The economic burden of switching targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among rheumatoid arthritis patients

Aims: To estimate real world healthcare costs and resource utilization of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients associated with targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARD) switching in general and switching to abatacept specifically.

Materials and methods: RA patients initiating a tDMARD were identified in IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims data (2010–2016), and outcomes measured included monthly healthcare costs per patient (all-cause, RA-related) and resource utilization (inpatient stays, outpatient visits, emergency department [ED] visits). Generalized linear models were used to assess (i) average monthly costs per patient associated with tDMARD switching, and (ii) among switchers only, costs of switching to abatacept vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi. Negative binomial regressions were used to determine incident rate ratios of resource utilization associated with switching to abatacept.

Results: Among 11,856 RA patients who initiated a tDMARD, 2,708 switched tDMARDs once and 814 switched twice (to a third tDMARD). Adjusted average monthly costs were higher among patients who switched to a second tDMARD vs non-switchers (all-cause: $4,785 vs $3,491, p?p?p?p?=?.021), and numerically lower all-cause costs ($4,444 vs $4,741, p?=?0.188). Switchers to TNFi relative to abatacept had more frequent inpatient stays after switch (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.85, p?=?.031), and numerically higher ED visits (IRR = 1.32, p?=?.093). Outpatient visits were less frequent for TNFi switchers (IRR = 0.83, p?Limitations and conclusions: Switching to another tDMARD was associated with higher healthcare costs. Switching to abatacept, however, was associated with lower RA-related costs, fewer inpatient stays, but more frequent outpatient visits compared to switching to a TNFi.     

The economic burden of depression among adults with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States

Aims: Depression is the most frequent comorbidity reported among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Comorbid depression negatively impacts RA patients’ health-related quality-of-life, physical function, mental function, mortality, and experience of pain and symptom severity. The objective of this study was to assess healthcare utilization, expenditures, and work productivity among patients with RA with or without depression.

Materials and methods: Data from adult patients who had at least two visits each related to RA and depression over a 1-year period were extracted from the Truven Health MarketScan research databases. Outcomes comprised healthcare resource utilization, work productivity loss, and direct healthcare costs comparing patients with RA with depression (n?=?3,478) vs patients with RA without depression (n?=?43,222).

Results: Patients with RA and depression had a significantly greater relative risk of hospitalization and number of all-cause and RA-related hospitalizations, utilization of emergency services, days spent in the hospital, physician visits, and RA-related surgeries compared with RA patients without depression. Patients with RA and depression had a higher risk of and experienced more events and days of short-term disability compared with patients without depression. The incremental adjusted annual all-cause and RA-related direct costs were $8,488 (95% CI = $6,793–$10,223) and $578 (95% CI = –$98–$1,243), respectively, when comparing patients with RA and depression vs RA only.

Limitations: The current analysis is subject to the known limitations of retrospective studies based on administrative claims data.

Conclusions: This study suggested increased healthcare utilization, work productivity loss, and economic burden among RA patients due to comorbid depression. These findings emphasize the importance of managing depression and including depression as a factor when devising treatment algorithms for patients with RA.     

A budget impact analysis for making treatment decisions based on anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing in rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

Aim: Given that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) titer values respond well to abatacept, the aim of this study was to estimate the annual budget impact of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing and treatment selection based on anti-CCP test results.

Materials and methods: Budget impact analysis was conducted for patients with moderate-to-severe RA on biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment from a hypothetical US commercial payer perspective. The following market scenarios were compared: (1) 90% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing do not impact the treatment selection; (2) 100% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing have an impact on treatment selection such that an increased proportion of patients with high titer of ACPA receive abatacept. A hypothetical assumption was made that the use of abatacept would be increased by 2% in Scenario 2 versus 1. Scenario analyses were conducted by varying the target population and rebate rates.

Results: In a hypothetical health plan with one million insured adults, 2,181 patients would be on a biologic or JAKi treatment for moderate-to-severe RA. In Scenario 1, the anti-CCP test cost was $186,155 and annual treatment cost was $101,854,295, totaling to $102,040,450. In Scenario 2, the anti-CCP test cost increased by $20,684 and treatment cost increased by $160,467, totaling an overall budget increase of $181,151. This was equivalent to a per member per month (PMPM) increase of $0.015. The budget impact results were consistently negligible across the scenario analyses.

