Annual acquisition and administration cost of biologic response modifiers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis,psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis,or ankylosing spondylitis

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate annual biologic response modifier (BRM) cost per treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis receiving etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, or ustekinumab.

Methods:

This was a cohort study of 69,349 commercially insured individuals in a nationwide claims database with one of these conditions that had a claim for one of these BRMs between January 2008 and December 2010 (the index BRM/index date). Cost per treated patient was calculated as the total BRM acquisition and administration cost to the payer in the first year after the index date (including costs of other BRMs after switching) divided by the number of patients who received the index BRM. Etanercept was selected as the reference for comparisons.

Results:

Etanercept was the most commonly used index BRM (n?=?32,298; 47%), followed by adalimumab (n?=?20,582; 30%), infliximab (n?=?11,157; 16%), abatacept (n?=?2633; 4%), rituximab (n?=?1359; 2%), golimumab (n?=?687; <1%), ustekinumab (n?=?388; <1%), and certolizumab (n?=?245; <1%). Using etanercept as the reference, the cost per treated patient in the first year across all four conditions was 102% for adalimumab and 108% for infliximab. Newer BRMs had costs relative to etanercept that were 90% to 102% for rheumatoid arthritis, 132% for psoriasis, 100% for psoriatic arthritis, and 94% for ankylosing spondylitis.

Limitations:

Potential study limitations were the lack of clinical information (e.g., disease severity, treatment outcomes) or indirect costs, the inability to compare costs of newer BRMs across all four conditions, and much smaller sample sizes for newer BRMs.

Conclusions:

Of the BRMs that are approved for indications within all four conditions studied, etanercept had the lowest cost per treated patient when assessed across all four conditions.     

Comparative evaluation of treatment patterns and healthcare utilization of newly-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis patients by anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody status

Background: Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positivity is an established diagnostic factor for severe disease activity and joint damage and a prognostic factor for aggressive disease in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Objective: To compare RA-related treatment, healthcare utilization, and joint erosion between anti-CCP-positive and anti-CCP-negative RA patients.

Methods: Newly-diagnosed RA patients were identified from the Henry Ford Health System database between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014; the date of the first RA diagnosis within the study period was the index date. Baseline anti-CCP test was used to categorize patients as anti-CCP-positive or anti-CCP-negative, and outcomes were evaluated in the 6 months post-index.

Results: There were 217 anti-CCP-positive and 191 anti-CCP-negative RA patients included in the study. A higher proportion of anti-CCP-positive patients were initiated on RA treatment than anti-CCP-negative patients (70.5% vs 23.0%; p?<?.0001). More anti-CCP-positive patients received methotrexate (73.2% vs 56.8%; p?=?.0374), while more anti-CCP-negative patients received hydroxychloroquine (31.8% vs 13.1%; p?=?.0037) in first-line therapy. A higher proportion of anti-CCP-negative patients were tested for rheumatoid factor (RF) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Of those tested, there were more positive test results in the anti-CCP-positive cohort compared to the anti-CCP-negative cohort (RF: 84.4% vs 18.2%, p?<?.0001; C-reactive protein [CRP]: 69.7% vs 48.3%, p?=?.0008; and ESR: 89.5% vs 53.9%, p?<?.0001). Outpatient utilization predominated, with more anti-CCP-positive patients having any outpatient physician office visit (96.3% vs 77.5%, p?<?.0001) and a higher mean number of visits (5.3 vs 2.5, p?<?.0001) than anti-CCP-negative patients. Among anti-CCP-positive (n?=?113) and anti-CCP-negative (n?=?58) patients with imaging results, more anti-CCP-positive patients had joint erosion compared to anti-CCP-negative patients (18.6% vs 8.6%; p?=?.0858); however, statistical significance was not reached.

Conclusion: RA patients with positive anti-CCP antibodies had higher degrees of inflammation and disease activity as indicated by laboratory results, which likely contributed to their higher rates of healthcare utilization, joint erosion, and proportions of RA treatment.     

A case-control study of anaemia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in an adult population in the US: prevalence and impact on healthcare utilisation

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of anaemia and its impact on healthcare utilisation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: Patients with claims for moderate-to-severe RA (ICD-9 code 714.x) treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as well as controls without RA matched for age, gender and time in plan were selected from the MarketScan Research Database. Anaemia was identified by ICD-9 codes 280.x, 285.2x, 281.9, 285.9 and 284.8. The prevalence ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for anaemia among RA patients versus controls were estimated. Overall disease burden was measured using the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI).

