An economic evaluation of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis: modeling the cost of treatment strategies in the United States

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the cost differences between a treatment strategy including tofacitinib (TOFA) vs treatment strategies including adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and vedolizumab (VEDO) among all patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) (further stratified by patients naïve/exposed to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFis]).

Materials and methods: An Excel-based decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate costs from the perspective of a third-party US payer over 2 years. Efficacy and safety parameters were taken from prescribing information and published trials. All patients started induction therapy on the first treatment in the strategy and continued if efficacy criteria were met and no major adverse event occurred (in which cases they proceeded to the next treatment in the strategy).

Results: The cost per member per month (PMPM) of the TOFA–>IFX–>VEDO–>GOL strategy ($1.11) was lower than that of the ADA–>IFX–>VEDO–>GOL strategy ($1.34; Δ = $?0.23) among the TNFi-naïve population (n?=?204 patients out of a plan of one million members). Similarly, the use of TOFA before ADA (i.e. TOFA–>ADA–>IFX–> VEDO) was also associated with lower PMPM costs than the use of ADA before TOFA (i.e. ADA–>TOFA–>IFX–>VEDO): $1.15 vs $1.25 (Δ = $?0.10). Similar, and often larger, differences were observed in both the overall moderate-to-severe population and the TNFi-exposed population. Sensitivity analyses resulted in the same conclusions.

Limitations: Our model relied on efficacy data from prescribing information and published trials, which were not head-to-head and slightly differed with respect to methods. Additionally, our model used representative minor and major ADRs (and the associated costs) to represent toxicity management, which was a simplifying assumption.

Conclusions: This analysis, the first of its kind to evaluate TOFA vis-à-vis other advanced therapies in the US, suggests the early use of TOFA among both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-failure patients results in lower PMPM costs compared with other treatment alternatives.     

Number needed to treat and associated incremental costs of treatment with enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Objective: Enzalutamide (ENZA) and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) are approved second-generation hormone therapies for chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study compared ENZA with AA in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC by calculating the number needed to treat (NNT) and associated incremental costs to achieve one additional chemotherapy-naïve patient with mCRPC free of radiographic progression, chemotherapy, or death over a 1-year time horizon.

Methods: Clinical outcomes were obtained from the PREVAIL and COU-AA-302 trials. Three outcomes were evaluated: radiographic progression-free survival, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy initiation, and overall survival at 1 year. NNT was calculated as the reciprocal of the outcome event rate difference for ENZA compared with AA. The incremental costs to achieve one additional outcome at 1 year were calculated as the difference in cost per treated patient multiplied by the NNT. Per-treated-patient costs were considered from a US payer perspective and included medications, monitoring, adverse events, post-progression treatments, and end-of-life care.

Results: Within a 1-year time horizon, the total cost per treated patient for ENZA was $2,666 less than AA. Compared with AA, treating 14 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient free of progression or death over 1 year; treating 26 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient with chemotherapy delayed over 1 year; and treating 91 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient free of death over 1 year. Therefore, ENZA is cost-effective compared with AA for all three outcomes evaluated, and the modeled results suggest ENZA is associated with potentially improved clinical outcomes in delaying chemotherapy initiation and disease progression for chemotherapy-naïve patients. The results are robust in sensitivity analyses, where the effect of changes in key model inputs and assumptions were tested.

Conclusion: The results modeled in the present study suggest ENZA is cost-effective compared with AA for treating chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC.     

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.     

Healthcare resource use and costs of privately insured patients who switch,discontinue, or persist on anti-muscarinic therapy for overactive bladder

Objectives:

To compare the healthcare costs of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) who switch vs persist on anti-muscarinic agents (AMs), describe resource use and costs among OAB patients who discontinue AMs, and assess factors associated with persisting vs switching or discontinuing.

Methods:

OAB patients initiating an AM between January 1, 2007 and March 31, 2012 were identified from a claims database of US privately insured beneficiaries (n?≈?16 million) and required to have no AM claims in the 12 months before AM initiation (baseline period). Patients were classified as persisters, switchers, or discontinuers, and assigned a study index date based on their AM use in the 6 months following initiation. Baseline characteristics, resource use, and costs were compared between persisters and the other groups. Resource use and costs in the 1 month before and 6 months after the study index date (for switchers, the date of index AM switching; for persisters, a randomly assigned date to reflect the distribution of the time from AM initiation to switching among switchers) were also compared between persisters and switchers in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Factors associated with persisting vs switching or discontinuing were assessed.

