Comparative persistence and adherence with newer anti-hyperglycemic agents to treat patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

Objectives: Non-adherence and non-persistence to anti-hyperglycemic agents are associated with worse clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study evaluated treatment persistence and adherence across newer anti-hyperglycemic agents (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, liraglutide, or exenatide).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study of Truven Health Analytics Marketscan databases included adult patients with type 2 diabetes whose first pharmacy claim for a newer anti-hyperglycemic agent was between February 1, 2014 and July 31, 2014. Treatment persistence and adherence were assessed for 12 months after the first claim (post-index). Persistence was defined as no gap ≥90 days between the end of one pharmacy claim and the start of the next pharmacy claim post-index. Adherence used two definitions: proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR). Multivariable analyses of non-persistence (hazard ratios) and adherence (odds ratios) were adjusted for baseline demographics, drug cost, clinical characteristics, and other anti-hyperglycemic agents.

Results: A total of 11,961 patients met all study selection criteria. Persistence rates at 12 months were significantly greater (p?p?=?0.83; PDC?=?0.79) and canagliflozin 300?mg (MPR?=?0.92; PDC?=?0.81) were greater than for the other index anti-hyperglycemic agents (MPR?=?0.33–0.75; PDC?=?0.33–0.72). Consistent results for treatment persistence and adherence were observed in multivariable analyses that were adjusted baseline characteristics.

Conclusions: Canagliflozin was associated with better treatment persistence and treatment adherence compared with other anti-hyperglycemic agents in real-world settings.     

Exenatide BID and liraglutide QD treatment patterns among type 2 diabetes patients in Germany

Abstract

Objectives:

This study evaluated patient and prescriber characteristics, treatment patterns, average daily dose (ADD), and glycemic control of patients initiating glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in Germany.

Methods:

The LifeLink? EMR-EU database was searched to identify patients initiating exenatide twice daily (BID) or liraglutide once daily (QD) during the index period (January 1, 2009–April 4, 2010). Eligible patients had ≥180 days pre-index history, ≥90 days post-index follow-up, and a pre-index type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Univariate tests were conducted at α?=?0.05.

Results:

Six hundred and ninety-two patients were included (exenatide BID 292, liraglutide QD 400): mean (SD) age 59 (10) years, 59% male. Diabetologists prescribed liraglutide QD to a larger share of patients (65% vs 35% exenatide BID) than non-diabetologists (51% vs 49%). GLP-1 receptor agonist choice was not associated with age (p?=?0.282), gender (p?=?0.960), number of pre-index glucose-lowering medications (2.0 [0.9], p?=?0.159), pre-index HbA1c (8.2 [1.5%], p?=?0.231) or Charlson Comorbidity Index score (0.45 [0.78], p?=?0.547). Mean (SD) ADD was 16.7?mcg (9.2, label range 10–20?mcg) for exenatide BID and 1.4?mg (0.7, label range 0.6–1.8?mg) for liraglutide QD. Among patients with post-index HbA1c tests, mean unadjusted values did not differ between cohorts. Exenatide BID patients were more likely than liraglutide QD patients to continue pre-index glucose-lowering medications (67.1% vs 60.3%, p?=?0.027) or to start concomitant glucose-lowering medications at index (32.2% vs 25.0%, p?=?0.013); exenatide BID patients were less likely to augment treatment with another drug post-index (15.8% vs 22.5%, p?=?0.027).

Limitations:

Results may not be generalizable. Lab measures for clinical outcomes were available only for a sub-set of patients.

Conclusions:

Results suggested that some differences exist between patients initiating exenatide BID or liraglutide QD, with respect to prescribing physician specialty and pre- and post-index treatment patterns. Both GLP-1 receptor agonists showed comparable post-index HbA1c values in a sub-set of patients.     

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.     

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

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

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

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

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

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 analysis of exenatide once-weekly versus dulaglutide,liraglutide, and lixisenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis from the UK NHS perspective

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide 2?mg once-weekly (EQW) compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg and 1.8?mg once-daily (QD), and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model was applied to evaluate cost-effectiveness, with treatment effects sourced from a network meta-analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with health-state utilities applied to T2DM-related complications, weight changes, hypoglycemia, and nausea. Costs (GBP £) included drug treatment, T2DM-related complications, severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. A 40-year time horizon was used.