Limitations: The analysis only considered testing and medication costs. Some parameters used in the analysis, such as the rebate rates, are not generalizable and health plan-specific.

Conclusions: Testing RA patients to learn their ACPA status and increasing use of abatacept among high-titer ACPA patients result in a small increase in the total budget (<2 cents PMPM).     

Indirect cost-effectiveness analyses of abatacept and rituximab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in the United States

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for abatacept and rituximab, in combination with methotrexate, relative to methotrexate alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: A patient-level simulation model was used to depict the progression of functional disability over the lifetimes of women aged 55–64 years with active RA and inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonist therapy. Future health-state utilities and medical care costs were based on projected values of the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Patients were assumed to receive abatacept or rituximab in combination with methotrexate until death or therapy discontinuation due to lack of efficacy or adverse events. HAQ-DI improvement at month 6, after adjustments for control drug (methotrexate) response, was derived from two clinical trials. Costs of medical care and biologic drugs, discounted at 3% annually, were from the perspective of a US third-party payer and expressed in 2007 US dollars.

Results: Relative to methotrexate alone, abatacept/methotrexate and rituximab/methotrexate therapies were estimated to yield an average of 1.25 and 1.10 additional QALYs per patient, at mean incremental costs of $58,989 and $60,380, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio relative to methotrexate was $47,191 (95% CI $44,810–49,920) per QALY gained for abatacept/methotrexate and $54,891 (95% CI $52,274–58,073) per QALY gained for rituximab/methotrexate. At an acceptability threshold of $50,000 per QALY, the probability of cost effectiveness was 90% for abatacept and 0.0% for rituximab.

Conclusion: Abatacept was estimated to be more cost effective than rituximab for use in RA from a US third-party payer perspective. However, head-to-head clinical trials and long-term observational data are needed to confirm these findings.     

Derivation of severity index for rheumatoid arthritis and its association with healthcare outcomes

Abstract

Objectives:

To develop a claims-based severity index for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database.

Methods:

Adult patients with at least two RA diagnoses 2 months apart were identified between 10/1/2008–09/30/2009. Patients were required to have at least 12 months continuous health plan enrollment before and after the index date (first RA diagnosis date) for an overall study period of 10/1/2007–09/30/2010. A severity index for rheumatoid arthritis (SIFRA, a proprietary algorithm of SIMR, Inc. [STATinMED Research]) was developed by calculating a weighted sum of 34 RA-related indicators assessed by an expert Delphi panel of six rheumatologists, including laboratory, clinical, and functional status, extra-articular manifestations, surgical history, and medications, during a 1-year pre-index period. Separate SIFRA versions were derived for patients with and without laboratory information. Correlations between SIFRA and previously validated claims-based indexes for RA severity (CIRAS), and other traditional comorbidity indexes were calculated during the pre-index period. The relationship between SIFRA and follow-up healthcare outcomes was also examined using histograms.

Results:

The Spearman’s rank correlations between SIFRA and CIRAS were 0.525 for SIFRA without and 0.539 with laboratory data. The correlations between SIFRA and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (0.1503 without, 0.1135 with laboratory data), Elixhauser Index (ELIX) (0.105 without, 0.079 with laboratory data), and Chronic Disease Score (CDS) (0.255 without, 0.239 with laboratory data) were low. Histograms showed that patients in the upper tercile of SIFRA incurred $9123 more all-cause and $1326 more RA-related healthcare costs during the 1-year post-index period than patients in the lower tercile. Using SIFRA in combination with CCI, CDS, or ELIX significantly increased the percentage of variation explained in outcomes measures.

Limitations:

Patients in the VHA database may not represent typical RA patients since the database generally contains older, economically disadvantaged men with a high disease burden. Validity of the score is indirectly based on disease activity score 28 (DAS28), which measures disease activity rather than severity.

Conclusions:

SIFRA was found to have moderate correlations with the previously validated CIRAS score, and demonstrated evidence of being a significant determinant of total and RA-related healthcare costs for RA patients. This study suggests that SIFRA could be an important methodological tool to control for severity in RA-related outcomes research. The algorithm can be applied to any claims dataset.     

