Risks and cost burden of venous thromboembolism and bleeding for patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement in a managed-care population

Abstract

Background:

Total hip and total knee replacement (THR/TKR) patients are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). VTE prevention using anticoagulation therapy increases the risk of bleeding. Therefore, any assessment of the cost of VTE and its prevention should also take into consideration risks and costs of bleeding.

Objective:

To assess the risks of developing VTE and bleeding in patients after THR or TKR given real-world use of thromboprophylaxis, and to quantify the incremental cost associated with each.

Methods:

Analyses of insurance healthcare claims from the Ingenix IMPACT National Managed Care Database^TM from January 2004 to December 2008 were conducted. Subjects were ≥18 years and had ≥1 procedure code for THR or TKR. Patients had to have ≥180 days of observation prior to surgery and were observed for ≤3 months after THR or TKR. VTE was defined as ≥1 diagnosis code for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding events were classified as major or non-major. Risks of VTE or bleeding events were calculated as number of patients with an event divided by number of patients with the procedure. Incremental all-cause healthcare costs associated with VTE or bleeding were calculated as the difference between cohorts of patients without VTE or bleeding matched 1:1 to patients with VTE or bleeding.

Results:

Of 119,729 patients (43,670 THR and 76,059 TKR), 7974 had a VTE event and 4849 had a bleeding event (2216 major bleeding [a subset of ‘any bleeding’]). The risks of VTE, any bleeding, and major bleeding were 6.7, 4.0, and 1.9 events, respectively, per 100 patients. Up to 3 months after THR/TKR, mean incremental all-cause healthcare costs per patient per month associated with VTE, bleeding, and major bleeding were $2729, $2696, and $4304, respectively. Total monthly costs versus matched controls over 3 months were: VTE: $12,333 vs. $9604; any bleeding: $12,481 vs. $9785; major bleeding: $14,015 vs. $9710; p?<?0.001 for all.

Limitations:

Key limitations included potential inaccuracies or omissions in procedures, diagnoses, or costs of claims data; lack of information on the amount of blood transfused or decreases in the hemoglobin level to evaluate the severity of a bleeding event; and potential biases due to the observational design of the study.

Conclusion:

From the managed-care population perspective, in THR/TKR patients the greater incidence of VTE compared to any bleeding and major bleeding translated into a higher cumulative cost burden.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients with cancer

Abstract

Objective: Patients with cancer are at high risk for developing primary but also recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study examined healthcare utilization (HRU) and costs related to VTE recurrence among cancer patients.

Methods: Medical and pharmacy claims from the Humana Database were used to compare HRU (outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and hospitalization days) and healthcare costs among cancer patients with a single VTE event (between 01/2013 and 06/2015) and those with recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (from initiation of anticoagulant therapy until end of eligibility or data availability). All-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs were evaluated using Poisson regression, and healthcare costs were compared using mean differences reported as per-patient-per-year (PPPY).

Results: Of 2,428 newly diagnosed cancer patients who developed VTE, 413 (17.1%) experienced recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (mean = 9 months). Patients with recurrent VTE had higher all-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs compared to those without recurrence. Patients with recurrent VTE also had over 3.19-times more VTE-related hospitalizations (RR [95% CI]?=?3.19 [2.93–3.47]), and 3.88-times more VTE-related hospitalization days (RR [95% CI]?=?3.88 [3.74–4.02]) than patients without a VTE recurrence. Total VTE-related healthcare costs were $39,641 PPPY among patients with recurrent VTE, $29,142 higher compared to those without recurrence ($10,499 PPPY). This difference was mainly driven by hospitalization costs.

Conclusion: Recurrent VTE among cancer patients is associated with significant HRU and healthcare costs, notably hospitalizations. Strategies to reduce VTE recurrence in patients with cancer can contribute to reducing healthcare cost.     

Impact of upper and lower gastrointestinal blood loss on healthcare utilization and costs: a systematic review

Abstract

Objectives:

Gastrointestinal (GI) blood loss is a common medical condition which can have serious morbidity and mortality consequences and may pose an enormous burden on healthcare utilization. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the impact of upper and lower GI blood loss on healthcare utilization and costs.