Results: In all base-case comparisons, EQW was associated with a QALY gain per patient; 0.046 vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg; 0.102 vs liraglutide 1.2?mg; 0.043 vs liraglutide 1.8?mg; and 0.074 vs lixisenatide 20?μg. Cost per patient was lower for EQW than for liraglutide 1.8?mg (?£2,085); therefore, EQW dominated liraglutide 1.8?mg. The cost difference per patient between EQW and dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW and liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW and lixisenatide 20?μg was £27, £103, and £738, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with EQW vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW vs liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW vs lixisenatide 20?μg was £596, £1,004, and £10,002, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that EQW is cost-effective ranged from 76–99%.

Conclusion: Results suggest that exenatide 2?mg once-weekly is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg QD, liraglutide 1.8?mg QD, and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on metformin alone.     

Clinical comorbidities,treatment patterns,and healthcare costs among patients with fibromyalgia newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine in usual care

Abstract

Objective:

To assess comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia (FM) newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine (index event) in usual care settings.

Methods:

Using the LifeLink? Health Plan Claims Database, patients with FM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) were identified. Patients initiated on duloxetine were propensity score-matched with patients initiated on pregabalin (n?=?826; mean age [standard deviation] of 48.3 [9.3] years for both groups). Prevalence of comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12-month pre-index and follow-up periods.

Results:

Both patient groups had multiple comorbidities and a substantial pain-related and adjuvant medication burden. In the pregabalin group, use of other anticonvulsants decreased significantly (31.6% vs 24.9%), whereas use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; 16.5% vs 22.5%) and topical agents (10.1% vs 13.2%) increased in the follow-up period (p?<?0.01). In the duloxetine group, there were significant decreases in the use of other SNRIs (13.0% vs 5.7%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (41.3% vs 21.7%), and tricyclic antidepressants (18.8% vs 13.2%), and an increase in the use of anticonvulsants (28.6% vs 40.1%; p?<?0.0001). There were significant increases (p?<?0.0001) in pharmacy and total healthcare costs in both cohorts, and a significant increase in outpatient costs (p?=?0.0084) in the duloxetine cohort from pre-index to follow-up. There were no significant differences in median total healthcare costs between the pregabalin and duloxetine groups in both the pre-index ($10,159 vs $9,556) and follow-up ($11,390 vs $11,746) periods.

Limitations:

Limitations of this study are typical of those associated with retrospective database analyses.

Conclusions:

Patients with FM prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine were characterized by a significant comorbidity and pain/adjuvant medication burden. Although healthcare costs increased in both groups, there were no statistically significant differences in direct healthcare costs between the two groups.     

Clinical characteristics,pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia newly prescribed pregabalin or tricyclic antidepressants

Abstract

Objective:

To examine treatment patterns and costs among patients with fibromyalgia prescribed pregabalin or tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs).

Methods:

Using the LifeLink? Health Plan Claims Database, patients with fibromyalgia (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) newly prescribed (index date) TCAs (n?=?898) were identified and propensity score-matched (PSM) with patients newly prescribed pregabalin (n?=?898). Pain-related pharmacotherapy, comorbidities, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12 months, pre-index, and follow-up periods.

Results:

Both patient groups reported multiple comorbidities and received pain medications in the pre-index and follow-up periods. Among patients prescribed pregabalin, use of non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (43.3% vs 39.8%), other anticonvulsants (28.6% vs 23.3%), and tetracyclic/miscellaneous antidepressants (28.5% vs 25.8%) significantly decreased, and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors (7.7% vs 10.4%), TCAs (4.8% vs 7.9%), and topical agents (10.8% vs 15.1%) increased in the follow-up period (p?<?0.05). Among patients prescribed TCAs, there were significant decreases in muscle relaxants (42.0% vs 38.4%) and sedative hypnotics (27.4% vs 23.9%), and increases in COX-2 inhibitors (5.8% vs 7.9%) and anticonvulsants (25.1% vs 33.7%; p?<?0.05). There were increases (p?<?0.0001) in pharmacy costs in both cohorts and total healthcare costs in the pregabalin cohort from pre-index to follow-up. Median total costs were higher (p?<?0.05) in the pregabalin group vs TCAs in the pre-index ($9935 vs $8771) and follow-up ($10,689 vs $8379) periods.