Results: The prevalence ratio for anaemia in RA patients was 2.2 (95% CI 2.1–2.4). Mean ECI was higher in RA (2.26) compared with control (1.02) patients (p<0.001), and RA patients with anaemia had a higher ECI compared with those without anaemia (3.95 vs. 2.08; p<0.001). Total healthcare costs in RA patients with anaemia were approximately twice those of RA patients without anaemia.

Conclusions: The prevalence of clinically diagnosed anaemia in RA patients in the claims database was 2.2 times higher than that in the comparable non-RA control group. RA patients with anaemia had significantly higher levels of co-morbidity and healthcare costs than RA patients without anaemia.     

Psychometric validation of anti-clot treatment scale and treatment satisfaction questionnaire for medication version II in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation

Aims: The Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II (TSQM-II) are validated treatment satisfaction patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. The ACTS includes two domains: Burdens and Benefits; the TSQM-II includes four: Effectiveness, Side Effects, Convenience, and Global Satisfaction. Japanese-language versions of the ACTS and TSQM-II have been developed and linguistically validated. This study aimed to assess their psychometric properties in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Materials and methods: ACTS and TSQM-II data from 534 patients with AF were collected in a Japanese post-marketing surveillance study of a direct oral-anticoagulant, rivaroxaban. Four key psychometric properties, in line with best practice guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration, were examined using traditional psychometric methods: acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability (i.e. internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability), and construct validity (i.e. convergent validity and known groups).

Results: ACTS Burdens and Benefits and TSQM-II Effectiveness, Convenience, and Global Satisfaction scales were found to be acceptable (e.g. item-level missing data at baseline <4%), with all scales having good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.80). test-retest reproducibility intraclass correlation coefficients for the ACTS Burdens and Benefits were 0.59 and 0.65, respectively, and between 0.54–0.61 for the TSQM-II scales. Known-groups validity for the ACTS and TSQM-II was supported by differences in scale scores by positive and negative impact (p?<?0.05). Correlations between the ACTS and TSQM-II (convergent validity) were lower than expected (range r?=?0.09–0.48), but in line with the original ACTS development study.

Limitations: Evaluation of test-retest reproducibility was limited by assessment period, which was longer (3 months) than recommended guidelines (usually up to 2 weeks).

Conclusions: Overall, Japanese versions of ACTS and TSQM-II scales satisfied internal consistency reliability and traditional validity criteria. Our study supports the ACTS and TSQM-II as appropriate PRO instruments to measure satisfaction with anticoagulant treatment in Japanese patients with AF.

Trial registration: NCT01598051, clinicaltrials.gov; registered April 20, 2012.     

A comparison of treatment patterns,healthcare resource utilization,and costs among young adult Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate or oral atypical antipsychotics in the US

Abstract

Background: Much of the burden associated with schizophrenia is attributed to its early onset and chronic nature. Treatment with once monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) is associated with lower healthcare utilization and better adherence as compared to oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs). This study aimed to evaluate real-world effectiveness of PP1M and OAA therapies among US-based adult Medicaid patients with schizophrenia, overall and among young adults aged 18–35 years.

Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and at least two claims for PP1M or OAA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014 were selected from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Medicaid Database. Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared between PP1M and OAA treatment groups following inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting to adjust for potential differences. Utilization and cost outcomes were estimated using OLS and weighted Poisson regression models.

Results: After IPT weighting, the young adult PP1M and OAA cohorts were comprised of 3,095 and 3,155 patients, respectively. PP1M patients had a higher duration of continuous treatment exposure (168.2 vs 132.5 days, p?=?.004) and better adherence on the index medication (proportion of days covered ≥80%: 19.0% vs 17.1%, p?<?.049). Young adults treated with PP1M were 37% less likely to have an all-cause inpatient admission (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?0.53–0.74) and 33% less likely to have an ER visit (OR?=?0.67, 95% CI?=?0.55–0.81) compared to OAA young adult patients, but 27% more likely to have an all-cause outpatient office visit (OR?=?1.27, 95% CI?=?1.02–1.56). PP1M patients incurred significantly lower medical costs as compared to OAA patients.

Conclusions: Medicaid patients with schizophrenia treated with PP1M have higher medication adherence and have fewer hospitalizations as compared to patients treated with OAAs. PP1M may lead to reduced healthcare utilization and improved clinical outcomes.