Methods:

We performed a systematic search of peer-reviewed English articles from MEDLINE published between 1990 and 2010. Articles were limited to studies with patients ≥18 years of age, non-pregnant women, and individuals without anemia of chronic disease, renal disease, cancer, congestive heart failure, HIV, iron-deficiency anemia or blood loss due to trauma or surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract and article relevance.

Results:

Eight retrospective articles were included which used medical records or claims data. Studies analyzed resource utilization related to medical care although none of the studies assessed indirect resource use or costs. All but one study limited assessment of healthcare utilization to hospital use. The mean cost/hospital admission for upper GI blood loss was reported to be in the range $3180–8990 in the US, $2500–3000 in Canada and, in the Netherlands, the mean hospital cost/per blood loss event was €11,900 for a bleeding ulcer and €26,000 for a bleeding and perforated ulcer. Mean cost/ hospital admission for lower GI blood loss was $4800 in Canada, and $40,456 for small bowel bleeding in the US.

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest that the impact of GI blood loss on healthcare costs is substantial but studies are limited. Additional investigations are needed which examine both direct and indirect costs as well as healthcare costs by source of GI blood loss focusing on specific populations in order to target treatment pathways for patients with GI blood loss.     

Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the primary prevention of venous tromboembolic events following major orthopedic surgery in the Netherlands

Abstract

Objectives:

Dabigatran etexilate is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who have elective surgery for total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). Among the advantages of dabigatran etexilate over subcutaneous prophylaxis with Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) are reduced resource uses for (i) teaching patients to self-inject; (ii) home-care visits for subcutaneous administration; and (iii) absence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Based on the demonstrated non-inferiority, the aim of this study was to conduct a cost-minimization analysis of oral dabigatran etexilate vs subcutaneous low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux from the Dutch healthcare perspective.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to measure resource use associated with subcutaneous prophylaxis. Results of this study were used in the model to elucidate specific advantages of dabigatran etexilate, next to reduced needs for self-inject teaching and lack of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia. Drug and other resource utilization data were combined with local unit costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty around relevant parameters included.

Results:

Home-care visits for subcutaneous administration problems were needed in 9.9% (95% CI?=?6.4–13.4) and 9.6% (95% CI?=?5.8–13.4) of THR and TKR patients, respectively. Based on costs for 1000 patients treated with dabigatran etexilate vs LMWHs, per patient cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate were estimated at €30.68 (95% CI?=?2.01–65.52) and €23.19 (95% CI?=?0.69–48.48) for THR and TKR, respectively. The probability that dabigatran etexilate would be cost-saving was estimated at 98.3% and 97.9% for THR and TKR, respectively. These cost-savings were even higher when including fondaparinux in the analysis, with per patient cost-savings of €69.87 (43.42–106.10) and €18.33 (1.63–41.26) for THR and TKR, respectively. Separate calculations for dabigatran etexilate vs nadroparin and dalteparin in THR resulted in probabilities of achieving cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate of 36.2% and 100%, respectively. For TKR these probabilities were estimated at 54.3% and 100%, respectively.

Conclusions:

Thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran etexilate is cost-saving in patients undergoing THR and TKR from the Dutch healthcare perspective, compared to subcutaneous LMWHs.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism in cancer patients treated with anticoagulants

Abstract

Objective: The standard of care for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but oral anticoagulants are also widely prescribed. This study compared VTE-related healthcare resource utilization and costs of cancer patients treated with anticoagulants.

Methods: Claims data from Humana Database (January 1, 2013–May 31, 2015) were analyzed. Based on the first anticoagulant received, patients were classified into LMWH, warfarin, or rivaroxaban cohorts. Characteristics were evaluated during the 6 months pre-index date (i.e. the first VTE); VTE-related resource utilization and costs were evaluated during follow-up. Cohorts were compared using rate ratios, and p-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Healthcare costs were evaluated per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and compared using mean cost differences.

