Cost-utility analysis of life-long prophylaxis with recombinant factor VIIIFc vs recombinant factor VIII for the management of severe hemophilia A in Sweden

Aims: Prophylaxis with recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) is the standard of care for severe hemophilia A in Sweden. The need for frequent injections with existing rFVIII products may, however, result in poor adherence to prophylaxis, leading to increased bleeding and long-term joint damage. Recombinant FVIIIFc (rFVIIIFc) is an extended half-life fusion protein which can offer prolonged protection and reduced dosing frequency. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc in severe hemophilia A from the perspective of the Swedish health system.

Methods: A Markov model was built to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc vs rFVIII products. Clinical outcomes were represented by annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and quality of life via disutility applied to bleeding events and injection frequency. Costs included the cost of FVIII for routine prophylaxis and bleed resolution. The pooled comparator was costed by weighting the cost of individual products by their market share.

Results: In the base case, rFVIIIFc was dominant vs the pooled comparator. Savings of SEK 9.0 million per patient resulted from lower factor consumption for prophylaxis and bleed resolution. Fewer bleeds and reduced injection frequency yielded an estimated 0.59 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were sensitive to drug dosage and robust to variation in other parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a greater than 85% probability of rFVIIIFc being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 500,000 SEK/QALY.

Limitations: Due to unavailibilty of patient-level data, treatment benefit was based on a non-adjusted indirect comparison. Dosing and treatment outcomes were assumed to persist over the model duration in the absence of long-term outcome data.

Conclusion: The results suggest that rFVIIIFc may be a cost-effective option for hemophilia A prophylaxis, generating greater quality of life and reduced costs for the Swedish payer compared to more frequently administered rFVIII alternatives.     

Annual costs of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors using real-world data in a commercially insured population in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To calculate annual cost per treated patient of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab for common approved indications, based on actual TNF-inhibitor use in clinical practice.

Methods:

Adults with ≥1 claim for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab between January 2005 and March 2009 were identified from the IMS LifeLink? Health Plan Claims Database. Patients new to therapy or continuing therapy (i.e., a prior claim for a TNF-inhibitor) were analyzed separately. Included patients had been enrolled from 180 days before the first TNF-inhibitor claim (index date) through 360 days after the index date and had a diagnosis during the pre-index period for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. Patients with Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, or juvenile idiopathic arthritis were excluded. Annual costs were calculated using wholesale acquisition costs for the TNF-inhibitor and Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for drug administration. Costs from restarting or switching TNF-inhibitor therapy during the first year were included.

Results:

A total of 27,704 patients (11,528 new, 16,176 continuing) had claims for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, most commonly (65%) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The most commonly used agent was etanercept (14,777 patients; 53%), followed by adalimumab (6862 patients; 25%) and infliximab (6065 patients; 22%). Annual cost per treated patient was etanercept $14,873, adalimumab $17,766, and infliximab $21,256 across all indications. Annual cost per treated patient by disease was (etanercept/adalimumab/infliximab): rheumatoid arthritis ($14,314/$17,700/$20,390), psoriasis ($17,182/$17,682/$23,935), psoriatic arthritis ($15,030/$18,483/$24,974), and ankylosing spondylitis ($14,254/$16,925/$23,056). New and continuing patients showed similar results, with etanercept having the lowest costs.

Limitations:

This analysis is limited to three TNF-inhibitors and a US managed-care population.

Conclusions:

Based on this analysis of real-world use of TNF-inhibitors among patients in nationwide clinical practice settings, the annual TNF-inhibitor cost per treated patient was lowest for etanercept across all indications.     

Costs and utilization of hemophilia A and B patients with and without inhibitors

Objective:

To evaluate the health system costs among patients with hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors over 5 years.

Methods:

This was a retrospective, observational study utilizing medical and pharmacy electronic medical records and administrative encounters/claims data tracking US patients between 2006–2011. Patients with diagnosis codes for hemophilia A and B were identified. Patients with inhibitors were characterized by utilization of bypassing agents activated prothrombin complex concentrate or factor VIIa on two or more distinct dates. Severity was classified as mild, moderate, or severe based on laboratory tests of clotting factor.

Results:

There were 160 hemophilia A patients and 54 hemophilia B patients identified. From this group, seven were designated as patients with inhibitors (five with hemophilia A and two with hemophilia B). Hemophilia A patients without inhibitors reported 65 (41.9%) as being severe, 19 (12.3%) as moderate, and 71 (45.8%) as mild. Hemophilia B patients without inhibitors reported nine (17.3%) had severe, 13 (25.0%) had moderate, and 30 (57.7%) had mild hemophilia. All patients with inhibitors had been hospitalized in the previous 5 years compared to 64 (41.3%) with hemophilia A without inhibitors and 22 (42.3%) with hemophilia B without inhibitors. The median aggregate cost per year (including factor and health resource use) was $325,780 for patients with inhibitors compared to $98,334 for hemophilia A patients without inhibitors and $23,265 for hemophilia B patients without inhibitors.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that, while the frequency of inhibitors within the hemophilia cohort was low, there was a higher frequency of hospitalizations, and the associated median aggregate costs per year were 3-fold higher than those patients without inhibitors. In contrast, hemophilia B patients experience less severe disease and account for lower aggregate yearly costs compared to either patients with hemophilia A or patients with inhibitors.     

