Economic outcomes of exenatide vs liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in the United States: results from a retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Objective:

The safety and efficacy of the GLP-1 receptor agonists exenatide BID (exenatide) and liraglutide for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been established in clinical trials. Effective treatments may lower overall treatment costs. This study examined cost offsets and medication adherence for exenatide vs liraglutide in a large, managed care population in the US.

Methods:

This was a retrospective cohort analysis comprising adult patients with T2DM who initiated exenatide or liraglutide between 1/1/2010 and 6/30/2010 and had 6 months pre-index and post-index continuous eligibility. Patients were propensity score-matched to controls for baseline differences. Medication adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-test and McNemar’s test were used to compare outcomes.

Results:

Matched exenatide and liraglutide cohorts (n?=?1347 pairs) had similar average total 6-month follow-up costs ($6688 vs $7346). However, exenatide patients had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($2925 vs $3272, p?<?0.001). Among liraglutide patients, patients receiving the 1.8?mg dose had significantly higher average total costs compared to those receiving the 1.2?mg dose ($8031 vs $6536, p?=?0.026), with higher mean pharmacy costs in the 1.8?mg cohort ($3935 vs $3146, p?<?0.001). There were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient costs or medication adherence between groups (mean PDC: exenatide 56% vs liraglutide 57%, p?=?0.088).

Limitations:

The study assumed that all information needed for case classification and matching of cohorts was present and not differential across cohorts. The study did not control for covariates that were unavailable, such as HbA1c and duration of diabetes.

Conclusions:

Patients initiating exenatide vs liraglutide for T2DM had similar medication adherence and total healthcare costs; however, exenatide patients had significantly lower total pharmacy costs. Patients prescribed 1.8?mg liraglutide had significantly higher costs compared to those on 1.2?mg.     

Adherence to iron chelation therapy and associated healthcare resource utilization and costs in Medicaid patients with sickle cell disease and thalassemia

Background:

Sub-optimal patient adherence to iron chelation therapy (ICT) may impact patient outcomes and increase cost of care. This study evaluated the economic burden of ICT non-adherence in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) or thalassemia.

Methods:

Patients with SCD or thalassemia were identified from six state Medicaid programs (1997–2013). Adherence was estimated using the medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥0.80. All-cause and disease-specific resource utilization per-patient-per-month (PPPM) was assessed and compared between adherent and non-adherent patients using adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR). All-cause and disease-specific healthcare costs were computed using mean cost PPPM. Regression models adjusting for baseline characteristics were used to compare adherent and non-adherent patients.

Results:

A total of 728 eligible patients treated with ICT in the SCD cohort, 461 (63%) adherent, and 218 in the thalassemia cohort, 137 (63%) adherent, were included in this study. In SCD patients, the adjusted rate of all-cause outpatient visits PPPM was higher in adherent patients vs non-adherent patients (aIRR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01–1.08], p?<?0.0001). Conversely, adherent patients incurred fewer all-cause inpatients visits (0.87 [0.81–0.94], p?<?0.001) and ER visits (0.86 [0.78–0.93], p?<?0.001). Similar trends were observed in SCD-related resource utilization rates and in thalassemia patients. Total all-cause costs were similar between adherent and non-adherent patients, but inpatient costs (adjusted cost difference?=??$1530 PPPM, p?=?0.0360) were lower in adherent patients.

Conclusion:

Patients adherent to ICT had less acute care need and lower inpatient costs than non-adherent patients, although they had more outpatient visits. Improved adherence may be linked to better disease monitoring and has the potential to avoid important downstream costs associated with acute care visits and reduce the financial burden on health programs and managed care plans treating SCD and thalassemia patients.     

Changes in healthcare resource use and costs associated with early versus delayed initiation of atypical antipsychotic adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder

Aims: The study compared all-cause and major depressive disorder (MDD)-related healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs in patients with MDD treated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) adjunctive therapy early or later in treatment.