Results: A total of 2,428 patients (LMWH: n?=?660; warfarin: n?=?1,061; rivaroxaban: n?=?707) were included. Compared to patients treated with LMWH, patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly fewer VTE-related hospitalizations, hospitalization days, and emergency room and outpatient visits, resulting in an increase of $12,000 VTE-related healthcare costs PPPY with LMWH vs rivaroxaban. Patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly lower VTE-related resource utilization compared to patients treated with warfarin; however, VTE-related costs were similar between cohorts. The higher drug costs ($1,519) were offset by significantly lower outpatient (?$1,039) and hospitalization costs (?$522) in rivaroxaban relative to the warfarin cohort.

Conclusions: Healthcare resource use and costs associated with VTE treatment in cancer patients are highest with LMWH relative to warfarin and rivaroxaban.     

Cost comparison of continued anticoagulation with rivaroxaban versus placebo based on the 1-year EINSTEIN-Extension trial efficacy and safety results

Aims: The EINSTEIN-Extension trial (EINSTEIN-EXT) found that continued treatment with rivaroxaban for an additional 6 or 12 months (vs placebo) after 6–12 months of initial anticoagulation significantly reduced the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) with a small non-significant increased risk of major bleeding (none fatal or in critical site). This study aimed to compare total healthcare cost between rivaroxaban and placebo, based on the EINSTEIN-EXT event rates.

Methods: Total healthcare cost was calculated as the sum of treatment and clinical event costs from a US managed care perspective. Treatment duration and event rates were obtained from the EINSTEIN-EXT study. Adjustment on treatment duration was made by assuming a 10% non-adherence rate. Drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Cost estimates for clinical events (i.e. recurrent deep vein thrombosis [DVT], recurrent pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding) were determined from the literature. Results were examined over a ±20% range of each cost component and over 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of event rate differences in deterministic (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

Results: Total healthcare cost was $1,454 lower for rivaroxaban-treated (vs placebo-treated) patients in the base-case, with a lower clinical event cost fully offsetting drug cost. The cost savings of recurrent DVT alone (–$3,102) was greater than drug cost ($2,723). Total healthcare cost remained lower for rivaroxaban in the majority (73%) of PSA (cost difference [95% CI]?=?–$1,454 [–$2,396, $1,231]).

Limitations: This study was conducted over the 1-year observation period of the EINSTEIN-EXT trial, which limited “real-world” applicability and examination of long-term economic impact. Assumptions on drug and clinical event costs were US-based and, thus, not applicable to other healthcare systems.

Conclusions: Total healthcare costs were estimated to be lower for patients continuing rivaroxaban therapy compared to those receiving placebo in VTE patients who had completed 6–12 months of VTE treatment.     

A review of international pharmacoeconomic models assessing the use of aspirin in primary prevention

Abstract

Purpose:

The aim of this narrative review was to summarise the cost analyses and supporting trial data for aspirin prophylaxis in primary prevention.

Methods:

A PubMed search using the term ‘aspirin and cost-effective and primary prevention’ was performed. Professional meetings (2009) were also searched for any relevant abstracts contacting the terms ‘aspirin’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Where possible, outcomes were discussed in terms of cost implications (expressed as quality-adjusted life-year [QALY], disability-adjusted life-year or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) in relation to the annual risk of cardiovascular disease. Aspirin was included in cost-effectiveness models that determined direct cost savings.

Results:

A total of 67 papers were identified using PubMed, and 17 cost-effectiveness studies, which assessed aspirin in primary prevention (largely based on the key primary prevention studies), and two abstracts were included in the review. These analyses showed that low-dose aspirin was cost effective in a variety of scenarios. In the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan, the mean 10-year direct cost saving (including follow-up costs and aspirin costs) per patient was €201, €281, €797, €427 and €889 with aspirin use in patients with an annual coronary heart disease risk of 1.5%. Cost-effectiveness analyses were affected by age, risk level for stroke and myocardial infarction (MI), risk of bleeds and adherence to aspirin. Underutilisation is a major limiting factor, as the appropriate use of aspirin in an eligible population (n?=?301,658) based on the NHANES database would prevent 1273 MIs, 2184 angina episodes and 565 ischaemic strokes in patients without previous events; this would result in a direct cost saving of $79.6?million (€54.7?million; 2010 values), which includes aspirin costs.

Conclusions:

Most analyses in primary prevention have shown that low-dose aspirin is a cost-effective option, and is likely to meet the willingness of a healthcare system to pay for any additional QALY gained in the majority of healthcare systems.     

