Clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin glargine disposable pen versus exenatide BID

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who failed oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD) therapy and initiated either insulin glargine with disposable pen (GLA-P) or exenatide BID (EXE).

Research design and methods:

This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008. Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.

Results:

Two thousand three hundred and thirty nine patients were included in the study (GLA-P: 381; EXE: 1958); 626 patients were in the 1:1 matched cohort (54% male; mean age: 54 years; mean A1C: 9.2%). At follow-up, patients in the GLA-P group were significantly more persistent in treatment than EXE patients (48% vs 15% in persistence rate and 252 vs 144 days in persistence days; both p?<?0.001). GLA-P patients also had significantly lower A1C at follow-up (8.02% vs 8.32%; p?=?0.042) and greater A1C reduction from baseline (?1.23% vs ?0.92%; p?=?0.038). There were no significant differences in claims-based hypoglycemia rates and overall diabetes-related healthcare utilization and cost.

Limitations:

Since this was a retrospective analysis, causality of treatment benefits cannot be established. The study was specific to two treatments and may not generalize to other models of insulin administration. Some of the results, although statistically significant, may not be found clinically important.

Conclusions:

In a real-world setting among T2DM patients who failed to achieve or sustain glycemic goal with OADs, initiation of GLA-P instead of EXE may be a more effective option because it was associated with greater treatment persistence, greater A1C reduction without a significantly higher rate of hypoglycemia, and similar healthcare costs.     

Distribution and drivers of costs in type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral hypoglycemic agents: a retrospective claims data analysis

Objective:

To describe the distribution of costs and to identify the drivers of high costs among adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving oral hypoglycemic agents.

Methods:

T2DM patients using oral hypoglycemic agents and having HbA1c test data were identified from the Truven MarketScan databases of Commercial and Medicare Supplemental insurance claims (2004–2010). All-cause and diabetes-related annual direct healthcare costs were measured and reported by cost components. The 25% most costly patients in the study sample were defined as high-cost patients. Drivers of high costs were identified in multivariate logistic regressions.

Results:

Total 1-year all-cause costs for the 4104 study patients were $55,599,311 (mean cost per patient?=?$13,548). Diabetes-related costs accounted for 33.8% of all-cause costs (mean cost per patient?=?$4583). Medical service costs accounted for the majority of all-cause and diabetes-related total costs (63.7% and 59.5%, respectively), with a minority of patients incurring >80% of these costs (23.5% and 14.7%, respectively). Within the medical claims, inpatient admission for diabetes-complications was the strongest cost driver for both all-cause (OR?=?13.5, 95% CI?=?8.1–23.6) and diabetes-related costs (OR?=?9.7, 95% CI?=?6.3–15.1), with macrovascular complications accounting for most inpatient admissions. Other cost drivers included heavier hypoglycemic agent use, diabetes complications, and chronic diseases.

Limitations:

The study reports a conservative estimate for the relative share of diabetes-related costs relative to total cost. The findings of this study apply mainly to T2DM patients under 65 years of age.

Conclusions:

Among the T2DM patients receiving oral hypoglycemic agents, 23.5% of patients incurred 80% of the all-cause healthcare costs, with these costs being driven by inpatient admissions, complications of diabetes, and chronic diseases. Interventions targeting inpatient admissions and/or complications of diabetes may contribute to the decrease of the diabetes economic burden.     

Treatment patterns,healthcare resource utilization,and costs in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in commercially insured and Medicare populations

Objective: To describe the setting, duration, and costs of induction and consolidation chemotherapy for adults with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), who are candidates for standard induction chemotherapy, in the US.

Methods: Adults newly-diagnosed with AML who received standard induction chemotherapy in an inpatient setting were identified from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan (2006–2015) and SEER-Medicare (2007–2011) databases. Patients were observed from induction therapy start to the first of hematopoietic stem cell transplant, 180 days after induction discharge, health plan enrollment/data availability end, or death. Induction and consolidation chemotherapy were identified using Diagnosis-Related Group codes (chemotherapy with acute leukemia) or procedure codes for AML chemotherapy administration. AML treatment episode setting (inpatient or outpatient), duration, and costs (2015 USD, payers’ perspective) were described for commercially insured patients and Medicare beneficiaries.