Limitations:

Despite attempts to address bias through PSM, the higher pre-index costs in the pregabalin cohort suggest a channeling of patients with more severe fibromyalgia to pregabalin.

Conclusions:

Patients with fibromyalgia prescribed pregabalin or TCAs had multiple comorbidities and a sizeable pain medication burden, which increased in the follow-up period for both cohorts. Only 5% of pregabalin initiators had been treated with concomitant TCAs at baseline, suggesting that TCAs were inappropriate for these patients owing to their contraindications.     

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.     

Impact of a step-therapy protocol for pregabalin on healthcare utilization and expenditures in a commercial population

Abstract

Objective:

To compare changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs among members with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), or fibromyalgia (FM) in a commercial health plan implementing pregabalin step-therapy with members in unrestricted plans.

Methods:

Retrospective study of outcomes associated with implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol using claims data from Humana (‘restricted’ cohort) and Thomson Reuters MarketScan (‘unrestricted’ cohort). Members aged 18–65 years receiving treatment for pDPN, PHN, or FM during 2008 or 2009 were identified; cohorts were matched on diagnosis and geographic region. Baseline to follow-up changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs were determined using difference-in-differences (DID) analysis. Statistical models adjusting for covariates explored relationships between restricted access and outcomes.

Results:

A total of 3876 restricted cohort members were identified and matched to 3876 unrestricted cohort members. FM was the predominant diagnosis (84.7%). The unrestricted cohort was older (mean?=?49.0 (SD?=?10.4) years vs 47.6 (SD?=?10.5) years; p?<?0.001), and had greater comorbidity (RxRisk-V score?=?5.4 (SD?=?3.2) vs 4.4 (SD?=?2.9), p?<?0.001) than the restricted cohort. Compared with the unrestricted cohort, the restricted cohort demonstrated a greater year-over-year decrease in pregabalin utilization (?2.6%, p?=?0.008), and greater increases in physical therapy and disease-related outpatient utilization (3.7%, p?=?0.010 and 3.6%, p?=?0.022, respectively). There were no statistically significant net differences in all-cause or disease-related total healthcare, medical, or pharmacy costs between cohorts. After adjusting for baseline compositional differences between cohorts, restricted plan membership was associated with a net increase in all-cause medical ($1222; p?=?0.016) and disease-related healthcare costs ($859; p?=?0.002). Limitations include use of a combined analysis for pDPN, PHN, and FM, especially since the observed results were likely driven by FM; an inability to link the prescribing of a medication with the condition of interest, which is common to claims analyses; and lack of pain severity information.

Conclusions:

Implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol resulted in lower pregabalin utilization, but this restriction was not associated with reductions in total healthcare costs, medical costs, or pharmacy costs.     

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.     

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2

Objective: Dulaglutide 1.5?mg once weekly is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, for the treatment of type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide once weekly vs liraglutide 1.8?mg once daily for the treatment of T2DM in Spain in patients with a BMI ≥30?kg/m².

Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon. Comparative safety and efficacy data were derived from direct comparison of dulaglutide 1.5?mg vs liraglutide 1.8?mg from the AWARD-6 trial in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30?kg/m². All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before switching treatment to basal insulin at a daily dose of 40?IU. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters and uncertainty of model inputs.

Results: Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5?mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8?mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259). OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5?mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results.

Limitations: Primary limitations of the analysis are common to other cost-effectiveness analyses of chronic diseases like T2DM and include the extrapolation of short-term clinical data to the lifetime time horizon and uncertainty around optimum treatment durations.

Conclusion: The model found that dulaglutide 1.5?mg was more effective and less costly than liraglutide 1.8?mg for the treatment of T2DM in Spain. Findings were robust to plausible variations in inputs. Based on these results, dulaglutide may result in cost savings to the Spanish National Health System.     

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Adherence,persistence, healthcare utilization,and cost benefits of guideline-recommended hepatitis B pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Objective:

To compare pharmacotherapy adherence, persistence, and healthcare utilization/costs among US patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) initiated on an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current national (US) guidelines vs an oral antiviral not recommended as first-line monotherapy.

