Budget impact of everolimus for the treatment of progressive,well-differentiated,non-functional neuroendocrine tumors of gastrointestinal or lung origin that are advanced or metastatic

Background: Advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a rare malignancy with considerable need for effective therapies. Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2016 for treatment of adults with progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional NETs of gastrointestinal (GI) or lung origin that are unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic.

Objective: To assess the 3-year budget impact for a typical US health plan following availability of everolimus for treatment of GI and lung NETs.

Methods An economic model was developed that considered two perspectives: an entire health plan and a pharmacy budget. The total budget impact included costs of drug therapies, administration, hospitalizations, physician visits, monitoring, and adverse events (AEs). The pharmacy model only considered drug costs.

Results: In a US health plan with 1 million members, the model estimated 66 patients with well-differentiated, non-functional, and advanced or metastatic GI NETs and 20 with lung NETs undergoing treatment each year. Total budget impact in the first through third year after FDA approval ranged from $0.0568–$0.1443 per member per month (PMPM) for GI NETs and from $0.0181–$0.0355 PMPM for lung NETs. The total budget impact was lower than the pharmacy budget impact because it included cost offsets from administration and AE management for everolimus compared with alternative therapies (e.g. chemotherapies).

Limitations: Because GI and lung NETs are rare diseases with limited published data, several assumptions were made that may influence interpretation of results.

Conclusions: The budget impact for everolimus was minimal in this rare disease area with a high unmet need, largely due to low disease prevalence. These results should be considered in the context of significant clinical benefits potentially provided by everolimus, including significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) for advanced GI and lung NET patients.     

The economic impact of implementing a multiple inflammatory biomarker-based approach to identify,treat, and reduce cardiovascular risk

Abstract

Objectives:

To develop an economic model to estimate the change in the number of events and costs of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and non-fatal ischemic stroke (IS) as a result of implementing routine risk-stratification with a multiple inflammatory biomarker approach.     

Budget impact model of a 5-grass sublingual immunotherapy tablet for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis

Abstract

Objective:

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic disease with a substantial clinical and economic burden. This study estimated the potential budget impact (BI) associated with market entry of Sweet Vernal, Orchard, Perennial Rye, Timothy, and Kentucky Blue Grass Mixed Pollens Allergen Extract Tablet for Sublingual Use (‘5-grass SLIT tablet’) for patients aged 10–65 with grass pollen-induced AR.     

Budget impact analysis of niraparib and olaparib for maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive,recurrent ovarian cancer in the US

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the budget impact of niraparib and olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer from a US third party payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A budget impact model was constructed to assess the additional per member per month (PMPM) costs associated with the introduction of niraparib and olaparib, two poly ADP-ribose polymerase ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors recently approved to be used in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients with and without a gBRCA mutation. The model assessed both pharmacy costs and medical costs. Pharmacy costs included adjusted drug costs, coinsurance, and dispensing fees. Medical costs included costs associated with disease monitoring and management of adverse events from the treatment. Epidemiological data from the literature were used to estimate the target population size. The analysis used 1-year time frame, and patients were assumed on treatment until disease progression or death. All costs were computed in 2017 USD. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the model robustness.

Results: In a hypothetical plan of 1,000,000 members, 206 patients were estimated to be potential candidates for niraparib or olaparib maintenance treatment after applying all epidemiological parameters. At listed 30-day supply WAC prices of $14,750 for niraparib and $13,482 for olaparib, budget impacts of these two drugs were $0.169 PMPM and $0.156 PMPM, respectively, most of which were contributed by pharmacy costs. Sensitivity analyses suggested that assumptions around market share, platinum-sensitive rate after first treatment, and WAC prices affected results the most.

Limitations: In this model, it was assumed that adopting niraparib and olaparib would not affect utilization of existing medications. Also, the estimated clinical parameters from clinical trials could differ from real-world data.     

Budget impact analysis of secukinumab versus adalimumab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis

Background: Biologic treatments have enhanced the treatment outcomes of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Until recently, TNF-alpha-inhibitors have been the only biologics approved for the treatment of active AS. The objective of this study was to assess the potential financial impact of the first non-TNF-alpha biologic secukinumab (fully human IL-17A-inhibitor) vs adalimumab (TNF-alpha-inhibitor) in the treatment of AS in Finland.

