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.     

What happens after a single surgical intervention for hidradenitis suppurativa? A retrospective claims-based analysis

Objective Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is often treated by surgery. The risk of recurrence after surgery is common and the consequences are substantial, but neither has been quantified using a claims database. This study aimed to estimate the burden associated with non-curative surgery in HS patients.

Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of health insurance claims data from Q1 1999 to Q2 2011 in a US claims database. The analysis included 2668 adults with ≥1 diagnosis of HS and ≥1 claim for skin surgery within 6 months after diagnosis. Healthcare resource utilization and medical costs were compared using multivariate regressions.

Results Overall, 46% of HS patients had ≥1 indicator of non-curative surgery. The incidences of inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient visits were 88%, 40%, and 30% higher, respectively, for patients with non-curative surgery vs patients without indicator of non-curative surgery (all p?<?0.001). Average medical costs were $11,858 and $6427 for patients with and without indicators of non-curative surgery, respectively. The difference of $4185 (p?<?0.001) was mainly driven by inpatient costs (difference = $2685; p?<?0.001).

Limitations Indicators of non-curative HS surgery were defined based on an empirical algorithm.

Conclusions Non-curative HS surgery occurred in almost half of all cases and represents a significant burden on patients and payers in terms of resource utilization and 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.     

Comparison of medical costs and healthcare resource utilization of post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer receiving everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy: a retrospective claims database analysis

Objective:

To analyze medical costs and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy among post-menopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2-negative (HR+/HER2?) metastatic breast cancer (mBC).

Methods:

Patients with HR+/HER2? mBC who discontinued a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor and began a new line of treatment with everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy (index therapy/index date) between July 20, 2012 and April 30, 2014 were identified from two large claims databases. All-cause, BC-related, and adverse event (AE)-related medical costs (in 2014 USD) and all-cause HRU per patient per month (PPPM) were analyzed for both treatment groups across patients’ first four lines of therapies for mBC. Adjusted differences in costs and HRU between the everolimus and chemotherapy treatment group were estimated pooling all lines and using multivariable generalized linear models, accounting for difference in patient characteristics.

Results:

A total of 3298 patients were included: 902 everolimus-treated patients and 2636 chemotherapy-treated patients. Compared to chemotherapy, everolimus was associated with significantly lower all-cause (adjusted mean difference?=?$3455, p?<?0.01) and BC-related ($2510, p?<?0.01) total medical costs, with inpatient ($1344, p?<?0.01) and outpatient costs ($1048, p?<?0.01) as the main drivers for cost differences. Everolimus was also associated with significantly lower AE-related medical costs ($1730, p?<?0.01), as well as significantly lower HRU (emergency room incidence rate ratio [IRR]?=?0.83; inpatient IRR?=?0.74; inpatient days IRR?=?0.65; outpatient IRR?=?0.71; BC-related outpatient IRR?=?0.57; all p?<?0.01).

Conclusions:

This retrospective claims database analysis of commercially-insured patients with HR+/HER2? mBC in the US showed that everolimus was associated with substantial all-cause, BC-related, and AE-related medical cost savings and less utilization of healthcare resources relative to chemotherapy.     

Healthcare resource utilization and direct costs associated with frequent nausea in episodic migraine: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study

Abstract

Background:

Nausea is a common migraine symptom that is associated with impaired quality-of-life and functional disability. In this study, population-based data were used to elucidate the relationship between nausea frequency and headache-related healthcare utilization and costs in persons with migraine.

Research design and methods:

Participants with episodic migraine who completed the 2009 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study survey rated their headache-related nausea as occurring never, rarely, <half the time, or ≥half the time with their headaches, and completed questions on symptom frequency and healthcare resource utilization.

Main outcomes measures:

Ordinal logistic regression models were used to assess the association between nausea frequency and headache-related healthcare utilization. Healthcare cost equivalents were calculated.

Results:

Among the 6488 respondents with episodic migraine, the number of respondents observed across headache-related nausea frequency strata were 6.9% for never, 14.5% for rarely, 29.1% for <half the time, and 49.5% for ≥half the time. In unadjusted models, the odds of having ≥1 healthcare encounter for headache in the preceding year increased with frequency of nausea for primary care/obstetrics-gynecology visits (OR?=?1.41; 95% CI?=?1.30–1.52, p?<?0.001), nurse practitioner/physician assistant visits (OR?=?1.52; 95% CI?=?1.25–1.85, p?<?0.001), neurology/headache clinic visits (OR?=?1.33, 95% CI?=?1.18–1.51, p?<?0.001), pain clinic visits (OR?=?1.31, 95% CI?=?1.01–1.71, p?<?0.05), emergency department visits (OR?=?1.85; 95% CI?=?1.56–2.19, p?<?0.01), and overnight hospital stays (OR?=?1.50, 92% CI?=?1.12–2.00, p?<?0.01). The odds of having ≥1 lifetime CT scan or MRI also increased with the frequency of nausea (p?<?0.001 for both). Results remained significant in these analyses when controlling for sociodemographics and overall symptom severity except in the case of pain clinic visits (p?<?0.107). Visits for Mental Health and visits for Chiropractic/Alternative care did not differ significantly by nausea group in unadjusted or adjusted models. Mean estimated direct headache-related healthcare cost equivalents per person per year generally increased with increasing headache-related nausea frequency across categories of healthcare utilization. Average per person healthcare cost for nausea ≥half the time vs nausea never was $179 and $49 yearly for outpatient services, $183 vs $20 yearly for overnight hospital stays, and $314 vs $257 for lifetime diagnostic services/imaging.