Materials and methods: Adults with MDD and antidepressant treatment (ADT) who newly initiated adjunctive aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, or quetiapine between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015 were identified in the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims database; the index date was the date of the first AAP claim. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: AAP initiated in the first year (Y1); in the second year (Y2); and more than 2 years (Y3) of first ADT use. Within each cohort, HRU and costs were compared between the 12 months before and after the index date. Pre–post changes in HRU and costs were then compared between cohorts.

Results: Five hundred and six (36.7%) patients were categorized as Y1; 252 (18.3%) as Y2; and 622 (45.1%) as Y3. AAP use was associated with significantly decreased rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalization and emergency department visits, and increased rates of pharmacy fills and physician office visits; and the magnitude of changes was largest in cohort Y1. Cohort Y1 had the largest reductions in mean (±SD) all-cause medical costs per patient (?$10,496?±?$85,022, p?=?.015) compared to Y2 (?$2,474?±?$85,022, p?=?.572) and Y3 (?$472?±?$31,334, p?=?.823), mainly due to the reduction in hospitalization. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the largest reductions in hospitalization and medical costs were observed in cohort Y1. Similar increases in all-cause pharmacy costs were seen in all cohorts. A similar trend in costs was observed in MDD-related healthcare services.

Limitations and conclusions: AAP treatment was associated with reductions in all-cause and MDD-related medical costs, primarily in decreased hospitalization. The reductions were largest among patients who initiated treatment in the first year.     

Inflammatory bowel disease: healthcare costs for patients who are adherent or non-adherent with infliximab therapy

Objective:

Healthcare costs of inflammatory bowel disease are substantial. This study examined the effect of adherence versus non-adherence on healthcare costs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Methods:

Adults who started infliximab treatment between 2006 and 2009 and had a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease were identified from MarketScan Databases. Medication adherence was defined as an infliximab medication possession ratio of 80% or greater in the first year. Mean treatment effects (adherence versus non-adherence) on costs in adherent patients were estimated with propensity-weighted generalized linear models.

Results:

A total of 1646 patients were identified. Significant variables in the model used to develop propensity weights were age, year of infliximab initiation, having Medicare coverage, presence of supplementary diagnoses, office as the place of service for infliximab initiation, prior aminosalicylate use, prior outpatient costs, number of prior outpatient visits, and number of prior colonoscopies. Mean total costs in adherent (n?=?674) and propensity-weighted non-adherent (n?=?972) patients were $41,713 versus $47,411 overall (p?p?p?p?p?p?=?0.460).

Limitations:

Costs associated with infliximab administration (infusions, adverse events) were captured in healthcare costs (inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room), not in infliximab costs. The influence of adherence on indirect costs (e.g., time lost from work) could not be determined. Reasons for non-adherence were not available in the database.

Conclusions:

In patients who were adherent to infliximab treatment (a medication possession ratio of 80% or greater in the first year), adherence versus non-adherence was associated with lower total healthcare costs, supporting the overall value of infliximab adherence in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.     

Cost utility of palivizumab prophylaxis among pre-term infants in the United States: a national policy perspective

Abstract

Objective:

The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab has previously been reported among certain guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants in Medicaid. Because guideline authorities base decisions on a national perspective, the economic model of palivizumab was adapted to include all infants, that is, public and privately insured patients (60% of palivizumab use is public, 40% is private).

Methods:

This study examined four groups of premature infants without chronic lung disease of prematurity or congenital heart disease: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32–34 wGA, ≤3 months CA, with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RFs); (3) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA, with 2006 AAP RFs; and (4) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA, with ≤1 RF. An average estimate was used between public and private payors for (1) background rates of respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization (RSV-H), (2) direct medical costs associated with RSV-H, and (3) cost of palivizumab. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32–34 wGA with 2009 AAP RFs ($44,774 per QALY) and in infants 32–35 wGA with 2006 AAP RFs ($79,477 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF was $464,476 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included background rate of RSV-H and cost and efficacy of palivizumab.