Evaluation of costs associated with tolvaptan-mediated length-of-stay reduction among heart failure patients with hyponatremia in the US,based on the EVEREST trial

Abstract

Background:

The Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial showed that tolvaptan use improved heart failure (HF) signs and symptoms without serious adverse events.

Objective:

To evaluate the potential cost savings associated with tolvaptan usage among hospitalized hyponatremic HF patients.

Methods:

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) 2008 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to estimate hospital cost and length of stay (LOS), for diagnosis-related group (DRG) hospitalizations of adult (age ≥18 years) HF patients with complications and comorbidities or major complications and comorbidities. EVEREST trial data for patients with hyponatremia were used to estimate tolvaptan-associated LOS reductions. A cost offset model was constructed to evaluate the impact of tolvaptan on hospital cost and LOS, with univariate and multivariate Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Tolvaptan use among hyponatremic EVEREST trial HF patients was associated with shorter hospital LOS than placebo patients (9.72 vs 11.44 days, respectively); 688,336 hospitalizations for HF DRGs were identified from the HCUP NIS database, with a mean LOS of 5.4 days and mean total hospital costs of $8415. Using an inpatient tolvaptan treatment duration of 4 days with a wholesale acquisition cost of $250 per day, the cost offset model estimated a LOS reduction among HF hospitalizations of 0.81 days and an estimated total cost saving of $265 per admission. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analysis demonstrated that cost reduction associated with tolvaptan usage is consistent among variations of model variables.

Conclusions:

The estimated LOS reduction and cost savings projected by the cost offset model suggest a clinical and economic benefit to tolvaptan use in hyponatremic HF patients.

Study Limitations:

The EVEREST trial data may not generalize well to the US population. Clinical trial patient profiles and relative LOS reductions may not be applicable to real-world patient populations.     

Switching of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real world setting

Objectives:

This study examined total healthcare costs and rates of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switch biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy in a real world setting.

Methods:

A retrospective longitudinal analysis was conducted in patients with RA using IMS PharMetrics Plus database from 1/1/2004 to 3/31/2010. The first-line cohort included patients newly initiated on abatacept or the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNFs) adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab, with 12 months of continuous follow-up. The second-line cohort included patients initiating a bDMARD with evidence of a different bDMARD within the previous 2 years and with 12 months of continuous follow-up. Switching was defined as a different bDMARD claim within a 200% gap in days supply from the previous bDMARD claim. Non-switchers stayed on their bDMARD in the follow-up period. Monthly total healthcare costs for switchers and non-switchers and rates of bDMARD switching were examined. Switch rates for each bDMARD were also compared.

Results:

First-line switchers had significantly higher monthly total healthcare costs after the switch than non-switchers ($3759 vs $2343; p?p?Limitations:

There are no clinical data available in this database and, therefore, this study did not examine the clinical drivers of healthcare costs and switch rates.

Conclusions:

Monthly total healthcare costs were higher for bDMARD switchers following the switch compared to non-switchers. Patients on abatacept switched less frequently than patients on anti-TNFs. This study highlights the need to identify patients who are likely to switch in order to ensure they receive the appropriate therapy which may improve outcomes and decrease healthcare costs.     

Infusion administration billing for vedolizumab and infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease

Abstract

Aims: Increasing use of biologics has led to interest in treatment components with potential for cost savings. This study was aimed at comparing administration times and associated costs of infliximab and vedolizumab infusions for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Materials and methods: This study used claims data from the Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse to identify IBD patients using infliximab or vedolizumab between 20 May 2014 and 29 February 2016. Use of Current Procedural Terminology administration codes was evaluated and costs calculated using the 2016 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule. Assessments included infusion times, associated costs, productivity loss using average wage estimates from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, and home infusion adoption.

