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.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mail-order pharmacy use and medication adherence among Medicare Part D beneficiaries with diabetes

Abstract

Objective:

To examine medication adherence among Medicare Part D beneficiaries initiating oral anti-diabetic medications and explore whether there is any association of using mail-order pharmacy (vs. retail pharmacy) with better adherence in this patient population.

Research design and methods:

Using administrative pharmacy claims data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study on Medicare Part D beneficiaries who newly initiated oral anti-diabetic treatment between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008. Mail-order pharmacy users were matched to retail pharmacy users via propensity scoring, controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Adherence with oral anti-diabetic medications during the benefit year of 2009 was assessed using the proportion of days covered (PDC). Comparison of medication adherence between the mail-order pharmacy group and retail pharmacy group was conducted in the propensity matched sample using the paired t-tests and McNemar’s tests.

Results:

A total of 22,546 patients who initiated oral anti-diabetic medications were identified. The average PDC was 0.60 and only 41.6% of the study population attained good adherence (defined as PDC?≥?0.8) with oral anti-diabetic medications during calendar year 2009. The matched sample included 1361 patients in each of the mail-order and retail pharmacy cohorts. Compared with the retail pharmacy group, mail-order pharmacy users demonstrated a significantly higher PDC (0.68 vs. 0.61; P?<?0.001) throughout the benefit year. More patients in the mail-order pharmacy group (49.7%) attained good adherence with their oral anti-diabetic medications compared to 42.8% in the retail pharmacy group (P?<?0.001).

Limitations:

The study was subject to limitations inherent in retrospective claims database analysis.

Conclusions:

Adherence with oral anti-diabetic medications among Medicare Part D beneficiaries is suboptimal. Patients using mail-order pharmacy had better adherence to oral anti-diabetic medications than those who used retail pharmacies. However, the causal relationship between mail-order pharmacy use and adherence should be further examined in a randomized study setting.     

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

Abstract

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

Use of drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol (DRSP/EE) among women with acne reduces acne treatment-related resources

Abstract

Background and objective:

Acne is a common dermatologic condition that extends into middle age, particularly among women, and is associated with substantial healthcare resource utilization. Drospirenone (DRSP), a synthetic progestin, has anti-androgenic activity, and women using DRSP 3.0?mg/ethinyl estradiol (EE) 0.02?mg as a 24/4 regimen (DRSP/EE-24/4) for contraception also may use it for treatment of moderate acne. The study used a US national healthcare database to assess acne-related healthcare resource utilization among women aged 18–45 years before (pre-index) and after (post-index) initiation of DRSP/EE-24/4.

Methods:

Resource utilization and costs were evaluated by age group (18–25, 26–35, or 36–45 years) and by type of acne medication (systemic antibiotic, topical, or anti-androgen).

Results:

Data for 1340 women were evaluated. Overall, drug costs, medical costs, and total costs were decreased by 38%, 37%, and 37%, respectively (p?<?0.0001 for all) between the pre-index and post-index periods; significant differences were evident across age groups and acne medication categories. Total costs were significantly decreased for patients (41%) and healthcare plans (36%; p?<?0.0001 for both) overall and across age groups and drug classes. Acne-related claims and number of days using acne medication were reduced (by 37% each; p?<?0.0001 for both).

Study limitations:

The study was retrospective in design and had a limited follow-up period. Database limitations restricted assessment of medication compliance and adherence.

Conclusion:

DRSP/EE-24/4 use was associated with substantial reductions in acne-related healthcare resource utilization, and reductions occurred regardless of age or type of acne medication. DRSP/EE-24/4 therefore represents a cost-effective option for the treatment of acne among women using DRSP/EE-24/4 for oral contraception.     

Comparison of utilization,cost, adherence,and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating rapid-acting insulin analog with prefilled pen versus vial/syringe

Abstract

Background:

Studies examining outcomes of different insulin delivery systems are limited. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare utilization, costs, adherence, and hypoglycemia rates in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating rapid-acting insulin analog (RAIA) using prefilled pen versus vial/syringe.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was conducted using a US claims database (1/1/2007 to 12/31/2008). Inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years old, with T2DM, ≥12 months of continuous eligibility, and new to RAIA. Difference-in-difference analyses after propensity score matching were conducted to compare changes in outcomes from 6 months prior to and 6 months after initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen versus vial/syringe (Wilcoxon rank-sum test for costs and t-test for other outcomes). Categories of utilization and costs (2009 USD) included total and diabetes-related inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room. Adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Hypoglycemia was identified using ICD-9-CM codes.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prefilled pen (n?=?239) and vial/syringe (n?=?590) cohorts after matching. Adherence to RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (PDC: 54.6 vs. 45.2%, p?<?0.001). While the increase in diabetes-related pharmacy costs from before to after initiating RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (+$900 vs. +$607, p?<?0.001), the prefilled pen cohort was associated with greater reductions in the total diabetes-related costs (–$235 vs. +$61, p?=?0.006) and the utilization of oral anti-hyperglycemic agents (–1.3 vs. –0.7, p?=?0.016). There were no significant differences in other outcomes.

Limitations:

Claims databases do not provide optimal measures for adherence or T2DM severity, and only capture hypoglycemia events requiring clinical intervention.

Conclusion:

Initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen was associated with better adherence and greater reduction in total diabetes-related costs than a vial/syringe. There was no significant difference in total healthcare costs.