Limitations:

The results are not generalizable to populations outside of the US. The model did not examine all RFs. The wholesale acquisition cost was used as a payment benchmark; actual price paid by end providers varies.

Conclusions:

From a national policy perspective, palivizumab remained cost-effective for publically and commercially insured, guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants. Palivizumab was not cost-effective in infants of 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF.     

Comparison of second-generation antipsychotic treatment on psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder

Abstract

Objective:

To compare second-generation antipsychotics on time to and cost of psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder.

Methods:

Retrospective study using healthcare claims from 10 US state Medicaid programs. Included beneficiaries were aged 18–64, initiated a single second-generation antipsychotic (aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) between 1/1/2003–6/30/2008 (initiation date?=?index), and had a medical claim with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for bipolar disorder. A 360-day post-index period was used to measure time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization (inpatient claims with a diagnosis code for a mental disorder [ICD-9-CM 290.xx–319.xx] in any position). Cox proportional hazards models and Generalized Linear Models compared time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization, respectively, in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole vs each other second-generation antipsychotic, adjusting for beneficiaries’ baseline characteristics.

Results:

Included beneficiary characteristics: mean age 36 years, 77% female, 80% Caucasian, aripiprazole (n?=?2553), mean time to psychiatric hospitalization or censoring?=?85 days; olanzapine (n?=?4702), 81 days; quetiapine (n?=?9327), 97 days; risperidone (n?=?4377), 85 days; ziprasidone (n?=?1520), 82 days. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, time to psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole was longer compared to olanzapine (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.52, p?<?0.001), quetiapine (HR?=?1.40, p?<?0.001), ziprasidone (HR?=?1.33, p?=?0.032), and risperidone, although the latter difference did not reach significance (HR?=?1.18, p?=?0.13). The adjusted costs of psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole were significantly lower compared to those initiating quetiapine (incremental per-patient per-month difference?=?$42, 95% CI?=?$16–66, p?<?0.05), but not significantly lower for the other comparisons.

Limitations:

This study was based on a non-probability convenience sample of the Medicaid population. Analyses of administrative claims data are subject to coding and classification error.

Conclusions:

Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder initiating aripiprazole had significantly longer time to psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating olanzapine, quetiapine, or ziprasidone, and significantly lower adjusted costs for psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating quetiapine.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palivizumab among pre-term infant populations covered by Medicaid in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Medicaid infants are at high risk of severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease. The study objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab in a Medicaid population.

Methods:

A societal cost-utility analysis was conducted of prophylaxis with palivizumab vs no prophylaxis among four groups of premature infants: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32–34 wGA, ≤3 months CA with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RF); (3) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with 2006 AAP RF; and (4) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with ≤1 RF. Full dosing of palivizumab was assumed throughout the RSV season (consistent with the FDA-approved label). All costs were in 2010 US dollars. The societal public payer spend for palivizumab was estimated using Medicaid reimbursement methodologies for the top 10 palivizumab-using states in 2010 minus mandatory manufacturer rebates. This study reports the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were also conducted.

Results:

Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32–34 wGA with 2009 AAP RF ($16,037 per QALY) and in infants 32–35 wGA with 2006 AAP RF ($38,244 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF was $281,892 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included the background rate of RSV hospitalization, the cost of palivizumab, and the efficacy of palivizumab.

Key limitations:

These results are not generalizable to commercially insured infants or infants outside of the US.

Conclusions:

This is the first cost-utility analysis of palivizumab in a Medicaid population. Palivizumab, when dosed consistent with the FDA-approved labeling, was either cost-saving or cost-effective among current guideline-eligible infants in the Medicaid population. Palivizumab did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in 32–35 wGA infants with ≤1 RF.     