Evaluation of medical costs associated with use of new oral anticoagulants compared with standard therapy among venous thromboembolism patients

Objective:

This study evaluated differences in medical costs associated with clinical end-points from randomized clinical trials that compared the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, to standard therapy for treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Research design and methods:

Event rates of efficacy and safety end-points from the clinical trials (RE-COVER, RE-COVER II, EINSTEIN-Pooled, AMPLIFY, Hokusai-VTE trial) were obtained from published literature. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with clinical events from a US payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical end-points for the NOACs vs standard therapy were then estimated. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were carried out.

Results:

A lower rate of major bleedings was associated with use of any of the NOACs vs standard therapy. Except for dabigatran, use of NOACs was also associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE/death. As a result of the reduction in clinical event rates, the overall medical cost differences were ?$146, ?$482, ?$918, and ?$344 for VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively, vs patients treated with standard therapy.

Conclusions:

When any of the four NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for acute VTE, treatment medical costs are reduced. Apixaban is associated with the greatest reduction in medical costs, which is driven by medical cost reductions associated with both efficacy and safety end-points. Further evaluation may be needed to validate these results in the real-world setting.     

The cost implications of the use of telmisartan or ramipril in patients at high risk for vascular events: the ONTARGET study

Abstract

Background:

The recently published ONTARGET trial found that telmisartan was non-inferior to ramipril in reducing CV death, MI, stroke, or heart failure in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes. The cost implications of ramipril and telmisartan monotherapy use based on the ONTARGET study are reported here.

Methods and Results:

Only healthcare system costs were considered. Healthcare resource utilization was collected for each patient during the trial. The authors obtained country-specific unit costs to the different healthcare care resources consumed (i.e., hospitalizations events, procedures, non-study, and study drugs) for all enrolled patients. Purchasing power parities were used to convert country-specific costs into US dollars (US$ 2008). The total undiscounted costs of the study for the telmisartan group was $12,762 per patient and is higher than the ramipril group at $12,007 per patient, an un-discounted difference of $755 (95% confidence interval [CI], $218–$1292); The discounted costs for the telmisartan group was $11,722 compared with $11,019 for the ramipril group; a difference of $703 (95% CI, $209–$1197). The difference in costs is exclusively related to the acquisition cost of telmisartan over generic ramipril.

Limitations:

This analysis only considered direct healthcare system costs. Costs accrued outside the hospital were not collected. Combination therapy was excluded since it would likely be more expensive than ramipril alone, with no additional benefit and a risk of some harm.

Conclusions:

Based on these results, it is suggested that for the ONTARGET patients, the use of telmisartan instead of ramipril increases costs by 6.3%. These findings suggest that the choice to put patients on telmisartan should be justified based on the patient’s susceptibility to specific adverse events to minimize the cost implications.     

Healthcare costs associated with bevacizumab and cetuximab in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the health care costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received second-line treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab) versus Erbitux (cetuximab), from the third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were selected from the PharMetrics claims database if they received second-line therapy containing either bevacizumab (second-line bevacizumab cohort) or cetuximab (second-line cetuximab cohort). Six-month costs following second-line therapy start date and average monthly healthcare costs while on second-line therapy (in 2009 US$) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results:

A total of 2188 patients with mCRC who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis, including 1808 patients receiving bevacizumab and 380 patients receiving cetuximab in second-line treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients’ mean age was 61 years and 56% were males. In second-line treatment, bevacizumab was commonly used with oxaliplatin (43.5%) and irinotecan-based regimens (40.4%), whereas cetuximab was commonly used with irinotecan-based regimens (68.2%). Bevacizumab patients had significantly lower total all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients (adjusted difference: –$10,231, p?=?0.020), and lower medical costs (–$10,796, p?=?0.012) during the 6 months following second-line therapy initiation. Approximately half of the difference in total all-cause healthcare costs was attributable to the lower chemotherapy and targeted therapy costs (–$5635, p?=?0.032) of bevacizumab patients than those of cetuximab patients. While on second-line therapy, bevacizumab patients also had lower average monthly all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients.