The cost of warfarin treatment for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Russia from a collective perspective

Aims: Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are used for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), but necessitate regular monitoring of prothrombin time via international normalized ratio (INR) testing. This study explores the economic burden of VKA therapy for Russian patients with NVAF.

Method: Cardiologists provided clinical characteristics and healthcare resource use data relating to the patient’s first year of treatment. Data were used to quantify direct medical costs (INR testing, consultations, drug costs). The same patients completed a questionnaire providing data on direct non-medical costs (travel/expenses for attendance at VKA appointments) and indirect costs (opportunity cost and reduced work productivity). Mean costs per patient per year are described (US dollars).

Results: Cardiologists (n?=?50) provided data on 400 patients (mean age?=?63, 47% female), and 351 patients (88%) completed the patient questionnaire. Patients had a mean of nine INR tests. Estimated direct medical costs totaled $151.06, and 18.5% of direct medical costs were attributable to drug costs. Estimated annual direct non-medical costs were $22.89 per patient, and indirect costs were $275.59 per patient.

Limitations: Included patients had been treated for 12–24 months, so are not fully representative of the broader treatment population.

Conclusion: Although VKA drugs costs are relatively low, regular INR testing and consultations drive the economic burden for Russian NVAF patients treated with VKA.     

Differences in episode-based care costs for multidetector computed tomographic coronary angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease

Abstract

Background: Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is a novel method for diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). The opportunity costs that favour MDCT over other CAD diagnostic methods is currently unknown.

Methods: This study used an episodes of care cost model based on epidemiologic and economic data evaluating individuals without known CAD undergoing MDCT or myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS). It was a multicenter retrospective database review of medical and pharmacy-related claims linked by episodes of care from 2002 to 2005. CAD-related episodes of care costs were examined 1-year downstream for patients after initial MDCT that were matched to patients who underwent MPS.

Results: After adjustment for patient factors, 1-year total CAD-related episodes of care costs for MDCT were 16.4% lower than MPS, by an average of $682 (95% confidence interval $14, $1,350) per patient. While costs per CAD-related episode were similar between MDCT and MPS groups ($4,284 vs. $4,277, p=0.08).

Conclusions: Patients without known CAD who undergo MDCT as an initial diagnostic test, compared to MPS, incurred fewer CAD-related episodes of care and lower overall CAD-related costs.     

Healthcare and economic burden of adverse events among patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia treated with BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Objectives: BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are established treatments for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML); however, they are associated with infrequent, but clinically serious adverse events (AEs). The objective of this analysis was to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with AEs, previously identified using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in another study, among TKI-treated patients.

Methods: Adult patients with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes for CML and ≥1 claim for a TKI treatment between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2012 were identified from the Commercial and Medicare MarketScan databases. The first claim for a TKI was designated as the index event. Patients were required to have no TKI treatment during a 12-month baseline period. Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with select AEs having the strongest association with TKI treatment (femoral arterial stenosis [FAS], peripheral arterial occlusive disease [PAOD], intermittent claudication, coronary artery stenosis [CAS], pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, malignant pleural effusion, conjunctival hemorrhage) were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period.

Results: The study sample included 2,005 CML patients receiving TKI therapy (mean age?=?56 years; 56% male). Among all evaluated AEs, the highest mean inpatient healthcare costs were observed for FAS ($16,800 per patient) and PAOD ($14,263 per patient), which had total mean medical costs (inpatient?+?outpatient) of $17,015 and $15,154 per patient, respectively. Mean outpatient healthcare costs were highest for CAS ($1,861 per patient), followed by intermittent claudication ($947 per patient), PAOD ($891 per patient), and pleural effusion ($890 per patient). Total mean medical costs for fluid retention-related AEs, including pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, were $2,797 and $1,908 per patient, respectively.

Conclusions: The healthcare costs of AEs identified in the FAERS as having the strongest association with TKI treatment are substantial. Vascular stenosis-related AEs, including FAS and PAOD, have the highest cost burden.     

Medical costs in the US of clinical events associated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) use compared to warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients ≥75 and <75 years of age,based on the ARISTOTLE,RE-LY,and ROCKET-AF trials

Abstract

Objectives:

Based on clinical trials the oral anticoagulants (OACs) apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban are efficacious for reducing stroke risk for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Based on the clinical trials, this study evaluated the medical costs for clinical events among NVAF patients ≥75 and <75 years of age treated with individual OACs vs warfarin.

Methods:

Rates for primary and secondary efficacy and safety outcomes (i.e., clinical events) among NVAF patients receiving warfarin or each of the OACs were determined for NVAF populations aged ≥75 years and <75 years of age from the OAC vs warfarin trials. One-year incremental costs among patients with clinical events were obtained from published literature and inflation adjusted to 2010 costs. Medical costs, excluding medication costs, for clinical events associated with each OAC and warfarin were then estimated and compared.

