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.     

Economic impact of using fesoterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder with urge urinary incontinence in a vulnerable elderly population in the United States

Objectives:

To assess the costs of treating overactive bladder (OAB) with fesoterodine compared to no OAB pharmacotherapy among vulnerable elderly from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

A decision analytic cost model was developed to estimate the 52-week costs of a cohort of vulnerable elderly with OAB initiating treatment with fesoterodine or no OAB pharmacotherapy. Vulnerable elderly OAB patients were defined as those aged ≥65 years with self-reported urge urinary incontinence (UUI) symptoms for ≥3 months, 2–15 UUI episodes/day, and at risk of deteriorating health by a score of ≥3 on the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES)-13. Patients were evaluated for fesoterodine treatment response (defined as no UUI episodes) and persistence at weeks 12, 26, and 52. The model included a hypothetical health plan with 100,000 elderly members. A total of 7096 vulnerable elderly subjects were identified as the model target population based on the percentage of vulnerable elderly and annual prevalence of OAB among vulnerable elderly. OAB-related costs included fesoterodine drug acquisition costs, healthcare resource use (inpatient hospitalization, outpatient visits, and physician office visits), and OAB-related co-morbidities (falls/fractures, urinary tract infections, depression, and nursing home admissions). All costs were inflated to 2013 US$ using the medical care component of the consumer price index (CPI).

Results:

When 7096 vulnerable elderly OAB patients were treated with fesoterodine, US healthcare payers could save $11,463,981 per year, or $1616 per patient vs no OAB pharmacotherapy. Univariate one-way sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the findings and showed results were most sensitive to changes in fesoterodine efficacy followed by annual costs of inpatient hospitalization.

Conclusions:

From a US payer perspective, treating vulnerable elderly OAB patients with fesoterodine was cost-saving compared to no OAB pharmacotherapy.     

Switching of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real world setting

Objectives:

This study examined total healthcare costs and rates of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switch biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy in a real world setting.

Methods:

A retrospective longitudinal analysis was conducted in patients with RA using IMS PharMetrics Plus database from 1/1/2004 to 3/31/2010. The first-line cohort included patients newly initiated on abatacept or the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNFs) adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab, with 12 months of continuous follow-up. The second-line cohort included patients initiating a bDMARD with evidence of a different bDMARD within the previous 2 years and with 12 months of continuous follow-up. Switching was defined as a different bDMARD claim within a 200% gap in days supply from the previous bDMARD claim. Non-switchers stayed on their bDMARD in the follow-up period. Monthly total healthcare costs for switchers and non-switchers and rates of bDMARD switching were examined. Switch rates for each bDMARD were also compared.

Results:

First-line switchers had significantly higher monthly total healthcare costs after the switch than non-switchers ($3759 vs $2343; p?p?Limitations:

There are no clinical data available in this database and, therefore, this study did not examine the clinical drivers of healthcare costs and switch rates.

Conclusions:

Monthly total healthcare costs were higher for bDMARD switchers following the switch compared to non-switchers. Patients on abatacept switched less frequently than patients on anti-TNFs. This study highlights the need to identify patients who are likely to switch in order to ensure they receive the appropriate therapy which may improve outcomes and decrease healthcare costs.     

Economic burden associated with inadequate antidepressant medication management among patients with depression and known cardiovascular diseases: insights from a United States–based retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Aims: The current study examined the association between insufficient major depressive disorder (MDD) care and healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs among patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted using the MarketScan Claims Database (2010–2015). The date of the first MI/stroke diagnosis was defined as the cardiovascular disease (CVD) index date and the first date of a subsequent MDD diagnosis was the index MDD date. Adequacy of MDD care was assessed during the 90 days following the index MDD date (profiling period) using 2 measures: dosage adequacy (average fluoxetine equivalent dose of ≥20?mg/day for nonelderly and ≥10?mg/day for elderly patients) and duration adequacy (measured as the proportion of days covered of 80% or higher for all MDD drugs). Study outcomes included all-cause and CVD-related HCRU and costs which were determined from the end of the profiling period until the end of study follow-up. Propensity-score adjusted generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to compare patients receiving adequate versus inadequate MDD care in terms of study outcomes.

Results: Of 1,568 CVD patients who were treated for MDD, 937 (59.8%) were categorized as receiving inadequate MDD care. Results from the GLMs suggested that patients receiving inadequate MDD care had 14% more all-cause hospitalizations, 4% more all-cause outpatient visits, 17% more CVD-related outpatient visits, 13% more CVD-related emergency room (ER) visits, higher per patient per year CVD-related hospitalization costs ($21,485 vs. $17,756), higher all-cause outpatient costs ($2,820 vs. $2,055), and higher CVD-related outpatient costs ($520 vs. $434) compared to patients receiving adequate MDD care.