Materials and methods: In this model-based budget impact analysis, patients were treated either with secukinumab (150?mg) or adalimumab (40?mg). The number of patients and market share of different biologics were based on national reimbursement registry data. Adalimumab was the most commonly used biologic treatment for AS, and in the base case analysis all adalimumab patients are assumed to switch to secukinumab. Response rates were based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison between secukinumab and adalimumab. Patients not achieving response were switched to another biologic treatment.

Results: Treating AS patients with secukinumab instead of adalimumab leads to potential savings of 18.2 million euros within a 5-year time period. The total costs within the follow-up time were 59.5 million euros and 77.7 million euros with and without secukinumab, respectively. According to sensitivity analyses, a higher adoption rate of secukinumab corresponds to higher potential savings.

Conclusions: Secukinumab is a cost-saving treatment option compared with adalimumab in the treatment of AS in Finland. More patients could be treated with a biologic by allocating resources more efficiently.     

Budget impact analysis of a novel gene expression assay for the diagnosis of malignant melanoma

Background:

Traditional pathology techniques alone can be insufficient to reliably distinguish between malignant melanoma, dysplastic nevi, and benign nevi in biopsies of suspicious pigmented lesions. Numerous studies have shown high rates of ambiguity when assessing such samples. A novel gene expression assay has been developed to objectively differentiate malignant melanoma from benign nevi.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to quantify the economic impact of the gene expression assay on a US commercial health plan.

Methods:

The clinical paradigm of care was modeled for a hypothetical cohort of patients with suspicious pigmented lesions that are difficult-to-diagnose. Costs were assigned to each unit of care provided based on 2013 Medicare fee-for-service rates. Patients were followed for 10 years and were modeled to progress according to the natural history of their disease. The total cost of care was calculated for two scenarios: a Reference Scenario, representing current clinical practice, and a Test Scenario, in which each lesion was tested with the gene expression assay and diagnosed. Total cost of care was compared between the two scenarios to determine overall budget impact. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

Results:

The gene expression assay reduces costs by $1268 per patient tested over 10 years, a decrease of 8.3%, after accounting for the cost of the assay. For a health plan with 10 million members, this would translate to over $8 million in savings. The largest portion of this saving comes from reducing the number of missed melanomas, which would otherwise progress to advanced disease. In sensitivity analyses, no single model input changed within a reasonable range of values caused the model to show that the assay was not cost-saving.

Conclusion:

In addition to improving the diagnosis of melanoma, this gene expression assay would likely reduce costs for health plans that choose to cover it.     

Budget impact model of tobramycin inhalation solution for treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients

Abstract

Background:

Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is the most common airway pathogen in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. The objective of this analysis was to determine the costs of managing PA infection in CF patients with a chronic regimen of tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS).

Methods:

A budget impact model of CF patients was developed to evaluate the costs of TIS from a US managed-care organization (MCO) perspective. The Microsoft Excel model compared TIS treatment plus standard care with standard care alone over a 4-year time horizon and included the cost of drugs, medical care, and annual probabilities of hospitalization and IV anti-pseudomonal (anti-PA) antibiotics administration.

Results:

For an MCO with 5,000,000 members, 389 members 6 years of age or older were estimated to have CF, and 218 (56%) had PA infection. Assuming that use of TIS increased from 20% to 25%, the 1-year budget increased $231,251 or from $0.049 to $0.053 per member per month (PMPM). The net drug budget increase was $243,919, while medical costs associated with exacerbation management decreased $12,669 over the first year. Increasing utilization of TIS, from 20% to 40% over 4 years resulted in an incremental overall budget increase of $925,002, a 3% decrease in hospitalizations, and a 4% decrease in administrations of IV anti-PA antibiotics. These reductions translated to a medical care cost saving of $50,676 over 4 years. Limitations of this study include that the clinical data for the model are from clinical trials conducted in 1996 and the estimation of TIS use for CF patients with chronic PA infections can be impacted by TIS adherence.

Conclusion:

Model results suggest that increasing the use of TIS decreases medical care costs due to decreased hospital admissions and the use of IV anti-PA antibiotics at the expense of higher drug costs.     

Budget impact analysis of demineralized bone matrix in combination with autograft in lumbar spinal fusion procedures for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease in Spain

Objective: To estimate the budget impact (BI) of introducing local autograft (LA) combined with demineralized bone matrix (LA?+?DBM) in lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) procedures to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) in Spain.

