit both patients and society.     

Impact of completing chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment on post-therapy healthcare cost

Background:

Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with significant economic burden. This study evaluated the healthcare cost alleviation associated with treatment of CHC.

Methods:

Health insurance claims from 60 self-insured US companies were analyzed (01/2001–03/2012). Adult patients with ≥1 CHC diagnosis (ICD-9-CM: 070.44, 070.54), initiating interferon, and with ≥2 dispensings and with ≥48 weeks of follow-up were selected. Patients diagnosed with HIV or who completed only 24 weeks of interferon therapy (a surrogate for CHC genotypes 2 and 3) were excluded from the study. Interferon users were categorized into complete and discontinued therapy cohorts. During the post–48-week treatment period, cohorts were compared for healthcare resource utilization using rate ratios (RRs), as well as healthcare costs using per-patient per-year (PPPY) cost differences.

Results:

A total of 1017 patients who completed and 953 patients who discontinued interferon therapy were identified. Relative to the discontinued therapy cohort, the completed therapy cohort had significantly fewer hospitalizations (RR [95% CI]?=?0.74 [0.68, 0.81], p?p?p?=?0.039), which translated into significantly lower total healthcare costs PPPY (cost difference [95% CI]?=?$4540 [1570, 7680], p?=?0.004) and hospitalization costs (cost difference [95% CI]?=?$3039 [1140, 5248], p?=?0.002). Non–CHC-related costs accounted for 55% and CHC-related costs for 45% of the all-cause cost difference between cohorts.

Limitations:

Claims data may have contained inaccuracies, and genotypes of patients with CHC could not be confirmed. The study consisted of privately insured individuals and may not be generalizable to the entire CHC population.

Conclusion:

Compared to discontinued therapy patients, CHC patients who completed interferon therapy and presumably had a higher rate of achieving SVR were found to have lower levels of healthcare resource utilization and costs post-therapy. The reduction was primarily in costs associated with non–HCV-related comorbidities.     

Comparative evaluation of treatment patterns and healthcare utilization of newly-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis patients by anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody status

Background: Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positivity is an established diagnostic factor for severe disease activity and joint damage and a prognostic factor for aggressive disease in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Objective: To compare RA-related treatment, healthcare utilization, and joint erosion between anti-CCP-positive and anti-CCP-negative RA patients.

Methods: Newly-diagnosed RA patients were identified from the Henry Ford Health System database between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014; the date of the first RA diagnosis within the study period was the index date. Baseline anti-CCP test was used to categorize patients as anti-CCP-positive or anti-CCP-negative, and outcomes were evaluated in the 6 months post-index.

Results: There were 217 anti-CCP-positive and 191 anti-CCP-negative RA patients included in the study. A higher proportion of anti-CCP-positive patients were initiated on RA treatment than anti-CCP-negative patients (70.5% vs 23.0%; p?<?.0001). More anti-CCP-positive patients received methotrexate (73.2% vs 56.8%; p?=?.0374), while more anti-CCP-negative patients received hydroxychloroquine (31.8% vs 13.1%; p?=?.0037) in first-line therapy. A higher proportion of anti-CCP-negative patients were tested for rheumatoid factor (RF) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Of those tested, there were more positive test results in the anti-CCP-positive cohort compared to the anti-CCP-negative cohort (RF: 84.4% vs 18.2%, p?<?.0001; C-reactive protein [CRP]: 69.7% vs 48.3%, p?=?.0008; and ESR: 89.5% vs 53.9%, p?<?.0001). Outpatient utilization predominated, with more anti-CCP-positive patients having any outpatient physician office visit (96.3% vs 77.5%, p?<?.0001) and a higher mean number of visits (5.3 vs 2.5, p?<?.0001) than anti-CCP-negative patients. Among anti-CCP-positive (n?=?113) and anti-CCP-negative (n?=?58) patients with imaging results, more anti-CCP-positive patients had joint erosion compared to anti-CCP-negative patients (18.6% vs 8.6%; p?=?.0858); however, statistical significance was not reached.

Conclusion: RA patients with positive anti-CCP antibodies had higher degrees of inflammation and disease activity as indicated by laboratory results, which likely contributed to their higher rates of healthcare utilization, joint erosion, and proportions of RA treatment.     