Results: In total, 459 commercially insured patients and 563 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age?=?54 and 66 years; 53% and 54% male; respectively) were identified. For induction therapy, mean costs were $145,189 for commercially insured patients and $85,734 for Medicare beneficiaries, and median inpatient duration was 31 days (both). Following induction, 64% of commercially insured patients and 53% of Medicare beneficiaries had ≥1 consolidation cycle; 75% and 65% of consolidation cycles were in an inpatient setting, respectively. For consolidation cycles, in the inpatient setting, mean costs were $28,137 for commercially insured patients and $28,843 for Medicare beneficiaries, median cycle duration was 6 days (both); in the outpatient setting, mean costs were $11,271 for commercially insured patients and $5,803 Medicare beneficiaries, median duration was 5 days (both).

Limitations: Granular information on chemotherapy type administered was unavailable.

Conclusions: This is the first exploratory study providing a complete picture of recent AML treatment patterns and management costs among commercially insured patients and Medicare beneficiaries. There is substantial heterogeneity in the management and costs of AML.     

Healthcare utilization changes in relation to treatment intensification with insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data from a large US managed-care organization

ABSTRACT

Objective: Most patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require exogenous insulin therapy to achieve good glycemic control due to the progressive nature of the disease. Insulin aspart is a rapid-acting insulin analog developed for prandial use. This study aimed to illustrate the implications on healthcare costs of adding insulin aspart to basal therapy in a real-world setting.

Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes who intensified previous basal therapy with insulin aspart were identified from a large commercial US healthcare data source between April 2007 and September 2008. Patients were required to have received basal insulin treatment with or without concomitant oral antidiabetic (OAD) therapy for at least 90 days pre- and post-initiation of insulin aspart. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar's test were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively, to analyze the difference of self-comparison between pre- and post insulin aspart add-on.

Results: In total, 1,739 patients with an average age of 56 years were identified, of whom 55% were male. After initiation of insulin aspart, a significant improvement in glycemic control was observed (change in HbA_1c: –0.5%, p=0.0013). Similarly, a reduction of 0.4% in HbA_1c was observed for the subpopulation of 151 patients, who had both pre-and post-index HbA_1c data (p=0.0085). Also, significantly fewer patients used OADs after insulin aspart initiation (56 vs. 64%, p< 0.0001). Overall and diabetes-related healthcare costs also significantly decreased by $2,283 and $2,028, respectively (p≤0.0001). Diabetes-related inpatient visits appear to be the main contributor to total cost (46%); however, after initiation of insulin aspart the number of inpatient visits decreased by 0.50 visits/patient/year (p< 0.05). This decrease was reflected in a large reduction in cost related to inpatient visits ($3,019/patient).

Limitations: A regression to the mean effect may be associated with this pre-post comparison. The ability to make conclusions regarding cause and effect may be limited due to the retrospective design of this study.

Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes achieved better glycemic control and needed less OAD treatment after adding insulin aspart to previous basal therapy. Furthermore, patients experienced on average reduced healthcare utilization after initiation of insulin aspart, which resulted in significant cost savings.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for Thai type 2 diabetes from a payer’s perspective

Aims: An economic evidence is a vital tool that can inform the decision to use costly insulin analogs. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) compared with insulin glargine (IGlar) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the Thai payer’s perspective.

Methods: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015?US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ～1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.

Conclusions: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.     

Resource utilization and healthcare costs for acute coronary syndrome patients with and without diabetes mellitus

Abstract

Objective:

This study compared differences in healthcare costs and resource utilization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study of a large, US employer-based claims database identified adults hospitalized for ACS between 01/01/2005 and 12/31/2006 and categorized them based on DM status. Resource utilization and costs during the index hospitalization and in the 12-month follow-up period were compared for ACS patients with and without DM using the propensity score stratification bootstrapping method, adjusting for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results:

Of 12,502 patients who met selection criteria, 3,040 (24%) had a history of DM and 9,462 (76%) did not. Patients with DM were older, female, and had higher rates of previous cardiovascular and renal diseases. After the propensity score stratification, patients with DM incurred higher index hospitalization costs ($32,577 vs. $29,150, p?<?0.01) as well as higher total follow-up healthcare costs ($35,400 vs. $24,080, p?<?0.01), including higher inpatient ($17,278 vs. $11,247, p?<?0.01), outpatient ($12,357 vs. $8,853, p?<?0.01), and pharmacy costs ($5,765 vs. $3,980, p?<?0.01).

Limitations:

General limitations exist with any retrospective claims database analysis including potential diagnostic or procedural coding inaccuracies. Additionally, the patient population was representative of a working-age population with employer-sponsored health insurance and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Conclusions:

DM is significantly associated with increased healthcare resource utilization and costs for ACS patients.     

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.     