Conclusions:

Direct costs of migraine increase with increasing frequency of migraine-associated nausea. Both frequency and severity of headache-related nausea should be monitored as part of ongoing care of persons with migraine. Headache-related nausea, like headache pain, should be considered an area of central concern during clinical, diagnostic, and treatment optimization assessments.

Study limitations:

This study relied on self-reported headache frequency and healthcare costs which are subject to recall bias and under-reporting; however, reporting bias is unlikely to be different as a function of nausea frequency. In addition, medication use costs and indirect costs (which may be higher than direct costs for migraine) were not assessed.     

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.     

Adherence to iron chelation therapy and associated healthcare resource utilization and costs in Medicaid patients with sickle cell disease and thalassemia

Background:

Sub-optimal patient adherence to iron chelation therapy (ICT) may impact patient outcomes and increase cost of care. This study evaluated the economic burden of ICT non-adherence in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) or thalassemia.

Methods:

Patients with SCD or thalassemia were identified from six state Medicaid programs (1997–2013). Adherence was estimated using the medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥0.80. All-cause and disease-specific resource utilization per-patient-per-month (PPPM) was assessed and compared between adherent and non-adherent patients using adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR). All-cause and disease-specific healthcare costs were computed using mean cost PPPM. Regression models adjusting for baseline characteristics were used to compare adherent and non-adherent patients.

Results:

A total of 728 eligible patients treated with ICT in the SCD cohort, 461 (63%) adherent, and 218 in the thalassemia cohort, 137 (63%) adherent, were included in this study. In SCD patients, the adjusted rate of all-cause outpatient visits PPPM was higher in adherent patients vs non-adherent patients (aIRR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01–1.08], p?<?0.0001). Conversely, adherent patients incurred fewer all-cause inpatients visits (0.87 [0.81–0.94], p?<?0.001) and ER visits (0.86 [0.78–0.93], p?<?0.001). Similar trends were observed in SCD-related resource utilization rates and in thalassemia patients. Total all-cause costs were similar between adherent and non-adherent patients, but inpatient costs (adjusted cost difference?=??$1530 PPPM, p?=?0.0360) were lower in adherent patients.

Conclusion:

Patients adherent to ICT had less acute care need and lower inpatient costs than non-adherent patients, although they had more outpatient visits. Improved adherence may be linked to better disease monitoring and has the potential to avoid important downstream costs associated with acute care visits and reduce the financial burden on health programs and managed care plans treating SCD and thalassemia patients.     

Economic outcomes of exenatide vs liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in the United States: results from a retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Objective:

The safety and efficacy of the GLP-1 receptor agonists exenatide BID (exenatide) and liraglutide for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been established in clinical trials. Effective treatments may lower overall treatment costs. This study examined cost offsets and medication adherence for exenatide vs liraglutide in a large, managed care population in the US.

Methods:

This was a retrospective cohort analysis comprising adult patients with T2DM who initiated exenatide or liraglutide between 1/1/2010 and 6/30/2010 and had 6 months pre-index and post-index continuous eligibility. Patients were propensity score-matched to controls for baseline differences. Medication adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-test and McNemar’s test were used to compare outcomes.

Results:

Matched exenatide and liraglutide cohorts (n?=?1347 pairs) had similar average total 6-month follow-up costs ($6688 vs $7346). However, exenatide patients had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($2925 vs $3272, p?<?0.001). Among liraglutide patients, patients receiving the 1.8?mg dose had significantly higher average total costs compared to those receiving the 1.2?mg dose ($8031 vs $6536, p?=?0.026), with higher mean pharmacy costs in the 1.8?mg cohort ($3935 vs $3146, p?<?0.001). There were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient costs or medication adherence between groups (mean PDC: exenatide 56% vs liraglutide 57%, p?=?0.088).

Limitations:

The study assumed that all information needed for case classification and matching of cohorts was present and not differential across cohorts. The study did not control for covariates that were unavailable, such as HbA1c and duration of diabetes.

Conclusions:

Patients initiating exenatide vs liraglutide for T2DM had similar medication adherence and total healthcare costs; however, exenatide patients had significantly lower total pharmacy costs. Patients prescribed 1.8?mg liraglutide had significantly higher costs compared to those on 1.2?mg.     

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.     

Medical costs and healthcare resource use in patients with lupus nephritis and neuropsychiatric lupus in an insured population

Abstract

Objective:

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease that can affect multiple organ systems, including the kidneys (lupus nephritis) and the central nervous system (neuropsychiatric lupus, or NPSLE). The healthcare costs and resource utilization associated with treating lupus nephritis and NPSLE in a large US managed care plan were studied.