Persistence,adherence, and all-cause healthcare costs in atazanavir- and darunavir-treated patients with human immunodeficiency virus in a real-world setting

Objectives:

Atazanavir (ATV) and darunavir (DRV) are protease inhibitors approved for HIV treatment in combination with ritonavir (/r). The objectives of this study were to compare persistence (time to treatment discontinuation/modification), adherence, and healthcare costs among patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) initiating ATV/r or DRV/r.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study used commercial and Medicaid administrative insurance claims data. Patients initiating ATV/r or DRV/r from 2006–2013 with continuous enrollment for ≥6 months before and ≥3 months after initiation were included. Patients were followed from initiation until discontinuation/modification (≥30 day gap in ATV or DRV or initiation of a new antiretroviral medication), during which time adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC], with PDC ≥80% or 95% considered adherent) and per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were measured. DRV/r patients were propensity score matched to ATV/r patients at a 1:1 ratio to achieve balance on potentially confounding demographic and clinical factors. Commercial and Medicaid samples were analyzed separately, as were antiretroviral (ART)-naïve and experienced patients.

Results:

The final samples comprised 2988 commercially-insured and 1158 Medicaid-insured patients. There were no significant differences in hazards of discontinuation/modification between the ATV/r or DRV/r cohorts. With respect to odds of being adherent, the only marginally significant result was comparing odds of achieving PDC ≥80% among ART-naïve Medicaid patients, which favored ATV/r. All other adherence comparisons were not significant. Although ATV/r cohorts tended to have lower PPPM costs, the majority of these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions:

Patients with HIV treated with either ATV/r or DRV/r had similar time to treatment discontinuation/modification, adherence, and monthly healthcare costs. Results were similar across the pre-specified sub-groups. These findings are useful not only as an insight into clinical practice, but also as a resource for healthcare providers and payers evaluating treatment options for HIV+ individuals.     

Implications of Real-world Adherence on Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Multiple Sclerosis

Abstract

Objectives:

Adherence to medication is essential for optimal outcomes, especially for chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS). Studies in MS indicate that lower adherence is associated with an increased risk of relapse, hospitalization or emergency room (ER) visits, and higher medical costs. A previous investigation assessed the cost per relapse avoided for patients with MS receiving first-line disease modifying therapies (DMTs); however, the model assumed 100% adherence.

Methods:

Because real-world utilization patterns influence the actual effectiveness of medications, this analysis assessed the impact of real-world adherence from a US commercial payer perspective, using updated costs.

Results:

As was seen in the original study, in this revised model, fingolimod was associated with the lowest cost per relapse avoided ($90,566), followed by SC IFN β-1b (Extavia: $127,024), SC IFN β-1b (Betaseron: $137,492), SC IFN β-1a ($144,016), glatiramer acetate ($160,314), and IM IFN β-1a ($312,629). The model inputs that had the greatest impact on the results were adherence-adjusted relative relapse rate reduction (RRR) of fingolimod, the wholesale acquisition costs of fingolimod, and the average number of relapses in untreated patients with MS.

Limitations:

The estimates of DMT adherence are from a single claims database study of a large national pharmacy benefit manager that only measured adherence, not actual relapses, and the model does not incorporate manufacturer discounts and rebates, which are not publicly available.

Conclusion:

These results suggest that economic analyses of MS therapies should incorporate real-world adherence rates where available, rather than relying exclusively on trial-based efficacy estimates when considering the economic value of treatment alternatives, and that highly efficacious therapies with low adherence may yield real-world efficacy that is substantially lower than that observed in closely monitored clinical trials.     