Methods: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the 4-year BI associated with introducing LA?+?DBM putty to replace currently available grafting methods, including iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), LA alone, and LA combined with beta-tricalcium phosphate (LA?+?ceramics), with 30%, 40%, and 30% market shares, respectively. The analysis was conducted for a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients with LDDD receiving LSF, assuming LA?+?DBM would replace 100% of the standard of care mix. The fusion rates extracted from the literature were validated by an expert panel. Costs (€2017) were obtained from different Spanish sources. Budget impact and incremental cost per successful fusion were calculated from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

Results: Over 4 years, replacing currently available options with LA?+?DBM for 100 patients resulted in an additional cost of €12,330 (€123/patient), and an additional 14 successful fusions, implying a cost of €881 per additional successful fusion. When costs of productivity loss were included, the introduction of LA?+?DBM resulted in cost savings of €70,294 (€703/patient).

Limitations: The lack of high-quality, homogeneous, head-to-head research studying the efficacy of grafting procedures available to patients undergoing LSF, in addition to a lack of long-term follow-up in existing studies. Therefore, the number of fusions occurring within the model’s time horizon may be underestimated.

Conclusions: Acquisition costs of DBM were partially offset by costs of failed fusions, adverse events and reoperation when switching 100 hypothetical LDDD patients undergoing LSF procedures from standard of care grafting methods to LA?+?DBM from the perspective of the Spanish NHS. DBM cost was entirely offset when costs of lost productivity were considered.     

Budget impact analysis of long acting injection for schizophrenia in Japan

Abstract

Aims: To estimate the budgetary impact of providing additional reimbursement for long acting injections for schizophrenia patients in psychiatric hospital settings in Japan to improve patient outcomes in schizophrenia.

Methods: Budget impact analysis of change in reimbursement policy using a prevalence-based model over a five-year time horizon. The results are reported as net change in expenditure and consequent cost/savings in Japanese yen at the time of analysis.

Results: The budget impact analysis shows that an increase in reimbursement for LAIs could lead to cumulative savings of an estimated 36.6 billion JPY over five years. These savings result from a decrease in hospitalization costs and an increased usage of LAI (assumed to be 10%). Based on the sensitivity analysis, the saving estimates are most sensitive to change in market share of generic and branded oral antipsychotics.

Limitations: Historical data were used to estimate the future costs of drug and hospitalization; however, it is not the best predictor of future, hence a source of potential bias. A good level of treatment adherence with oral antipsychotics was assumed, which is generally not the case; therefore, we might have overestimated the effectiveness of oral atypical antipsychotics. Additionally, the drug cost due to reimbursement might have also been overestimated because in clinical setting, the increase of LAI use may not have reached 10% of the market share. Lastly, patients’ behavior was derived from models, which may have loosely approximated the reality.

Conclusions: An additional reimbursement for the use of LAI in schizophrenia patients is likely to be cost neutral/cost saving and should be considered as a policy option to improve patient outcomes and budget sustainability.     

Budget impact analysis of darbepoetin alfa every 3 weeks versus epoetin alfa every week for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia from a US payer's perspective

Abstract

Objective: This analysis was conducted to compare the direct medical costs of treatment with darbepoetin alfa every 3 weeks (Q3W) and epoetin alfa every week (QW) in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia (CIA) from the payer's perspective.

Methods: An analysis was conducted from a US health plan perspective to compare the annual budget impact for CIA with darbepoetin alfa Q3W and epoetin alfa QW over a 16-week treatment period. Dosing regimens were obtained from registration clinical trials.

Results: Mean doses, including dose adjustments, were 375.6 μg Q3W for darbepoetin alfa and 43,187 U QW for epoetin alfa. Costs of medical resources included drug acquisition and administration costs. The base case analysis resulted in a per-patient budget impact of $8,544 and $8,667 for darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa, respectively. Per member per month cost was $0.90 for darbepoetin alfa and $0.91 for epoetin alfa, based on an estimate of 2,735 CIA patients in a health plan population of 2.17 million. The analysis was most sensitive to drug dose, treatment period and drug price.

Conclusions: Results suggest that per-patient direct medical costs of CIA treatment, when initiated at labelled starting doses, are comparable for darbepoetin alfa Q3W and epoetin alfa QW.     