Healthcare costs and resource utilization in patients with severe aplastic anemia in the US

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for patients with severe aplastic anemia (SAA) using US claims data.

Methods: This retrospective, observational database study analyzed claims data from the Truven MarketScan databases. SAA patients aged ≥2?years identified between 2014 and 2017 who were continuously enrolled for 6?months before their first SAA treatment or blood transfusion, with a ≥6-month follow-up, were included. Baseline demographics and comorbidities were evaluated. Monthly all-cause and SAA-related HCRU and direct costs in the follow-up period were analyzed and differences were presented for all patients and across age groups.

Results: With an average follow-up period of 21.5?months, 939 patients were included in the study. Monthly all-cause and SAA-related HCRU [mean (SD)] were 1.65 days (2.61 days) and 0.18 days (0.70 days) for length of stay, 0.18 (0.23) and 0.01 (0.04) for hospital admissions, 0.25 (0.30) and 0.02 (0.07) for ER visits, 2.24 (1.40) and 0.46 (0.99) for office visits, and 2.90 (2.64) and 0.55 (1.31) for outpatient visits, respectively. On average, SAA patients received 0.15 (0.57) blood transfusions per month. Mean monthly all-cause direct costs were $28,280 USD ($36,127) [US dollars, mean (SD)]. Direct costs related to admissions were $11,433 USD (SD $25,040), followed by $624 USD ($1,703) for ER visits, $528 USD ($694) for office visits, $7,615 USD ($13,273) for outpatient visits, and $5,998 USD ($11,461) for pharmacy expenses. Monthly SAA-related direct costs averaged $7,884 USD (SD $16,254); of these costs, $1,608 USD ($7,774) were from admissions, $47 USD ($257) from ER visits, $127 USD ($374) from office visits, $1,462 USD ($4,994) from outpatient visits, and $4,451 USD ($10,552) from pharmacy expenses.

Conclusion: SAA is associated with high economic burden, with costs comparable to blood malignancies, implying that US health plans should consider appropriately managing SAA while constraining the total healthcare costs when making formulary decisions.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients with cancer

Abstract

Objective: Patients with cancer are at high risk for developing primary but also recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study examined healthcare utilization (HRU) and costs related to VTE recurrence among cancer patients.

Methods: Medical and pharmacy claims from the Humana Database were used to compare HRU (outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and hospitalization days) and healthcare costs among cancer patients with a single VTE event (between 01/2013 and 06/2015) and those with recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (from initiation of anticoagulant therapy until end of eligibility or data availability). All-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs were evaluated using Poisson regression, and healthcare costs were compared using mean differences reported as per-patient-per-year (PPPY).

Results: Of 2,428 newly diagnosed cancer patients who developed VTE, 413 (17.1%) experienced recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (mean = 9 months). Patients with recurrent VTE had higher all-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs compared to those without recurrence. Patients with recurrent VTE also had over 3.19-times more VTE-related hospitalizations (RR [95% CI]?=?3.19 [2.93–3.47]), and 3.88-times more VTE-related hospitalization days (RR [95% CI]?=?3.88 [3.74–4.02]) than patients without a VTE recurrence. Total VTE-related healthcare costs were $39,641 PPPY among patients with recurrent VTE, $29,142 higher compared to those without recurrence ($10,499 PPPY). This difference was mainly driven by hospitalization costs.

Conclusion: Recurrent VTE among cancer patients is associated with significant HRU and healthcare costs, notably hospitalizations. Strategies to reduce VTE recurrence in patients with cancer can contribute to reducing healthcare cost.     

Healthcare utilization and costs among chronic bronchitis patients treated with maintenance medications from a US managed care population

Abstract

Objectives:

This study aimed to examine the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and direct costs among chronic bronchitis (CB) patients treated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medications.

Methods:

This retrospective analysis utilized administrative claims data from 14 US commercial managed care plans. Eligible patients were ≥40 years old, had ≥2 years of continuous enrollment, ≥1 CB (ICD-9-CM code 491.xx) hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit or ≥2 office visits between 1/1/2004 and 5/31/2011, and had ≥2 pharmacy fills for COPD medications during follow-up (first fill served as the index date). All-cause and COPD-related HCRU and costs were assessed during follow-up. Multivariate models were utilized to identify predictors of total costs.