Results:

After controlling for baseline characteristics and costs, persisters vs switchers had significantly lower all-cause and OAB-related costs in both the month before (all-cause $1222 vs $1759, OAB-related $142 vs $170) and 6 months after the study index date (all-cause $7017 vs $8806, OAB-related $642 vs $797). Factors associated with switching or discontinuing vs persisting included index AM, younger age, and history of UTI.

Conclusion:

A large proportion of OAB patients discontinue or switch AMs shortly after initiation, and switching is associated with higher costs.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of risk stratification for preventing type 2 diabetes using a multi-marker diabetes risk score

Abstract

Background:

Personalized medicine requires diagnostic tests that stratify patients into distinct groups that may differentially benefit from targeted treatment approaches. This study compared the costs and benefits of two approaches for identifying those at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes for entry into a diabetes prevention program. The first approach identified high risk patients using impaired fasting glucose (IFG). The second approach used the PreDx Diabetes Risk Score (DRS) to further stratify IFG patients into high-risk and moderate-risk groups.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate the incidence and disease progression of diabetes and consequent costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY), comparing alternative approaches for identifying high-risk patients. We modeled direct medical costs, including the costs of the stratification testing, over a 10-year time horizon from a US payer perspective.

Results:

Stratification of IFG patients by the DRS method leads to improved identification and prevention among those at highest risk. At 5 years, the number needed to treat (NNT) in the IFG-only approach was 39 patients to prevent one case of diabetes compared to an NNT of 15 in the IFG?+?DRS approach. When compared to IFG alone, the IFG?+?DRS approach results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $17,100/QALY gained at 5 years and would become cost saving in 10 years. In contrast and as compared to no stratification, the IFG-only approach would produce an ICER of $235,500/QALY gained at 5 years and $94,600/QALY gained at 10 years. The study findings are limited by the generalizability of the DRS validation study and uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness of diabetes prevention.

Conclusions:

The analysis indicates that the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention can be improved by better identification of patients at highest risk for diabetes using the DRS.     

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.     

Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir (ATV?+?r) versus lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), both with tenofovir-emtricitabine, in US HIV-infected patients initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy.

Methods:

A Markov microsimulation model was developed to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on CD4 and HIV RNA levels, coronary heart disease (CHD), AIDS, opportunistic infections (OIs), diarrhea, and hyperbilirubinemia. A million-member cohort of HIV-1-infected, treatment-naïve adults progressed at 3-month intervals through eight health states. Baseline characteristics, virologic suppression, cholesterol changes, and diarrhea and hyperbilirubinemia rates were based on 96-week CASTLE trial results. HIV mortality, OI rates, adherence, costs, utilities, and CHD risk were from literature and experts.

Limitations:

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) may be overestimated because the ATV?+?r treatment effect was based on an intention-to-treat analysis. The QALY weights used for diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, and CHD events are uncertain; however, the ICER remained <$50,000/QALY when these values were varied in sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ATV?+?r patients received first-line therapy longer than LPV/r patients (97.3 vs. 70.7 months), had longer quality-adjusted survival (11.02 vs. 10.76 years), similar overall survival (18.52 vs. 18.51 years), and higher costs ($275,986 vs. 269,160). ATR?+?r patients had lower rates of AIDS (19.08 vs. 20.05 cases/1,000 patient-years), OIs (0.44 vs. 0.52), diarrhea (1.27 vs. 6.26), and CHD events (5.44 vs. 5.51), but higher hyperbilirubinemia rates (6.99 vs. 0.25). ATV?+?r added 0.26 QALYs at a cost of $6826, for $26,421/QALY.

Conclusions:

By more effectively reducing viral load with less gastrointestinal toxicity and a better lipid profile, ATV?+?r lowered rates of AIDS and CHD, increased quality-adjusted survival, and was cost effective (<$50,000/QALY) compared with LPV/r.     

Attainment of combined optimal lipid values and the impact of lipid medication on cardiovascular outcomes and costs in a commercially insured population in the US

Abstract

Objective: To determine factors associated with the achievement of optimal lipid values (OLVs) and subsequent impact on clinical and economic outcomes.