Comparison of utilization,cost, adherence,and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating rapid-acting insulin analog with prefilled pen versus vial/syringe

Abstract

Background:

Studies examining outcomes of different insulin delivery systems are limited. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare utilization, costs, adherence, and hypoglycemia rates in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating rapid-acting insulin analog (RAIA) using prefilled pen versus vial/syringe.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was conducted using a US claims database (1/1/2007 to 12/31/2008). Inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years old, with T2DM, ≥12 months of continuous eligibility, and new to RAIA. Difference-in-difference analyses after propensity score matching were conducted to compare changes in outcomes from 6 months prior to and 6 months after initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen versus vial/syringe (Wilcoxon rank-sum test for costs and t-test for other outcomes). Categories of utilization and costs (2009 USD) included total and diabetes-related inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room. Adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Hypoglycemia was identified using ICD-9-CM codes.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prefilled pen (n?=?239) and vial/syringe (n?=?590) cohorts after matching. Adherence to RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (PDC: 54.6 vs. 45.2%, p?<?0.001). While the increase in diabetes-related pharmacy costs from before to after initiating RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (+$900 vs. +$607, p?<?0.001), the prefilled pen cohort was associated with greater reductions in the total diabetes-related costs (–$235 vs. +$61, p?=?0.006) and the utilization of oral anti-hyperglycemic agents (–1.3 vs. –0.7, p?=?0.016). There were no significant differences in other outcomes.

Limitations:

Claims databases do not provide optimal measures for adherence or T2DM severity, and only capture hypoglycemia events requiring clinical intervention.

Conclusion:

Initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen was associated with better adherence and greater reduction in total diabetes-related costs than a vial/syringe. There was no significant difference in total healthcare costs.     

The threshold rate of oral atypical anti-psychotic adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving

Abstract

Objective:

To identify, estimate, and compare ‘real world’ costs and outcomes associated with paliperidone palmitate compared with branded oral atypical anti-psychotics, and to estimate the threshold rate of oral atypical adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving.

Methods:

Decision analytic modeling techniques developed by Glazer and Ereshefsky have previously been used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of depot haloperidol, LAI risperidone, and, more recently, LAI olanzapine. This study used those same techniques, along with updated comparative published clinical data, to evaluate paliperidone palmitate. Adherence rates were based on strict Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) criteria. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of US healthcare payers.

Results:

Paliperidone palmitate patients had fewer mean annual days of relapse (8.7 days; 6.0 requiring hospitalization, 2.7 not requiring hospitalization vs 17.8 days; 12.4 requiring hospitalization, 5.4 not requiring hospitalization), and lower annual total cost ($20,995) compared to oral atypicals (mean $22,481). Because paliperidone palmitate was both more effective and less costly, it is considered economically dominant. Paliperidone palmitate saved costs when the rate of adherence of oral atypical anti-psychotics was below 44.9% using strict MEMS criteria. Sensitivity analyses showed results were robust to changes in parameter values. For patients receiving 156?mg paliperidone palmitate, the annual incremental cost was $1216 per patient (ICER?=?$191 per day of relapse averted). Inclusion of generic risperidone (market share 18.6%) also resulted in net incremental cost for paliperidone palmitate ($120; ICER?=?$13). Limitations of this evaluation include use of simplifying assumptions, data from multiple sources, and generalizability of results.

Conclusions:

Although uptake of LAIs in the US has not been as rapid as elsewhere, many thought leaders emphasize their importance in optimizing outcomes in patients with adherence problems. The findings of this analysis support the cost-effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate in these patients.     

Healthcare costs for Crohn’s disease patients treated with infliximab: a propensity weighted comparison of the effects of treatment adherence

Objective:

The objective for the research was to evaluate the direct healthcare costs for Crohn’s disease (CD) patients categorized by adherence status.

Methods:

Adult patients with ≥1 claim for infliximab and ≥2 claims for CD who were continuously insured for 12 months before and after their first infliximab infusion (index date) were identified in a 2006–2009 US managed care database. Patients were excluded if they had rheumatoid arthritis claims, received infliximab billed as a pharmacy benefit, or received another biologic drug. Patients were categorized as being either adherent or intermittently adherent to infliximab using a pre-defined algorithm. Total and component direct costs, CD-related costs, rates of surgery, and days of hospitalization were estimated for the 360-day post-index period. Propensity weighted generalized linear models were used to adjust the cost estimates for potential confounding variables.

