Comparison of economic and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery with powered versus manual endoscopic surgical staplers

Aims: To compare economic and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRY) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) with use of powered vs manual endoscopic surgical staplers.

Materials and methods: Patients (aged ≥21 years) who underwent LRY or LSG during a hospital admission (January 1, 2012–September 30, 2015) were identified from the Premier Perspective Hospital Database. Use of powered vs manual staplers was identified from hospital administrative billing records. Multivariable analyses were used to compare the following outcomes between the powered and manual stapler groups, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and hospital-level clustering: hospital length of stay (LOS), total hospital costs, medical/surgical supply costs, room and board costs, operating room costs, operating room time, discharge status, bleeding/transfusion during the hospital admission, and 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause readmissions.

Results: The powered and manual stapler groups comprised 9,851 patients (mean age?=?44.6 years; 79.3% female) and 21,558 patients (mean age?=?45.0 years; 78.0% female), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, adjusted mean hospital LOS was 2.1 days for both the powered and manual stapler groups (p?=?.981). Adjusted mean total hospital costs ($12,415 vs $13,547, p?=?.003), adjusted mean supply costs ($4,629 vs $5,217, p?=?.011), and adjusted mean operating room costs ($4,126 vs $4,413, p?=?.009) were significantly lower in the powered vs manual stapler group. The adjusted rate of bleeding and/or transfusion during the hospital admission (2.46% vs 3.22%, p?=?.025) was significantly lower in the powered vs manual stapler group. The adjusted rates of 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause readmissions were similar between the groups (all p?>?.05). Sub-analysis by manufacturer showed similar results.

Limitations: This observational study cannot establish causal linkages.

Conclusions: In this analysis of patients who underwent LRY or LSG, the use of powered staplers was associated with better economic outcomes, and a lower rate of bleeding/transfusion vs manual staplers in the real-world setting.     

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.     

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.     

Brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients on epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: symptom and economic burden

Objective: This study describes the symptom and economic burden associated with brain metastases (BM) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs).

Methods: This retrospective study included adults with ≥2 medical claims, within 90 days, for lung cancer and ≥1 administration of EGFR-TKIs. Based on ICD-9 codes, patients were stratified into cohorts by type of metastases (BM, other metastases [OM], or no metastases [NM]), and by when the metastasis diagnosis occurred (synchronous or asynchronous).

Results: The population (synchronous BM [SBM]?=?24, synchronous OM [SOM]?=?23, asynchronous BM [ASBM]?=?15, asynchronous OM [ASOM]?=?49, NM?=?85) was mostly female (57%), average age 69 years (SD?=?11). SBM patients experienced more fatigue and nausea/vomiting compared with SOM and NM patients and more headaches and loss of appetite than NM patients. ASBM was associated with more fatigue, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain/numbness, altered mental status, and seizures than NM, and more headaches and pain/numbness than ASOM. SBM patients experienced a greater increase in per-member-per-month all-cause total healthcare costs after diagnosis ($20,301) vs SOM ($9,131, p?=?.001) and NM ($2,493, p?=?.001). ASBM’s cost increase between baseline and follow-up ($7,867) did not differ from ASOM’s ($4,947, p?=?.195); both were larger than NM ($2,493, p?=?.001 and p?=?.009, respectively).

Limitations: EGFR mutation status was inferred based on EGFR-TKI treatment, not by molecular testing. Patients were from US commercial insurance plans; results may not be generalizable to other populations.

Conclusions: Among patients with EGFR-TKI-treated NSCLC, patients with BM experienced more symptoms and, when diagnosed synchronously, had significant increases in total medical costs vs patients with OM and NM. Therapeutic options with central nervous system activity may offer advantages in symptomatology and costs in EGFR-mutated patients with BM.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Comorbidity and economic burden among moderate-to-severe psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis patients in the US Department of Defense population

Aims: To examine the comorbidity and economic burden among moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO) and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients in the US Department of Defense (DoD) population.

Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort claims analysis was conducted using DoD data from November 2010 to October 2015. Adult patients with ≥2 diagnoses of PsO and/or PsA (cases) were identified, and the first diagnosis date from November 2011 to October 2014 was defined as the index date. Patients were considered moderate-to-severe if they had ≥1 non-topical systemic therapy or phototherapy during the 12 months pre- or 1 month post-index date. Patients without a PsO/PsA diagnosis during the study period (controls) were matched to cases on a 10:1 ratio based on age, sex, region, and index year; the index date was randomly selected. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to compare study outcomes in the first year post-index date, including healthcare resource utilization (HRU), costs, and comorbidity incidence.