Methods: An observational managed care database analysis was conducted among treatment-naïve adults with elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk, ≥12 months follow-up and full lipid panel from the 1st January 2002 to the 28th February 2005. Achievement of guideline-based levels for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides was evaluated via laboratory data. Annual CV-attributable resource utilisation was assessed via medical and pharmacy claims data. Clinical and economic outcomes associated with the achievement of OLVs were assessed using multivariate regression.

Results: A total of 52,778 patients were followed for a mean (standard deviation) of 27 (10) months with 13% achieving combined OLVs at baseline and 23% after 4 years. Of patients, 69% did not initiate lipid-modifying medication. The achievement of combined OLVs reduced the risk of CV event (odds ratio = 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.78–0.95), resource utilisation (inpatient visits: 3.36 vs. 4.41 per 100 patient years, p<0.0001; emergency department visits: 1.1 vs. 2.4 per 100 patient years, p<0.05) and costs: $703 vs. $903 per patient year, p<0.0001.

Conclusions: Simultaneous achievement of OLVs was rare in this patient population. Physicians should be encouraged to manage multiple risk factors aggressively to improve clinical and economic outcomes associated with CV disease.     

A real-world analysis of healthcare costs and relative risk of hyperprolactinemia associated with antipsychotic treatments in the United States

Abstract

Aims: Antipsychotic medications are associated with an increased risk of hyperprolactinemia, but differ in their propensity to cause this complication. This study aimed to assess the economic burden of hyperprolactinemia, and to compare its risk among adult patients using atypical antipsychotics (AAs) with a mechanism of action associated with no/low vs high/moderate prolactin elevation.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on US Commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Healthcare costs were compared between matched hyperprolactinemia and hyperprolactinemia-free cohorts using a two-part model. Risk of hyperprolactinemia was compared between patients receiving AAs with a mechanism of action associated with no/low (no/low prolactin elevation cohort) vs high/moderate prolactin elevation (high/moderate prolactin cohort) using logistic regression.

Results: In the commercially insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort (n?=?499), the hyperprolactinemia cohort (n?=?499) was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $5,732 ($20,081 vs $14,349; p?=?.004), and incremental medical costs of $3,861 ($13,218 vs $9,357; p?=?.040), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related costs. In the Medicaid-insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort, the hyperprolactinemia cohort was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $10,773 ($30,763 vs $19,990; p?=?.004), and incremental medical costs of $9,246 ($20,859 vs $11,613; p?=?.004), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related and mental health-related costs. The odds of hyperprolactinemia in the no/low prolactin elevation cohort were 4–5-times lower than that in the high/moderate prolactin elevation cohort (odds ratio =0.21; p?<?.001).

Limitations: Hyperprolactinemia may be under-reported in claims data.

Conclusions: Hyperprolactinemia is associated with substantial healthcare costs. AAs associated with no/low prolactin elevation reduce the risk of hyperprolactinemia by 4–5-times compared to AAs associated with moderate/high prolactin elevation. Treatment options with minimal impact on prolactin levels may contribute to reducing hyperprolactinemia burden in AA-treated patients.     

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.     

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.     

Indirect costs associated with metastatic breast cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the indirect costs of productivity loss between metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and early stage breast cancer (EBC) patients, as well as their respective family members.

Methods:

The MarketScan® Health and Productivity Management database (2005–2009) was used. Adult BC patients eligible for employee benefits of sick leave and/or short-term disability were identified with ICD-9 codes. Difference in sick leave and short-term disability days was calculated between MBC patients and their propensity score matched EBC cohort and general population (controls) during a 12-month follow-up period. Generalized linear models were used to examine the impact of MBC on indirect costs to patients and their families.

Results:

A total of 139 MBC, 432 EBC, and 820 controls were eligible for sick leave and 432 MBC, 1552 EBC, and 4682 controls were eligible for short-term disability (not mutually exclusive). After matching, no statistical difference was found in sick leave days and the associated costs between MBC and EBC cohorts. However, MBC patients had significantly higher short-term disability costs than EBC patients and controls (MBC: $6166?±?$9194 vs EBC: $3690?±?$6673 vs Controls: $558?±?$2487, both p?<?0.001). MBC patients had more sick leave cost than controls ($2383?±?$5539 vs $1282?±?$2083, p?<?0.05). Controlling for covariates, MBC patients incurred 47% more short-term disability costs vs EBC patients (p?=?0.009). Older patients (p?=?0.002), non-HMO payers (p?<?0.05), or patients not receiving chemotherapy during follow-up (p?<?0.001) were associated with lower short-term disability costs. MBC patients’ families incurred 39.7% (p?=?0.06) higher indirect costs compared to EBC patients’ families after controlling for key covariates.