Methods:

SLE subjects ≥18 years of age and with claims-based evidence of nephritis or neuropsychiatric conditions were identified from a health plan database. An index date was set as a randomly drawn date from all qualifying claims during 2003–2008 for study subjects. Subjects were matched on the basis of demographic and clinical characteristics to unaffected controls. Costs and resource use were determined during a fixed 12-month post-index period.

Results:

Nine hundred and seven lupus nephritis subjects were matched to controls, and 1062 subjects with NPSLE were matched to controls. Mean overall post-index healthcare costs were significantly higher among subjects with lupus nephritis in comparison to matched controls ($33,472 vs $5347, p?<?0.001). Similarly, mean overall post-index healthcare costs were significantly higher among subjects with NPSLE compared to controls ($30,341 vs $4646, p?<?0.001). Subjects with lupus nephritis or NPSLE had higher mean post-index numbers of ambulatory visits, specialist visits, emergency department visits and inpatient hospital stays, compared to controls (all p?<?0.001).

Limitations:

Additional research, such as medical chart review, could provide validation for the claims-based identification of lupus nephritis and NPSLE subjects. Also, indirect costs were not evaluated in this study.

Conclusion:

Subjects with lupus nephritis or NPSLE have high costs and resource use, compared to unaffected controls.     

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with COPD among SEER-Medicare beneficiaries with NSCLC

Aim: To estimate the healthcare utilization and costs in elderly lung cancer patients with and without pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, this study identified patients with lung cancer between 2006–2010, at least 66 years of age, and continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B in the 12 months prior to cancer diagnosis. The diagnosis of pre-existing COPD in lung cancer patients was identified using ICD-9 codes. Healthcare utilization and costs were categorized as inpatient hospitalizations, skilled nursing facility (SNF) use, physician office visits, ER visits, and outpatient encounters for every stage of lung cancer. The adjusted analysis was performed using a generalized linear model for healthcare costs and a negative binomial model for healthcare utilization.

Results: Inpatient admissions in the COPD group increased for each stage of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to the non-COPD group per 100 person-months (Stage I: 14.67 vs 9.49 stays, p?<?.0001; Stage II: 14.13 vs 10.78 stays, p?<?.0001; Stage III: 28.31 vs 18.91 stays, p?<?.0001; Stage IV: 49.5 vs 31.24 stays, p?<?.0001). A similar trend was observed for outpatient visits, with an increase in utilization among the COPD group (Stage I: 1136.04 vs 796 visits, p?<?.0001; Stage II: 1325.12 vs 983.26 visits, p?<?.0001; Stage III: 2025.47 vs 1656.64 visits, p?<?.0001; Stage IV: 2825.73 vs 2422.26 visits, p?<?.0001). Total direct costs per person-month in patients with pre-existing COPD were significantly higher than the non-COPD group across all services ($54,799.16 vs $41,862.91). Outpatient visits represented the largest cost category across all services in both groups, with higher costs among the COPD group ($41,203 vs $31,140.08).

Conclusion: Healthcare utilization and costs among lung cancer patients with pre-existing COPD was ～2–3-times higher than the non-COPD group.     

Short-term disability in solid tumor patients with bone metastases and skeletal-related events

Abstract

Objective:

The skeleton is a common site of metastasis in patients with solid tumors. These patients often experience pain and reduced quality-of-life. This analysis evaluated the time and costs associated with short-term disability use among solid tumor patients with bone metastases (BM) and skeletal-related events (SREs).

Methods:

Data from patients 18–64 years old with solid tumors and BM, eligible for short-term disability benefits between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2010, were extracted from MarketScan Research Databases. Short-term disability hours and costs associated with BM and SREs were evaluated.

Results:

Overall, 1098 patients met the criteria. For all patients with BM, the monthly mean short-term disability hours were 17.7?h pre-BM diagnosis and increased to 60.2?h post-BM diagnosis (p?<?0.001). The corresponding mean monthly short-term disability costs were $277 and $963 in the pre- and post-BM diagnosis periods, respectively (p?<?0.001). Monthly mean short-term disability hours were higher for the cohort of patients with SREs (21.2?h pre-SRE diagnosis and 67.4?h post-SRE diagnosis) than for those without an SRE (8.6?h pre-SRE diagnosis and 14.4?h post-SRE diagnosis) (p?<?0.001). Similarly, the corresponding monthly mean short-term disability costs were higher for patients with SREs ($625 and $1259 pre- and post-SRE diagnosis, respectively) than for patients without an SRE ($452 and $612 pre- and post-SRE diagnosis, respectively) (p?<?0.001). Results of a multivariate analysis indicated that SREs were associated with an additional 39.4 short-term disability hours and $613 in short-term disability costs per month (p?<?0.001).

>Conclusion:

Short-term disability hours and costs increased significantly when patients with solid tumors developed BM and SRE.