Results: A total of 10,051 infliximab and 3114 vedolizumab patients with first-hour claims were identified; 52.0% were female and 64.5% had Crohn’s disease. There were 48,377 infliximab first-hour claims (mean 4.8 infusions per patient); 46,462 (96.0%) had a second-hour claim. In comparison, there were 14,717 vedolizumab claims (mean 4.7 infusions per patient), with only 411 (2.8%) second-hour claims, resulting in vedolizumab cost savings of approximately $1.27 million. The difference in second-hour infusions resulted in 46,051 additional hours of productivity loss with infliximab, and lost wages averaging $1.18 million (range $0.68–$1.77 million).

Limitations: Administration costs were inferred as charge costs and not directly assessed. Productivity loss assessed time spent on infusion only, and included a small proportion of patients beyond working age.

Conclusions: Second-hour infusion billing was significantly lower with vedolizumab than with infliximab, corresponding to cost savings and reduced productivity loss.     

Estimated annual and lifetime labor productivity in the United States, 2016: implications for economic evaluations

Abstract

Background: Human-capital based lifetime productivity estimates are frequently used in cost-of-illness (COI) analyses and, less commonly, in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Previous US estimates assumed that labor productivity and real earnings both grow by 1% per year.

Objectives: This study presents estimates of annual and lifetime productivity for 2016 using data from the American Community Survey, the American Time Use Survey, and the Current Population Survey, and with varying assumptions about real earnings growth.

Methods: The sum of market productivity (gross annual personal labor earnings adjusted for employer-paid benefits) and the imputed value of non-market time spent in household, caring, and volunteer services was estimated. The present value of lifetime productivity at various ages was calculated for synthetic cohorts using annual productivity estimates, life tables, discount rates, and assumptions about future earnings growth rates.

Results: Mean annual productivity was $57,324 for US adults in 2016, including $36,935 in market and $20,389 in non-market productivity. Lifetime productivity at birth, using a 3% discount rate, is roughly $1.5 million if earnings grow by 1% per year and $1.2 million if future earnings growth averages 0.5% per year.

Conclusions: Inclusion of avoidable productivity losses in societal-perspective CEAs of health interventions is recommended in new US cost-effectiveness guidelines. However, estimates vary depending on whether analysts choose to estimate total productivity or just market productivity, and on assumptions made about growth in future productivity and earnings.     

Burden of venous leg ulcers in the United States

Objective:

To estimate the annual incremental per-patient and overall payer burden (2012USD) of venous leg ulcers (VLU) in the US.

Methods:

Beneficiaries with and without VLU were identified using two de-identified insurance claims databases: aged 65+ from a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries (2007–2010: n?～?2.3 million); and aged 18–64 from a privately-insured population (2007–2011: n?～?8.4 million). The index date was selected as the date of a VLU claim with no other VLU diagnoses in the preceding 12 months for the VLU cohort and as the date of a random medical claim for the non-VLU patients. These groups were matched using propensity scores to account for differences in demographics, comorbidities, resource utilization, and costs in the 12 month pre-index period. Medical resource use and costs incurred during the 12 month follow-up period were calculated for both payers. Drug costs and indirect work-loss due to disability and medically-related absenteeism were estimated for the privately-insured sample only. Annual VLU incidence rates were also estimated for both payers.

Results:

Data for 58,672 matched VLU/non-VLU pairs of Medicare and 22,476 matched pairs of privately-insured patients were analyzed. Relative to matched non-VLU patients, VLU patients used more medical resources and incurred annual incremental medical costs of $6391 in Medicare ($18,986 vs $12,595), and $7030 ($13,653 vs $6623) in private insurance ($7086 including drug costs). Compared with non-VLU patients, privately-insured VLU patients had more days missed from work (14.0 vs 10.0), resulting in 29% higher work-loss costs (comparisons significant at p?Limitations:

Findings did not account for out-of-pocket payments or other indirect costs (e.g., lost productivity), and relied on accuracy of diagnosis and procedure codes contained in claims data.

Conclusion:

These findings suggest an annual US payer burden of $14.9 billion.     

Economic burden,work, and school productivity in individuals with tuberous sclerosis and their families

Aims: Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is a multi-organ autosomal-dominant, genetic disorder with incomplete penetrance. The multiple manifestations of TSC and impacts to numerous organ systems represent significant disease, healthcare, and treatment burden. The economic and employment burden of the disease on individuals and their families is poorly understood. This study assessed the cost of illness and work and school productivity burden associated with TSC in a cross-sectional web-survey sample.