Budget impact of managing cow milk allergy in the Netherlands

Objective: To assess the resource implications and budget impact of managing cow milk allergy (CMA) in the Netherlands from the perspective of the healthcare insurers.

Methods: A model was constructed depicting the management of CMA in the Netherlands using information obtained from interviews with youth healthcare doctors (n = 14), general practitioners (n = 6) and paediatricians (n = 11) with relevant clinical experience of managing CMA. The model was used to estimate the expected level of healthcare resource use and corresponding cost (at 2007/08 prices) attributable to managing 4,382 new CMA sufferers.

Results: The expected cost of healthcare resource use attributable to managing 4,382 new CMA sufferers up to 1 year of age following initial consultation with a community-based physician at a mean 3 months of age was estimated to be €11.28 (95% CI: €7.82; €14.33) million. Clinical nutrition preparations emerged as the primary cost driver accounting for 91% of the total cost and clinician visits collectively accounted for a further 5%. The time taken for CMA sufferers to be put on an appropriate diet and achieve symptom resolution was estimated to be 30 (95% CI: 27; 32) days. Sensitivity analysis showed that the costs would increase by ～16% if all new CMA sufferers were to undergo a double-blind placebo-controlled cow milk challenge in a hospital setting, as is currently being proposed. It is not clear how this proposal would affect time to symptom resolution since this would depend on the efficiency of hospitals being able to deal with the increased workload.

Limitations: The intolerance rates were derived from a 1-year follow-up study among 1,000 infants with CMA in the UK, healthcare resource use was not collected prospectively and the study period was censured at 1 year of age and does not consider the impact of CMA in subsequent years. However, most children outgrow this form of allergy during their second year.

Conclusion: Within the model's limitations, CMA imposes a substantial burden on the Dutch healthcare system. Moreover, initiating a double-blind placebo-controlled cow milk challenge for all CMA sufferers will potentially increase clinicians’ workload and use of limited resources within paediatric hospital departments in the Netherlands.     

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70–80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron.

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis.

Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact.

Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70–80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron.

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis.

Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact.

Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT₃ RA?+?NK₁ RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care.

Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.     

Budget impact of erlotinib for maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

Objective:

Assess the budgetary impact of adding erlotinib for maintenance therapy (MTx) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US health plan perspective.

Methods:

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the costs (drug, administration, adverse events) associated with adding erlotinib MTx to a hypothetical 500,000 member US health plan. Treatment durations and dosing were derived from randomized controlled trials, FDA labeling, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Treatment patterns and assumptions were based on market research data, the SEER registry, and published literature. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payment rates and a drug pricing database. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

Overall health plan expenditures increased by $0.010 per member per month (PMPM). The main driver of additional cost was the erlotinib drug cost (～$66,000) with the administration ($464) and side-effect ($47) costs being relatively modest. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the proportion of members receiving MTx; however, the PMPM did not exceed $0.013.

Conclusions:

The overall budget impact to a health plan of expanding the use of erlotinib from the 2nd/3rd-line advanced NSCLC setting to include the maintenance setting was relatively small. This was primarily due to the proportion of patients who would receive erlotinib MTx, the low cost of side-effects and minimal cost of drug administration. Additional research may be warranted to estimate the relative clinical and economic impacts of erlotinib MTx versus alternative MTx treatments.     

Budget impact analysis of adjunctive therapy with lacosamide for partial-onset epileptic seizures in Belgium

Summary

Objective:

This study aims to compute the budget impact of lacosamide, a new adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in epilepsy patients from 16 years of age who are uncontrolled and having previously used at least three anti-epileptic drugs from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective.

Methods:

The budget impact analysis compared the ‘world with lacosamide’ to the ‘world without lacosamide’ and calculated how a change in the mix of anti-epileptic drugs used to treat uncontrolled epilepsy would impact drug spending from 2008 to 2013. Data on the number of patients and on the market shares of anti-epileptic drugs were taken from Belgian sources and from the literature. Unit costs of anti-epileptic drugs originated from Belgian sources. The budget impact was calculated from two scenarios about the market uptake of lacosamide.