Healthcare and economic burden of adverse events among patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia treated with BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Objectives: BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are established treatments for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML); however, they are associated with infrequent, but clinically serious adverse events (AEs). The objective of this analysis was to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with AEs, previously identified using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in another study, among TKI-treated patients.

Methods: Adult patients with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes for CML and ≥1 claim for a TKI treatment between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2012 were identified from the Commercial and Medicare MarketScan databases. The first claim for a TKI was designated as the index event. Patients were required to have no TKI treatment during a 12-month baseline period. Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with select AEs having the strongest association with TKI treatment (femoral arterial stenosis [FAS], peripheral arterial occlusive disease [PAOD], intermittent claudication, coronary artery stenosis [CAS], pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, malignant pleural effusion, conjunctival hemorrhage) were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period.

Results: The study sample included 2,005 CML patients receiving TKI therapy (mean age?=?56 years; 56% male). Among all evaluated AEs, the highest mean inpatient healthcare costs were observed for FAS ($16,800 per patient) and PAOD ($14,263 per patient), which had total mean medical costs (inpatient?+?outpatient) of $17,015 and $15,154 per patient, respectively. Mean outpatient healthcare costs were highest for CAS ($1,861 per patient), followed by intermittent claudication ($947 per patient), PAOD ($891 per patient), and pleural effusion ($890 per patient). Total mean medical costs for fluid retention-related AEs, including pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, were $2,797 and $1,908 per patient, respectively.

Conclusions: The healthcare costs of AEs identified in the FAERS as having the strongest association with TKI treatment are substantial. Vascular stenosis-related AEs, including FAS and PAOD, have the highest cost burden.     

Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US.

Methods: Adult patients (18–64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014?US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars.

Results: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism?+?short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism?+?disability.

Conclusion: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.     

Factors associated with increased healthcare costs in Medicare Advantage patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in a large representative health insurance plan in the US

Abstract

Aim:

The objective of this study was to apply quantile regression (QR) methodology to a population from a large representative health insurance plan with known skewed healthcare utilization attributes, co-morbidities, and costs in order to identify predictors of increased healthcare costs. Further, this study provides comparison of the results to those obtained using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression methodology.

Methods:

Members diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes and with 24 months of continuous enrollment were included. Baseline patient demographic, clinical, consumer/behavioural, and cost characteristics were quantified. Quantile regression was used to model the relationship between the baseline characteristics and total healthcare costs during the follow-up 12 month period.

Results:

The sample included 83,705 patients (mean age?=?70.6 years, 48% male) residing primarily in the southern US (78.1%); 81.2% of subjects were on oral-only anti-diabetic therapy. Co-morbid conditions included nephropathy (43.5%), peripheral artery disease (26.4%), and retinopathy (18.0%). Variables with the strongest relationship with costs during the follow-up period included outpatient visits, ER visits, inpatient visits, and Diabetes Complications Severity Index score during the baseline period. In the top cost quantiles, each additional glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) test was associated with cost savings ($1400 in the 98th percentile). Stage 4 and Stage 5 chronic kidney disease were associated with an incremental cost increase of $33,131 and $106,975 relative to Stage 1 or no CKD in the 98th percentile ($US).

Conclusions:

These results demonstrate that QR provides additional insight compared to traditional OLS regression modeling, and may be more useful for informing resource allocation to patients most likely to benefit from interventions. This study highlights that the impact of clinical and demographic characteristics on the economic burden of the disease vary across the continuum of healthcare costs. Understanding factors that drive costs on an individual patient level provide important insights that will help in ameliorating the clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of diabetes.     

Economic simulation of canagliflozin and sitagliptin treatment outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycemic control

Abstract

Objectives:

This study examines the association between changes in diabetes-related quality measures (QMs) (HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure [BP], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], and body weight) and healthcare costs in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. It also performs an economic simulation that evaluates the cost implications of the changes in QMs and of the incidence rates (IRs) of adverse events (AEs) associated with canagliflozin (CANA) and sitagliptin (SITA) treatments in a real-world setting.

Methods:

Health-insurance claims and electronic medical records from the Reliant Medical Group database (2007–2011) were used to identify adult patients with T2DM receiving metformin and sulfonylurea who did not achieve adequate glycemic control. The association between the changes in QMs and healthcare costs was evaluated using multivariate regression and non-parametric bootstrap methods. AE-related costs were taken from the literature. The cost impact of CANA and SITA outcomes was evaluated using the aforementioned costs and the changes in QMs and the IRs of AEs observed in a recent phase 3 trial comparing CANA and SITA as third oral agent (DIA3015).