Materials and methods: Eligible TSC individuals and caregivers were invited through the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance advocacy group to complete a web-based survey about illness characteristics, treatment, disease burden, direct and indirect healthcare costs, work and school impairment.

Results: Data from 609 TSC adults or caregiver respondents with no cognitive impairments were analyzed. TSC adults (>18 years of age) had significantly higher direct out-of-pocket costs for ER visits, expenses for medical tests and procedures, alternative treatments, medications and lifetime cost of surgeries compared to TSC pediatric individuals. Both TSC adults and TSC caregivers reported work and school absenteeism and presenteeism; however, adults reported significantly higher absenteeism and presenteeism and overall activity impairment due to TSC, as might be expected, compared to TSC caregivers. TSC adults had significantly higher absenteeism and presenteeism rates compared to adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and muscular sclerosis.

Conclusions: TSC results in considerable direct out-of-pocket medical costs and impairment to work productivity, especially for adults. Future studies should include the comparator group and examine direct cost burden in the US using electronic medical records and insurance databases.     

Use of a validated algorithm to estimate the annual cost of effective biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives:

To estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using a claims-based algorithm for effectiveness.

Methods:

Patients with RA aged 18–63 years in the IMS PharMetrics Plus database were categorized as effectively treated if they met all six criteria: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥80% (subcutaneous) or at least as many infusions as specified in US labeling (intravenous); (2) no biologic dose increase; (3) no biologic switch; (4) no new non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid; and (6) ≤1 glucocorticoid injection. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total cost of the index biologic (drug plus intravenous administration) divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated. Similar methods were used for the index biologic in the second year and for a second biologic after a switch.

Results:

Rates that the index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year were 31.0% etanercept (2243/7247), 28.6% adalimumab (1426/4991), 28.6% abatacept (332/1160), 27.2% golimumab (71/261), and 20.2% infliximab (474/2352). Mean biologic cost per effectively treated patient, per the algorithm, was $50,141 etanercept, $53,386 golimumab, $56,942 adalimumab, $73,516 abatacept, and $114,089 infliximab. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient, using this algorithm, was lower for patients who continued the index biologic in the second year and higher after switching.

Conclusions:

When a claims-based algorithm was applied to a large commercial claims database, etanercept was categorized as the most effective and had the lowest estimated 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient. This proxy for effectiveness from claims databases was validated against a clinical effectiveness scale, but analyses of the second year or the year after a biologic switch were not included in the validation. Costs of other medications were not included in cost calculations.     

Understanding the economic,daily functioning,and diabetes management burden of non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events in Canada: differences between type 1 and type 2

Objective:

To examine the daily functioning, diabetes management, and economic burden of non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events (NSNHEs) in Canada and differences in impacts by diabetes type.

Research design and methods:

A 20-min web-based survey, with items derived from the literature, expert and patient interviews, assessing the impact of NSNHEs, was administered to patients with self-reported diabetes aged ≥18 having an NSNHE in the past month.

Results:

Two thousand, two hundred and seventy-nine Canadian persons with diabetes were screened with 200 respondents meeting criteria and included in the analysis sample. Out of 87 working respondents, 15 reported on average 3.5?h of lost work (absenteeism). The reduction in work productivity (presenteeism) reported was comparable to the impact of arthritis. Other functional impacts included sleep and daily activities. Additionally, respondents’ increased their usual blood sugar monitoring practice, on average, 4.2 (SD?=?7.5) extra tests were conducted in the week following the event and reduced their insulin over the following 4.8 days. Increased healthcare utilization was also reported. Increased costs as a result of NSNHE for lost work productivity, increased diabetes management, and resource utilization was CAD 70.67 per person per year in this sample. Limitations of the study include the biases which are associated with a web-based survey and self-reported data.

Conclusions:

NSNHEs have serious consequences for patients and diabetes management practices. Greater attention to treatments which reduce NSNHEs can have a major impact on improving functioning while reducing the economic burden of diabetes.     