Results: A total of 7,249 cases and 72,490 controls were identified. The mean age was 48.1 years. After PSM, comorbidity incidence was higher among cases, namely dyslipidemia (18.3% vs 13.5%, p?<?.001), hypertension (13.8% vs 8.7%, p?<?.001), and obesity (8.8% vs 6.1%, p?<?.001). Case patients had significantly higher HRU and costs, including inpatient ($2,196 vs $1,642; p?<?.0016), ambulatory ($8,804 vs 4,642; p?<?.001), emergency room ($432 vs $350; p?<?.001), pharmacy ($6,878 vs $1,160; p?<?.001), and total healthcare costs ($18,311 vs $7,795; p?<?.001).

Limitations: Claims data are collected for payment purposes; therefore, such data may have limitations for clinical research.

Conclusions: During follow-up, DoD patients with moderate-to-severe PsO and/or PsA experienced significantly higher HRU, cost, and comorbidity burden.     

The real-world economic impact of home-based video electroencephalography: the payer perspective

Abstract

Aims: Electroencephalography (EEG) is an established method to evaluate and manage epilepsy; video EEG (VEEG) has significantly improved its diagnostic value. This study compared healthcare costs and diagnostic-related outcomes associated with outpatient vs inpatient VEEG among patients with epilepsy in the US.

Materials and methods: This study used Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases. Patients with a VEEG between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016 were identified. Index event was the first VEEG claim, which was used to determine inpatient and outpatient cohorts. Continuous health plan enrollment 6?months pre- and 12?months post-index VEEG was required. Primary outcomes were costs during the index event and 12?months post index. A generalized linear model with gamma distribution and a log link was used to estimate adjusted index and post-index costs.

Results: Controlling for baseline differences, epilepsy-related cost of index VEEG was significantly lower for the outpatient ($4,098) vs the inpatient cohort ($13,821; p?<?0.0001). The cost differences observed at index were maintained in the post-index period. The 12-month post-index epilepsy-related costs were lower in the outpatient cohort ($6,114 vs $12,733, p?<?0.0001). Time from physician referral to index VEEG was significantly shorter in the outpatient cohort (30.6 vs 42.5?days). Patients in the inpatient cohort were also more likely to undergo an additional subsequent follow-up inpatient VEEG (p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Administrative claims data have limitations, including lack of data on clinical presentation, disease severity, and comprehensive health plan information. Generalizability may be limited to a US insured population of patients who met study criteria.

Conclusions: Index VEEG was less costly in an outpatient vs inpatient cohort, and costs were lower during the follow-up period of 12?months, suggesting that outpatient VEEG can be provided to appropriate patients as a less costly option. There were fewer follow-up tests in the outpatient cohort with similar pre- and post-index diagnoses.     

Cost-effectiveness of G5 Mobile continuous glucose monitoring device compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose alone for people with type 1 diabetes from the Canadian societal perspective

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) alone in people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) using multiple daily injections (MDI) from the Canadian societal perspective.

Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (v.9.0) was used to assess the long-term (50 years) cost-effectiveness of real-time CGM (G5 Mobile CGM System; Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA) compared with SMBG alone for a cohort of adults with poorly-controlled T1DM. Treatment effects and baseline characteristics of patients were derived from the DIAMOND randomized controlled clinical trial; all other assumptions and costs were sourced from published research. The accuracy and clinical effectiveness of G5 Mobile CGM is the same as the G4 Platinum CGM used in the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. Base case assumptions included (a) baseline HbA1c of 8.6%, (b) change in HbA1c of –1.0% for CGM users vs –0.4% for SMBG users, and (c) disutilities of –0.0142 for non-severe hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) and severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) not requiring medical intervention, and –0.047 for SHEs requiring medical resources. Treatment costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per year.

Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case G5 Mobile CGM vs SMBG was $33,789 CAD/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed that base case results were most sensitive to changes in percentage reduction in hypoglycemic events and disutilities associated with hypoglycemic events. The base case results were minimally impacted by changes in baseline HbA1c level, incorporation of indirect costs, changes in the discount rate, and baseline utility of patients.