Limitations: Clinical information such as depression severity and frailty, which are potential predictors of adverse CVD outcomes, could not be ascertained using administrative claims data.

Conclusions: Among post-MI and post-stroke patients, inadequate MDD care was associated with a significantly higher economic burden.     

Outcomes of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor cycling versus switching to a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug with a new mechanism of action among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives: To examine treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and treatment costs for 1 year after patients with rheumatoid arthritis switched from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab), either cycling to another TNFi (“TNFi cyclers”) or switching to a new mechanism of action (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) (“new MOA switchers”).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data for a national insurer. Treatment persistence (without switching again, restarting, or discontinuing), treatment effectiveness (defined below), and costs were assessed for the 12-month post-switch period. Patients were “effectively treated” if they satisfied all six criteria for a treatment effectiveness algorithm (high adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no subsequent switch in therapy, no new/increased oral glucocorticoids, and <2 glucocorticoid injections). Multivariable logistic models were used to adjust for baseline factors.

Results: The database included 581 new MOA switchers and 935 TNFi cyclers. New MOA switchers were 39% more likely than TNFi cyclers to persist after the switch (odds ratio [OR]?=?1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.12–1.74; p?=?.003) and 36% less likely to switch therapy again (OR?=?0.64; 95% CI?=?0.51–0.81; p?p?=?.006). New MOA switchers had 16% lower drug costs than TNFi cyclers (cost ratio?=?0.84; 95% CI?=?0.79–0.88; p?p?Limitations: Claims payments may not reflect rebates or other cost offsets. Medical and pharmacy claims do not include clinical end-points or reasons that lead to new MOA switching vs TNFi cycling.

Conclusions: These results support switching to a new MOA after a patient fails treatment with a TNFi, which is consistent with recent guidelines for the pharmacologic management of established rheumatoid arthritis.     

Major bleeding risk and healthcare economic outcomes of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly-initiated with oral anticoagulant therapy in the real-world setting

Aims: This study compared the risk for major bleeding (MB) and healthcare economic outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) after initiating treatment with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin.

Methods: NVAF patients who initiated apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin were identified from the IMS Pharmetrics Plus database (January 1, 2013–September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance differences in patient characteristics between study cohorts: patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, apixaban vs dabigatran, and apixaban vs warfarin. Risk of hospitalization and healthcare costs (all-cause and MB-related) were compared between matched cohorts during the follow-up.

Results: During the follow-up, risks for all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.2–1.7) and MB-related (HR?=?1.57, 95% CI?=?1.0–2.4) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with rivaroxaban vs apixaban. Adjusted total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban ($3,950 vs $4,333 per patient per month [PPPM], p?=?.002) and MB-related medical costs were not statistically significantly different ($100 vs $233 PPPM, p?=?.096). Risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR?=?1.98, 95% CI?=?1.6–2.4) was significantly greater for patients treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, although total all-cause healthcare costs were not statistically different. Risks for all-cause (HR?=?2.22, 95% CI?=?1.9–2.5) and MB-related (HR?=?2.05, 95% CI?=?1.4–3.0) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with warfarin vs apixaban. Total all-cause healthcare costs ($3,919 vs $4,177 PPPM, p?=?.025) and MB-related medical costs ($96 vs $212 PPPM, p?=?.026) were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs warfarin.

Limitations: This retrospective database analysis does not establish causation.

Conclusions: In the real-world setting, compared with rivaroxaban and warfarin, apixaban is associated with reduced risk of hospitalization and lower healthcare costs. Compared with dabigatran, apixaban is associated with lower risk of hospitalizations.     

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.     

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriasis

Objective: This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics? claims database. Patients with psoriasis were selected if they had initiated apremilast or biologics between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015; had 12?months of pre-index and post-index continuous enrollment in the database; and were biologic-naive. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for apremilast or biologic, and occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment without a?>?60-day gap in therapy (discontinuation) or a switch to a different psoriasis treatment during the 12-month post-index period. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥ 80% while persistent on the index treatment. Persistence-based MPR was defined as the number of days with the medication on hand measured during the patients’ period of treatment persistence divided by the duration of the period of treatment persistence. Because patients were not randomized, apremilast patients were propensity score matched up to 1:2 to biologic patients to adjust for possible selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

Results: In all, 343 biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast were matched to 680 biologic-naive patients initiating biologics. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast vs biologics (32.1% vs 33.2%; p?=?0.7079). While persistent on therapy up to 12?months, per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were significantly lower among biologic-naive cohorts initiating apremilast vs biologics ($2,214 vs $5,184; p?p?p?p?Limitations: Data were limited to individuals with United Healthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, and may not be generalizable to psoriasis patients with other insurance or without health insurance coverage.

Conclusion: Biologic-naive patients with similar patient characteristics receiving apremilast vs biologics had significantly lower PPPM costs, even when they switched to biologics during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize psoriasis care while reducing healthcare costs.