Limitations:

Second-line treatment in the current study was defined based on changes in mCRC medications, not based on disease progression due to the limited clinical information available in claims.

Conclusion:

The use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in mCRC patients, compared to the use of cetuximab.     

In-hospital risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding and associated costs for patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty

Abstract

Objective:

Benefits of anti-coagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) may be offset by increased risk of bleeding. The aim was to assess in-hospital risk of VTE and bleeding after THA/TKA and quantify any increased costs.

Methods:

Healthcare claims from the Premier Perspective^TM Comparative Hospital Database (January 2000–September 2008) were selected for subjects ≥18 years with ≥1 diagnosis code for THA/TKA. VTE was defined as ≥1 code for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding was classified as major/non-major. Incremental in-hospital costs associated with VTE and bleeding were calculated as cost differences between inpatients with VTE or bleeding matched 1:1 with inpatients without VTE or bleeding.

Results:

A total of 820,197 inpatient stays were identified: 8042 had a VTE event and 7401 a bleeding event (2740 major bleeding). The risks of VTE, any bleeding, and major bleeding were 0.98, 0.90, and 0.33/100 inpatient stays, respectively. Mean incremental in-hospital costs per inpatient were $2663 for VTE, $2028 for bleeding, and $3198 for major bleeding.

Limitations:

These included possible inaccuracies or omissions in procedures, diagnoses, or costs of claims data; no information on the amount of blood transfused or decreases in the hemoglobin level to evaluate bleeding event severity; and potential biases due to the observational design of the study.

Conclusions:

In-hospital risk and incremental all-cause costs with THA/TKA were higher for VTE than for bleeding. Despite higher costs, major bleeding occurred less frequently than VTE, suggesting a favorable benefit/risk profile for VTE prophylaxis in THA/TKA.     

Fingolimod reduces direct medical costs compared to natalizumab in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the costs of oral treatment with Gilenya® (fingolimod) compared to intravenous infusion of Tysabri® (natalizumab) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in The Netherlands.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis was used to compare both treatments. The following cost categories were distinguished: drug acquisition costs, administration costs, and monitoring costs. Costs were discounted at 4%, and incremental model results were presented over a 1, 2, 5, and 10 year time horizon. The robustness of the results was determined by means of a number of deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses. Additionally, a break-even analysis was carried out to determine at which natalizumab infusion costs a cost-neutral outcome would be obtained.

Results:

Comparing fingolimod to natalizumab, the model predicted discounted incremental costs of ?€2966 (95% CI: ?€4209; ?€1801), ?€6240 (95% CI: ?€8800; ?€3879), ?€15,328 (95% CI: ?€21,539; ?€9692), and ?€28,287 (95% CI: ?€39,661; ?€17,955) over a 1, 2, 5, and 10-year time horizon, respectively. These predictions were most sensitive to changes in the costs of natalizumab infusion. Changing these costs of €255 within a range from €165–364 per infusion resulted in cost savings varying from €4031 to €8923 after 2 years. The additional break-even analysis showed that infusion costs—including aseptic preparation of the natalizumab solution—needed to be as low as the respective costs of €94 and €80 to obtain a cost neutral result after 2 and 10 years.

Limitations:

Neither treatment discontinuation and subsequent re-initiation nor patient compliance were taken into account. As a consequence of the applied cost-minimization technique, only direct medical costs were included.

Conclusion:

The present analysis showed that treatment with fingolimod resulted in considerable cost savings compared to natalizumab: starting at €2966 in the first year, increasing to a total of €28,287 after 10 years per RRMS patient in the Netherlands.     

Cost effectiveness of posaconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in acute leukaemia patients for the French healthcare system

Abstract

Background:

Acute myeloblastic leukaemia (AML) patients are at high risk of suffering from invasive fungal infections (IFI). Posaconazole demonstrated higher efficacy than standard azole agents (SAA) in the prophylaxis of IFI in this population.

The authors estimated the cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus SAA in France.

Methods:

A decision-tree model was developed to compare posaconazole with SAA with the results of a published clinical trial. Clinical events were modelled with chance nodes reflecting probabilities of IFI, IFI-related death, and death from other causes. Medical resource consumption and costs were obtained from results of the clinical trial and from a dedicated survey on the costs of treating IFI using a retrospective chart review design.