Research design and methods:

In this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 18–64 with medical claims for CHB who initiated an oral antiviral monotherapy for CHB between 07/01/05 and 01/31/10 were identified from a large US commercial health insurance claims database. Patients were continuously enrolled for a 6-month baseline period and ≥ 90 days follow-up. They were assigned to ‘currently recommended first-line therapy’ (RT: entecavir or tenofovir) or ‘not currently recommended first-line therapy’ (NRT: lamivudine, telbivudine, or adefovir) cohorts.

Main outcome measures:

Multivariate analyses were conducted to compare treatment adherence, persistence, healthcare utilization, and costs for RT vs NRT cohorts.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between RT (n?=?825) and NRT (n?=?916) cohorts. In multivariate analyses, RT patients were twice as likely as NRT patients to be adherent (OR?=?2.09; p?<?0.01) and persistent (mean: RT?=?361 days, NRT?=?298 days; p?<?0.01) and half as likely to have an inpatient stay (OR?=?0.527; p?<?0.01). Between the two oral antivirals recommended as first-line treatment, even though pharmacy cost was higher for entecavir, mean total healthcare costs for entecavir and tenofovir were similar ($1214 and $1332 per patient per month, respectively). Similar results were also observed with regard to adherence, persistence, and healthcare use for entecavir and tenofovir.

Conclusions:

A limitation associated with analysis of administrative claims data is that coding errors can be mitigated but are typically not fully eradicated by careful study design. Nevertheless, the current findings clearly indicate the benefits of initiating CHB treatment with an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current guidelines.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

Aims: Bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment targets can reduce the risk of developing diabetes-related complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg vs once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg as an add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US by assessing the cost per patient achieving HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.

Materials and methods: Percentages of patients achieving recommended targets were obtained from the LIRA-LIXI trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg and once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin. Annual costs were estimated from a healthcare payer perspective. An economic model was developed to evaluate the annual cost per patient achieving target (cost of control) with liraglutide 1.8?mg vs lixisenatide 20?μg for five end-points.

Results: Annual treatment costs were higher with liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg, but this was offset by greater clinical efficacy, and the cost of control was lower with liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg for all five end-points. The annual cost of control was USD 3,850, USD 11,404, USD 3,807, USD 4,299, and USD 6,901 lower for liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg for targets of HbA1c?Conclusions: Once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg was associated with greater clinical efficacy than once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg, which resulted in a lower annual cost of control for HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.     

Healthcare costs of urinary tract infections and genital mycotic infections among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiated on canagliflozin: a retrospective cohort study

Objective: To assess the economic impact of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and genital mycotic infections (GMIs) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiated on canagliflozin.

Methods: Administrative claims data from April 2013 through June 2014 MarketScan^® databases were extracted. Adults with ≥1 claim for canagliflozin, T2DM diagnosis, and ≥90 days enrollment before and after canagliflozin initiation were propensity score matched to controls with T2DM initiated on other anti-hyperglycemic agents (AHAs). UTI and GMI healthcare costs were evaluated 90-days post-index and reported as cohort means.

Results: Rates of UTI claims 90 days post-index were similar in patients receiving canagliflozin for T2DM (n?=?31,257) and matched controls (2.7% vs 2.8%, p?=?.677). More canagliflozin than control patients had GMI claims (1.2% vs 0.6%, p?p?p?=?.150). GMI treatment costs were higher for the canagliflozin cohort ($3.68 vs $2.44, p?=?.041). Combined costs to treat either UTI and/or GMI averaged $31.29 per patient for the canagliflozin cohort v $39.77 for controls (p?=?.211). Rates and costs of UTIs and GMIs were higher for females than males, but the canagliflozin vs control trends observed for the overall sample were similar for both sexes. There were no significant cost differences between the canagliflozin and control cohorts among patients aged 18–64. Among patients aged 65 and above, GMI treatment costs were not significantly different, but costs to treat UTIs and either UTI and/or GMI were significantly lower for canagliflozin patients vs controls.

Conclusions: In a real-world setting, the costs to payers of treating UTIs and GMIs are generally similar for patients with T2DM initiated on canagliflozin vs other AHAs.