Conclusion:

Productivity loss and associated costs in MBC patients are substantially higher than EBC patients or the general population. These findings underscore the economic burden of MBC from a US societal perspective. Various treatment regimens should be evaluated to identify opportunities to reduce the disease burden from the societal perspective.     

Clinical comorbidities,treatment patterns,and direct medical costs of patients with osteoarthritis in usual care: a retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Objective:

Comorbidities and resource utilization among patients with osteoarthritis (OA) in clinical practice have been infrequently characterized. The purpose of this study was to examine comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and direct medical costs of patients with OA in clinical practice.

Method:

This retrospective cohort analysis used medical and pharmacy claims data from the LifeLink? Database. OA patients (ICD-9-CM codes 715.XX) were matched (age, gender, and region) with individuals without OA. Comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and direct medical costs (pharmacy, outpatient, inpatient, total) were examined for the calendar year 2008.

Results:

The sample consisted of 112,951 OA patients and 112,951 controls (mean age: 56.9 [SD?=?9.5] years; 62% female). Relative to controls, OA patients were significantly more likely (p?<?0.0001) to have comorbidities, including musculoskeletal (84.3 vs. 37.1%) and neuropathic pain (22.0 vs. 6.1%) conditions, depression (12.4 vs. 6.4%), anxiety (6.6 vs. 3.5%), and sleep disorders (11.9 vs. 4.2%). OA patients were significantly more likely (p?<?0.0001) to receive pain-related medications, including opioids (40.7 vs. 17.1%), NSAIDs (37.1 vs. 11.5%), tramadol (9.8 vs. 1.8%), and adjunctive medications for treating depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Mean [SD] total direct medical costs were more than two times higher among OA patients ($12,905 [$21,884] vs. $5099 [$13,855]; p?<?0.001) and median costs were more than three times higher ($6188 vs. $1879; p?<?0.0001). Study limitations include potential errors in coding and recording; overestimation of the comorbidity burden; inability to link condition of interest, OA, with prescribed medications; and possible underestimation of the true costs of OA, because indirect costs were not considered and the direct costs were from a third party payer (commercial insurance) perspective.

Conclusion:

The patient burden of OA was characterized by a high prevalence of comorbidities. The payer burden was also substantial, with significantly greater use of pain-related and adjunctive medications, and higher direct medical costs.     

Medical costs in the US of clinical events associated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) use compared to warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients ≥75 and <75 years of age,based on the ARISTOTLE,RE-LY,and ROCKET-AF trials

Abstract

Objectives:

Based on clinical trials the oral anticoagulants (OACs) apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban are efficacious for reducing stroke risk for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Based on the clinical trials, this study evaluated the medical costs for clinical events among NVAF patients ≥75 and <75 years of age treated with individual OACs vs warfarin.

Methods:

Rates for primary and secondary efficacy and safety outcomes (i.e., clinical events) among NVAF patients receiving warfarin or each of the OACs were determined for NVAF populations aged ≥75 years and <75 years of age from the OAC vs warfarin trials. One-year incremental costs among patients with clinical events were obtained from published literature and inflation adjusted to 2010 costs. Medical costs, excluding medication costs, for clinical events associated with each OAC and warfarin were then estimated and compared.

Results:

Among NVAF patients aged ≥75, compared to warfarin, use of either apixaban or rivaroxaban was associated with a reduction in medical costs per patient year (apixaban?=??$825, rivaroxaban?=?$23), while dabigatran use was associated with increased medical costs of $180 per patient year. Among NVAF patients <75 years of age medical costs per patient year were estimated to be reduced ?$254, ?$367, and ?$88, for apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban, respectively, in comparison to warfarin.

Limitations:

This economic analysis was based on clinical trial data and, therefore, the direct application of the results to routine clinical practice will require further assessment.

Conclusions:

Difference in medical costs between OAC and warfarin treated NVAF patients vary by age group and individual OACs. Although reductions in medical costs for NVAF patients aged ≥75 and <75 were observed for those using either apixaban or rivaroxaban vs warfarin, the reductions were greater per patient year for both the older and younger NVAF populations using apixaban.