Results:

IFI treatment costs were estimated using medical files from 50 AML patients from six French centres, with a proven and probable IFI, who had been followed-up for 298 days on average. Direct costs directly related to IFI were estimated at €51,033, including extra costs of index hospitalisation, costs of antifungal therapy and additional hospitalisations related to IFI treatment. The model indicated that the healthcare costs for the posaconazole strategy were €5,223 (€2,697 for prophylaxis and €2,526 for IFI management), which was €859 less than the €6,083 in costs with SAA (€469 for prophylaxis and €5614 for IFI management). A sensitivity analysis indicated that there was an 80% probability that prophylaxis using the posaconazole strategy would be superior.

Conclusion:

The findings from this analysis suggest that posaconazole use is a clinically and economically dominant strategy in the prophylaxis of IFI in AML patients, given the usual limits of economic models and the uncertainty of costs estimates.     

Cost and outcomes associated with rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin for the prevention of postsurgical venous thromboembolism from a US payer’s perspective

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this analysis was the evaluation of the outcomes and costs associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for the prevention of postsurgical venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

VTE event rates have been reported in three Phase III clinical trials that compared rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for VTE prevention after orthopedic surgery during the prophylaxis (≤35 days for THR patients and 10–14 days for TKR patients) and post-prophylaxis periods (≤90 days following surgery). These data were used in this decision-analytic model to estimate and compare health outcomes and costs associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin. The base-case analysis considered the number and costs of symptomatic VTE events during the prophylaxis period only. A 90-day horizon was considered in the sensitivity analysis.

Results:

Following THR, when extended durations of prophylaxis (35 days) were compared, rivaroxaban was associated with lower costs than enoxaparin, with total saving costs of $695/patient. When an extended duration of rivaroxaban prophylaxis (35 days) was compared with a short duration (10–14 days) of enoxaparin prophylaxis, rivaroxaban was estimated to prevent 9.9 additional symptomatic VTE events per 1000 patients, while saving $244/patient (rate/1000 patients). In the TKR population, short duration of rivaroxaban prophylaxis was estimated to prevent 13.1 additional symptomatic VTE events per 1000 patients. It was also less costly than short duration enoxaparin prophylaxis, with a saving of $411/patient (rate/1000 patients).

Limitations:

Only statistically significant differences were captured in the base-case economic analysis, and, therefore, differences in pulmonary embolism (PE) and bleeding events were not captured.

Conclusions:

In this model, rivaroxaban reduced total treatment payer costs vs enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in THR or TKR patients.     

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Cost of skeletal-related events in European patients with solid tumours and bone metastases: data from a prospective multinational observational study

Abstract

Objectives:

Patients with bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs: radiation or surgery to bone, pathologic fracture, and spinal cord compression). This study examined health resource utilization and costs associated with SREs.

Methods:

Data presented are from the European cohort (Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) of patients with solid tumours enrolled in a multi-national, prospective, observational study in patients with solid tumours or multiple myeloma. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score 0–2 and life expectancy ≥6 months, who experienced an SRE up to 97 days before enrolment, were eligible. Health resource utilization associated with SREs (including number/length of inpatient stays, numbers of procedures and outpatient visits) were collected through chart review for up to 97 days before enrolment and prospectively during follow-up. Country-specific cost calculations were performed.

Results:

In total, 478 eligible patients contributed 893 SREs to this analysis. Radiation to bone occurred most frequently (66% of total). Spinal cord compression (7%) and surgery to bone (10%) were the least common events, but most likely to require inpatient stays. The most costly SREs were also spinal cord compression (mean per SRE across countries, €4884–€12,082) and surgery to bone (€3348–€9407). Inpatient stays were the main cost drivers.

Limitations:

Health resource utilization used to calculate the costs associated with SREs may have been under-estimated as a result of exclusion of patients with low performance status or life expectancy; unavailable information and exclusion of resource consumption associated with pain. Thus, the estimate of associated costs is likely to be conservative.

Conclusions:

SREs result in considerable health resource utilization, imposing a substantial financial burden driven by inpatient stays. Treatments that prevent/delay SREs may help ease this burden, thereby providing cost savings across European healthcare systems.