Results:

Treated CB patients (n?=?17,382; 50.6% female; mean age 66.7 (SD?=?11.4) years) had a mean of 7.6 (SD?=?6.3) COPD maintenance medication fills during follow-up. Overall, 32.6% of patients had ≥1 COPD-related inpatient hospitalizations, 12.9% had ≥1 ED visit, and 81.8% had ≥1 office visit. Mean all-cause and COPD-related total costs were $25,747 (SD?=?$51,105) and $12,609 (SD?=?$36,801), respectively, during follow-up. Among the sub-group with ≥1 exacerbation during baseline year, 42.3% had ≥1 COPD-related inpatient hospitalization, 18.5% had ≥1 ED visit, and 88.2% had ≥1 office visit. Mean follow-up all-cause and COPD-related total costs were $29,861 (SD?=?$49,799) and $16,784 (SD?=?$34,170), respectively. The number of baseline exacerbations was a significant predictor of all-cause and COPD-related total costs during follow-up.

Limitations:

This study lacked standard measures of CB severity; however, severity proxies were utilized.

Conclusion:

HCRU and costs among CB patients were substantial during follow-up, despite treatment with COPD maintenance medications. Additional interventions aiming to prevent or reduce HCRU and costs among CB patients warrant exploration.     

Healthcare costs associated with bevacizumab and cetuximab in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the health care costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received second-line treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab) versus Erbitux (cetuximab), from the third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were selected from the PharMetrics claims database if they received second-line therapy containing either bevacizumab (second-line bevacizumab cohort) or cetuximab (second-line cetuximab cohort). Six-month costs following second-line therapy start date and average monthly healthcare costs while on second-line therapy (in 2009 US$) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results:

A total of 2188 patients with mCRC who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis, including 1808 patients receiving bevacizumab and 380 patients receiving cetuximab in second-line treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients’ mean age was 61 years and 56% were males. In second-line treatment, bevacizumab was commonly used with oxaliplatin (43.5%) and irinotecan-based regimens (40.4%), whereas cetuximab was commonly used with irinotecan-based regimens (68.2%). Bevacizumab patients had significantly lower total all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients (adjusted difference: –$10,231, p?=?0.020), and lower medical costs (–$10,796, p?=?0.012) during the 6 months following second-line therapy initiation. Approximately half of the difference in total all-cause healthcare costs was attributable to the lower chemotherapy and targeted therapy costs (–$5635, p?=?0.032) of bevacizumab patients than those of cetuximab patients. While on second-line therapy, bevacizumab patients also had lower average monthly all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients.

Limitations:

Second-line treatment in the current study was defined based on changes in mCRC medications, not based on disease progression due to the limited clinical information available in claims.

Conclusion:

The use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in mCRC patients, compared to the use of cetuximab.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism in cancer patients treated with anticoagulants

Abstract

Objective: The standard of care for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but oral anticoagulants are also widely prescribed. This study compared VTE-related healthcare resource utilization and costs of cancer patients treated with anticoagulants.

Methods: Claims data from Humana Database (January 1, 2013–May 31, 2015) were analyzed. Based on the first anticoagulant received, patients were classified into LMWH, warfarin, or rivaroxaban cohorts. Characteristics were evaluated during the 6 months pre-index date (i.e. the first VTE); VTE-related resource utilization and costs were evaluated during follow-up. Cohorts were compared using rate ratios, and p-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Healthcare costs were evaluated per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and compared using mean cost differences.

Results: A total of 2,428 patients (LMWH: n?=?660; warfarin: n?=?1,061; rivaroxaban: n?=?707) were included. Compared to patients treated with LMWH, patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly fewer VTE-related hospitalizations, hospitalization days, and emergency room and outpatient visits, resulting in an increase of $12,000 VTE-related healthcare costs PPPY with LMWH vs rivaroxaban. Patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly lower VTE-related resource utilization compared to patients treated with warfarin; however, VTE-related costs were similar between cohorts. The higher drug costs ($1,519) were offset by significantly lower outpatient (?$1,039) and hospitalization costs (?$522) in rivaroxaban relative to the warfarin cohort.

Conclusions: Healthcare resource use and costs associated with VTE treatment in cancer patients are highest with LMWH relative to warfarin and rivaroxaban.