Results:

Eight hundred and fifty-six T2DM patients were identified (mean age?=?65.8; female 45.4%). The regression analysis found that increases of 1 percentage point in HbA1C and 1% in systolic and diastolic BP, LDL-C, or weight were associated with a per patient per year (PPPY) cost increase of $4476 (p?=?0.028) and $566 (p?=?0.006), a decrease of $362 (p?=?0.070) and $7 (p?=?0.817), and an increase of $241 (p?=?0.481), respectively. The economic simulation showed that changes in QMs and IRs of AEs equivalent to those reported in DIA3015 would be associated with a reduction in PPPY healthcare costs of $6061 (p?=?0.036) for CANA and $2190 (p?=?0.098) for SITA.

Conclusions:

This study suggests that integrated approaches that manage to control a combination of quality measures are most successful at reducing downstream healthcare costs.     

Association between provider specialty and healthcare costs and glycemic control for patients with diabetes

Aims: To analyze the association between provider, healthcare costs, and glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study identified adults with type 1 or 2?DM (T1D, T2D) in the Optum database. The main independent variable was provider (endocrinologist or primary care). Regression analysis compared total medical and pharmacy costs, adjusting for health status and other patient differences, by provider.

Results: For all patients, HbA1C improvement was greater, and medical costs significantly lower with an endocrinologist rather than a primary care provider. The largest HbA1C improvement (4%) occurred for insulin-dependent patients seen by endocrinologists. Significant medical savings with endocrinologist management occurred within the Medicare Advantage population in every sub-group of patients, with 14% lower costs ($4,767) for patients with T1D, 11% lower costs ($3,160) for patients with macro- and microvascular complications, and 10% lower costs ($2,237) for insulin-dependent patients. Within the commercial insurance population, medical costs were reduced by ≥9% in every sub-group of patients, with a 20% reduction ($8,450) for patients with micro- and macrovascular complications. Overall total costs (medical and pharmacy) were 8% ($1,541) higher for patients receiving endocrinologist rather than primary care, although endocrinologist care resulted in a 9% reduction (–$3,710) in costs for Medicare Advantage patients with T1D. Total medical costs (excluding pharmacy costs) may be a more accurate indicator of costs associated with patients in various stages of DM.

Limitations: There was insufficient data to develop risk-adjustment payments for pharmacy costs based on disease severity. The cross-sectional design identifies associations and not cause–effect relationships.

Conclusion: DM management by an endocrinologist was associated with greater HbA1C improvement and significantly lower medical costs. Total costs were higher with an endocrinologist, but for patients with T1D lower costs were seen, ranging from 2–9% regardless of insurance type.     

The economic burden of psoriasis with high comorbidity among privately insured patients in the United States

Objective: To evaluate the impact of comorbidities on healthcare resource use (HRU), and direct and indirect work-loss-related costs in psoriasis patients.

Methods: Adults with psoriasis (≥2 diagnoses, the first designated as the index date) and non-psoriasis controls (no psoriasis diagnoses, randomly generated index date) were identified in a US healthcare claims database of privately-insured patients (data between January 2010 and March 2017 were used). Psoriasis patients were stratified based on the number of psoriasis-related comorbidities (0, 1–2, or ≥3) developed during the 12?months post-index. All outcomes were evaluated during the follow-up period, spanning the index date until the end of continuous health plan eligibility or data cut-off. HRU and costs per-patient-per-year (PPPY) were compared in psoriasis and non-psoriasis patients with ≥12?months of follow-up.

Results: A total of 9,078 psoriasis (mean age?=?44?years, 51% female) and 48,704 non-psoriasis (mean age?=?41?years, 50% female) patients were selected. During the 12?months post-index, among psoriasis vs non-psoriasis patients, 71.0% vs 83.0% developed no psoriasis-related comorbidities, 26.3% vs 16.0% developed 1–2, and 2.6% vs 1.0% developed ≥3 psoriasis-related comorbidities. Compared to non-psoriasis patients, psoriasis patients had more HRU including outpatient visits (incidence rate ratios [IRRs]?=?1.52, 2.03, and 2.66 for 0, 1–2, and ≥3 comorbidities, respectively [all p?p?p?p?Conclusions: HRU and cost burden of psoriasis are substantial, and increase with the development of psoriasis-related comorbidities.     

Retrospective study comparing healthcare costs and utilization between commercially insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are newly initiating exenatide once weekly or liraglutide in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To compare healthcare costs and utilization between commercially insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the United States newly initiating exenatide once weekly (QW) or liraglutide.