Disease-specific cost savings of treating nighttime versus daytime gastroesophageal reflux disease in an employed population

Summary

Objective: The extent to which proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can offset direct medical costs by reducing symptoms related to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in order to improve work productivity is not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of treating GERD with PPIs versus no treatment, from an employer's perspective.

Study design: An economic model was developed to simulate symptom reduction and breakthrough symptoms as well as associated costs over 1 year among a population of 100,000 with a 20% GERD prevalence rate. Medical costs, including GERD-related office visits, hospitalisations and procedures, were delineated by symptom severity. Indirect costs represented the monetised work productivity loss. PPI treatment costs $2/day (standard dose).

Results: The GERD burden was substantial ($62,500,000). Treatment yielded $32,600,000 in savings ($1,630 saved/patient/year), mostly from reducing indirect costs. Treatment produced greater savings among nighttime GERD patients throughout the PPI cost range ($1–$5/day). Savings dropped if the price of standard doses of PPI exceeded $3.92/day for the treatment of daytime GERD patients.     

National and regional dose escalation and cost of tumor necrosis factor blocker therapy in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients in US health plans

Objective:

This study examined the proportion and magnitude of dose escalation nationally and regionally among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with TNF-blockers and estimated the costs of TNF-blocker therapy.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study used claims data from US commercially-insured adult RA patients who initiated adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab therapy between 2005–2009. Biologic-naïve patients enrolled in the health plan for ≥6 months before and ≥12 months after therapy initiation were followed for 12 months. Dose escalation was assessed using three methods: (1) average weekly dose?>?recommended label dose, (2) average ending dispensed dose?>?maintenance dose, and (3) average dose after maintenance dose?>?maintenance dose. Annual cost of therapy included costs for mean dose and drug administration fees.

Results:

Overall, 1420 etanercept, 874 adalimumab, and 454 infliximab patients were included. A significantly lower proportion of etanercept-treated patients had dose escalation using the average weekly dose (3.9% vs 21.4% adalimumab and 69.6% infliximab; p?p?p?Limitations:

Exclusion of patients not on continuous TNF-blocker therapy limits the generalizability; however, ～50% of patients were persistent on therapy for 12 months. The study population comprised RA patients in commercial health plans, thus the results may not be generalizable to Medicare or uninsured populations.

Conclusions:

In this retrospective study, etanercept patients had the lowest proportions and magnitudes of dose escalation across all methods compared to adalimumab and infliximab patients nationally and regionally. Mean annual cost was lowest for etanercept-treated patients.     

Estimated medical cost reductions associated with use of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin in a real-world non-valvular atrial fibrillation patient population

Objective:

Results of randomized clinical trials (RCT) demonstrate that novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are effective therapies for reducing the risk of stroke in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Prior medical cost avoidance studies have used warfarin event rates from RCTs, which may differ from patients receiving treatment in a real-world (RW) setting, where the quality of care may not be the same as in a RCT. The purpose of this study was to estimate the change in medical costs related to stroke and major bleeding for each NOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivoraxaban) relative to warfarin in a RW NVAF population.

Methods:

Patients (n?=?23,525) with a diagnosis of NVAF during 2007–2010 were selected from a Medco population of US health plans. Stroke and major bleeding excluding intracranial hemorrhage (MBEIH) events were identified using diagnosis codes on medical claims. RW reference event rates were calculated during periods of warfarin exposure. RW event rates for NOACs were estimated by multiplying the corresponding relative risk (RR) from the RCTs by each reference rate. Absolute risk reductions (ARR) or number of events avoided per patient year were then estimated. Changes in medical costs associated with each NOAC were calculated by applying the ARR to the 1-year cost for each event. Costs for stroke and MBEIH were obtained from the literature. Drug and international normalized ratio monitoring costs were not considered in this analysis.

Results:

Compared to RW warfarin, use of apixaban and dabigatran resulted in total (stroke plus MBEIH) medical cost reductions of $1245 and $555, respectively, during a patient year. Rivaroxaban resulted in a medical cost increase of $144.

Conclusions:

If relative risk reductions demonstrated in RCTs persist in a RW setting, apixaban would confer the greatest medical cost savings vs warfarin, resulting from significantly lower rates of both stroke and MBEIH.