Results:

The Belgian target population is expected to increase from 5333 patients in 2008 to 5522 patients in 2013. Assuming that the market share of lacosamide increases linearly over time and is taken evenly from all other anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), the budget impact of adopting adjunctive therapy with lacosamide increases from €5249 (0.1% of reference drug budget) in 2008 to €242,700 (4.7% of reference drug budget) in 2013. Assuming that 10% of patients use standard AED therapy plus lacosamide, the budget impact of adopting adjunctive therapy with lacosamide is around €800,000–900,000 per year (or 16.7% of the reference drug budget).

Conclusions:

Adjunctive therapy with lacosamide would raise drug spending for this patient population by as much as 16.7% per year. However, this budget impact analysis did not consider the fact that lacosamide reduces costs of seizure management and withdrawal. The literature suggests that, if savings in other healthcare costs are taken into account, adjunctive therapy with lacosamide may be cost saving.     

Budget impact analysis of everolimus for the treatment of hormone receptor positive,human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate the budget impact of everolimus as the first and second treatment option after letrozole or anastrozole (L/A) failure for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC).     

Economic impact of using inhaled corticosteroids without prior exacerbation among elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the economic impact of initiating inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) without evidence of prior exacerbation among elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US.

Methods:

This retrospective study used administrative claims to identify newly diagnosed COPD patients between 1/1/2005 and 6/30/2006 who were dispensed ICS. The dispense date of the first ICS was set as the index date. Patients with prior diagnoses for asthma, cystic fibrosis, or lung cancer were excluded. Cohorts were constructed based on whether ICS therapy was concordant with recommended guidelines of having prior COPD exacerbation. Each COPD patient with prior exacerbation was matched to four patients without exacerbation based on age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and whether COPD diagnosis code was not elsewhere specified (i.e., 496). Multivariate regressions were estimated to assess the association between use of ICS therapy without prior exacerbation and total healthcare costs, controlling for demographics and clinical characteristics.

Results:

The study included 3650 patients: 730 with prior exacerbation and 2920 without prior exacerbation. Patients were 76 years of age and 54% were male. Those with prior exacerbation were more likely to have inpatient stays both prior to (74.4 vs. 44.1%, p?<?0.05) and following (37.0 vs. 33.1%, p?<?0.05) the index date. Controlling for patient characteristics, patients who were dispensed ICS without prior exacerbation had $1859 higher in total costs (p?<?0.05) compared to patients with prior exacerbation during the 12 months following ICS initiation.

Limitations:

The retrospective design of this study limits the interpretation of findings as association and not causality. This study is subject to selection bias due to unobservable confounders.

Conclusions:

Among COPD patients, initiation of ICS without prior exacerbation appears to be associated with increased healthcare costs. These findings suggest that ICS initiation without evidence of exacerbation as consistent with guidelines is associated with adverse economic consequences.     

Comparing treatment adherence of lisdexamfetamine and other medications for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a retrospective analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To assess treatment adherence in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients initiated on Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other FDA-approved stimulants and non-stimulant medications.

Methods:

ADHD patients initiated on an ADHD medication (index medication) were selected from a large US administrative claims database. Based on age and previous treatment status, patients were classified into treatment-naïve children and adolescents (6–17 years old), previously treated children and adolescents, treatment-naïve adults (over 18 years old), and previously treated adults. Furthermore, based on their index medication, patients were classified into seven mutually exclusive treatment groups: LDX, atomoxetine (ATX), osmotic release methylphenidate hydrochloride long acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate long acting (MPH LA) and short acting (MPH SA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine short acting (AMPH SA) and long acting (AMPH LA). Treatment adherence (proportion of days covered by the index medication ≥0.8) over a 12-month period was compared across treatment groups using multivariate logistic regression models.

Results:

In children and adolescents, LDX patients were more likely to be adherent compared to patients in each of the other treatment groups, except in treatment-naïve patients where LDX patients had a similar likelihood (p?=?0.6925) and were less likely (p?=?0.0004) to be adherent compared to ATX and OROS MPH patients, respectively. In adults, the LDX treatment group was also more likely to be adherent compared to each of the other treatment groups, except compared to AMPH LA, where statistically insignificant differences were observed (previously treated: p?=?0.6471, treatment-naïve: p?=?0.0733).

Limitations:

ADHD severity information was not available in the database. Accordingly, this study did not control for ADHD severity.

Conclusion:

Overall, LDX-treated patients demonstrated a better treatment adherence compared to patients initiated on other ADHD medications, except for AMPH LA in adult and OROS MPH and ATX in treatment-naïve children and adolescents.