Results:

The total propensity weighted cost for infliximab adherent patients was $40,425 (95% CI?=?[$38,686, $42,242]), compared to $41,082 (95% CI?=?[$38,163, $44,223]) for the intermittently adherent (p?=?0.71). However, adherent patients had lower total direct medical costs, exclusive of infliximab, that were $13,097 (95% CI?=?[$12,141, $14,127]) compared with $20,068 (95% CI?=?[$17,676, $22,784]) for intermittently adherent patients as a result of substantially lower hospital and outpatient costs (p?Conclusions:

Greater drug-related costs for infliximab adherent patients were offset by lower costs from hospitalization and outpatient visits. These findings indicate that adherent patients have improved clinical outcomes, at a similar aggregate cost, than patients who are only intermittently adherent to therapy.     

Adherence,persistence, and inpatient utilization among adult schizophrenia patients using once-monthly versus twice-monthly long-acting atypical antipsychotics

Aims: This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU), healthcare costs, adherence, and persistence among adult patients with schizophrenia using once-monthly (OM) vs twice-monthly (TM) atypical long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic (AP) therapy.

Materials and methods: A longitudinal retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims data from six states. Patients initiated on aripiprazole or paliperidone palmitate were assigned to the OM cohort; risperidone-treated patients were assigned to the TM cohort. HRU and healthcare costs were assessed during the first 12 months following stabilization on the medication. Adherence was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the first year of follow-up. Persistence to the index medication was measured during the first 2 years following the index date. Comparison between the cohorts was achieved using multivariable generalized linear models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results: Patients in the OM LAI cohort had lower inpatient HRU and medical costs when compared with patients in the TM cohort. Higher medical costs in the TM LAI cohort offset the higher pharmacy costs in the OM LAI cohort. Mean PDC during the first 12 months of follow-up was higher in the OM cohort than in the TM cohort (0.56 vs 0.50, p?<?.01). Median persistence was longer in the OM cohort than in the TM cohort (7.5 months vs 5.5 months), as was the hazard of discontinuing the index medication (hazard ratio?=?0.83, p?=?.01). Kaplan-Meier rates of persistence at 1 year were higher for OM patients than for TM patients (37.6% vs 29.6%, p?<?.01).

Limitations: This was a Medicaid sample with few aripiprazole LAI patients (5.4% of OM cohort). Medication use was inferred from pharmacy claims.

Conclusions: Among Medicaid patients in these six states, OM AP treatment was associated with lower HRU, better adherence and persistence, and similar total costs compared to patients on TM treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness of several atypical antipsychotics in orally disintegrating tablets compared with standard oral tablets in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Although the use of innovative drug delivery systems, like orally disintegrating antipsychotic tablets (ODT), may facilitate medication adherence and help reduce the risk of relapse and hospitalization, no information is available about the comparative cost-effectiveness of standard oral tablets (SOT) vs ODT formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine ODT and olanzapine SOT in the usual treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia from a US healthcare perspective. The study also compared olanzapine ODT with risperidone and aripiprazole, two other atypical antipsychotics available in both ODT and SOT formulations.

Methods:

Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. Key outcomes were total annual direct cost per treatment, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) per 1 QALY gained.

Results:

Based on model projections, olanzapine ODT therapy was more costly ($9808 vs $9533), but more effective in terms of a lower hospitalization rate (15% vs 16%) and better QALYs (0.747 vs 0.733) than olanzapine SOT therapy. Olanzapine ODT was more cost-effective than olanzapine SOT (ICER: $19,643), more cost-effective than risperidone SOT therapy (ICER: $39,966), and dominant (meaning less costly and more effective) than risperidone ODT and aripiprazole in ODT or SOT formulations.

Limitations:

Lack of head-to-head randomized studies comparing the three studied atypical antipsychotics required making input assumptions that need further study.

Conclusions:

This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.