Conclusions: The results of this analysis demonstrate that G5 Mobile CGM is cost-effective within the population of adults with T1DM using MDI, assuming a Canadian willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 CAD per QALY.     

Cost reduction from resolution/improvement of carcinoid syndrome symptoms following treatment with above-standard dose of octreotide LAR

Aims: To calculate the cost reduction associated with diarrhea/flushing symptom resolution/improvement following treatment with above-standard dose octreotide-LAR from the commercial payor’s perspective.

Materials and methods: Diarrhea and flushing are two major carcinoid syndrome symptoms of neuroendocrine tumor (NET). Previously, a study of NET patients from three US tertiary oncology centers (NET 3-Center Study) demonstrated that dose escalation of octreotide LAR to above-standard dose resolved/improved diarrhea/flushing in 79% of the patients within 1 year. Time course of diarrhea/flushing symptom data were collected from the NET 3-Center Study. Daily healthcare costs were calculated from a commercial claims database analysis. For the patient cohort experiencing any diarrhea/flushing symptom resolution/improvement, their observation period was divided into days of symptom resolution/improvement or no improvement, which were then multiplied by the respective daily healthcare cost and summed over 1 year to yield the blended mean annual cost per patient. For patients who experienced no diarrhea/flushing symptom improvement, mean annual daily healthcare cost of diarrhea/flushing over a 1-year period was calculated.

Results: The economic model found that 108 NET patients who experienced diarrhea/flushing symptom resolution/improvement within 1 year had statistically significantly lower mean annual healthcare cost/patient than patients with no symptom improvement, by $14,766 (p?=?.03). For the sub-set of 85 patients experiencing resolution/improvement of diarrhea, their cost reduction was more pronounced, at $18,740 (p?=?.01), statistically significantly lower than those with no improvement; outpatient costs accounted for 56% of the cost reduction (p?=?.02); inpatient costs, emergency department costs, and pharmacy costs accounted for the remaining 44%.

Limitations: The economic model relied on two different sources of data, with some heterogeneity in the prior treatment and disease status of patients.

Conclusions: Symptom resolution/improvement of diarrhea/flushing after treatment with an above-standard dose of octreotide-LAR in NET was associated with a statistically significant healthcare cost decrease compared to a scenario of no symptom improvement.     

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.     

One-year follow-up healthcare costs of patients hospitalized for transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke and discharged with aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole or clopidogrel

Abstract

Objective:

To examine healthcare costs among patients hospitalized for transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke (TIA/stroke) and prescribed aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole (ASA-ERDP) or clopidogrel (CLOPID) within 30 days post-discharge using a retrospective claims database from a large US managed care organization.

Methods:

Adult patients with ≥1 hospitalizations for TIA/stroke between January 2007–July 2009 and ≥1 claims for an oral anti-platelet (OAP) were observed for 1 year before and after the first TIA/stroke hospitalization or until death, whichever came first. Cohorts were defined by the first claim for ASA-ERDP or CLOPID within 30 days post-discharge. A generalized linear model, adjusting for demographics, baseline comorbidities and costs, compared total follow-up costs (medical?+?pharmacy) between ASA-ERDP and CLOPID patients.

Results:

Of 6377 patients (2085 ASA-ERDP; 4292 CLOPID) who met the selection criteria, mean (SD) age was 69 (13) years and 50% were male. Unadjusted mean total follow-up costs were lower for ASA-ERDP than CLOPID ($26,201 vs $30,349; p?=?0.002), of which average unadjusted medical and pharmacy costs were $22,094 vs $26,062 (p?=?0.003) and $4107 vs $4288 (p?=?0.119), respectively. Multivariate modeling indicated that the following were associated with higher total costs (all p?<?0.05): higher baseline Quan-Charlson comorbidity score, history of atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction, index stroke hospitalization, death post-discharge, and index CLOPID use. Adjusted mean total follow-up costs for CLOPID were 9% higher than ASA-ERDP (cost ratio: 1.09; p?=?0.038).

Conclusion:

In this study, compared to CLOPID patients, ASA-ERDP patients were observed to have lower total costs 1 year post-discharge TIA/stroke hospitalization, driven primarily by lower medical costs. Further research into the real-world impact of OAP therapies on clinical and economic outcomes of patients with stroke/TIA is warranted. The findings of this study should be considered within the limitations of an administrative claims analysis, as claims data are collected for the purpose of payment.