Results:

Among NVAF patients aged ≥75, compared to warfarin, use of either apixaban or rivaroxaban was associated with a reduction in medical costs per patient year (apixaban?=??$825, rivaroxaban?=?$23), while dabigatran use was associated with increased medical costs of $180 per patient year. Among NVAF patients <75 years of age medical costs per patient year were estimated to be reduced ?$254, ?$367, and ?$88, for apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban, respectively, in comparison to warfarin.

Limitations:

This economic analysis was based on clinical trial data and, therefore, the direct application of the results to routine clinical practice will require further assessment.

Conclusions:

Difference in medical costs between OAC and warfarin treated NVAF patients vary by age group and individual OACs. Although reductions in medical costs for NVAF patients aged ≥75 and <75 were observed for those using either apixaban or rivaroxaban vs warfarin, the reductions were greater per patient year for both the older and younger NVAF populations using apixaban.     

Annual patient and caregiver burden of oncology clinic visits for granulocyte-colony stimulating factor therapy in the US

Objective:

Prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is indicated for chemotherapy patients with a significant risk of febrile neutropenia. This study estimates the annual economic burden on patients and caregivers of clinic visits for prophylactic G-CSF injections in the US.

Methods:

Annual clinic visits for prophylactic G-CSF injections (all cancers) were estimated from national cancer incidence, chemotherapy treatment and G-CSF utilization data, and G-CSF sales and pricing information. Patient travel times, plus time spent in the clinic, were estimated from patient survey responses collected during a large prospective cohort study (the Prospective Study of the Relationship between Chemotherapy Dose Intensity and Mortality in Early-Stage (I–III) Breast Cancer Patients). Economic models were created to estimate travel costs, patient co-pays and the economic value of time spent by patients and caregivers in G-CSF clinic visits.

Results:

Estimated total clinic visits for prophylactic G-CSF injections in the US were 1.713 million for 2015. Mean (SD) travel time per visit was 62 (50) min; mean (SD) time in the clinic was 41 (68) min. Total annual time for travel to and from the clinic, plus time at the clinic, is estimated at 4.9 million hours, with patient and caregiver time valued at $91.8 million ($228 per patient). The estimated cumulative annual travel distance for G-CSF visits is 60.2 million miles, with a total transportation cost of $28.9 million ($72 per patient). Estimated patient co-pays were $61.1 million, ～$36 per visit, $152 per patient. The total yearly economic impact on patients and caregivers is $182 million, ～$450 per patient.

Limitations:

Data to support model parameters were limited. Study estimates are sensitive to the assumptions used.

Conclusions:

The burden of clinic visits for G-CSF therapy is a significant addition to the total economic burden borne by cancer patients and their families.     

Comparative net cost impact of the utilization of panitumumab versus cetuximab for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Canada

Objective:

Clinical practice guidelines support the use of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors panitumumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after failure of other chemotherapy regimens, based on significant clinical benefits in patients with wild-type KRAS. The purpose of the analysis was to compare provincial hospital costs when using panitumumab vs cetuximab with or without irinotecan in this patient population using a Net Impact Analysis (NIA) approach.

Methods:

The NIA determined the total per patient cost of the reimbursed regimens of panitumumab vs cetuximab in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Utilization of healthcare resources related to EGFR inhibitor infusions, follow-up monitoring, and treatment of adverse events (AEs) were also included. Healthcare resource use including drugs, medical supplies, laboratory testing, oncology infusion time, and healthcare professionals’ time was obtained through expert consultation and the use was then multiplied by the province-specific cost of each resource. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Based on the dosing regimens in place in each province, the total annual per patient cost of panitumumab ranged from $22,203–$32,600, while the total annual per patient cost of cetuximab treatment varied from $30,321–$40,908. Treatment with panitumumab resulted in lower costs in all cost categories including drug acquisition, infusion preparation/administration, patient monitoring, and AE management. Per patient savings with panitumumab ranged from a low of $3815 in British Columbia to a high of $10,603 in Ontario. In sensitivity analyses, panitumumab remained cost saving in all scenarios where the savings ranged from $150–$16,006 per patient.

Conclusions:

Treating chemorefractory mCRC patients with panitumumab rather than cetuximab reduced healthcare resource costs. Provincial healthcare savings achieved with the use of panitumumab could potentially be re-allocated to other cancer treatments, although further study would be needed to validate this assumption.     

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

Abstract

Background:

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

Methods and Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

The cost of warfarin treatment for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Mexico from a collective perspective

Aims: To describe the collective costs of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). VKA drug costs are relatively low, but they necessitate frequent international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring. There are currently minimal data describing the economic impact of this in Mexico.

Materials and methods: Cardiologists provided data on their NVAF patients (n?=?400) to quantify direct medical costs (INR testing, appointments, drug costs). A sub-set of patients (n?=?301) completed a patient questionnaire providing data to calculate direct non-medical costs (travel and other expenses for attendance at VKA-associated appointments) and indirect costs (opportunity cost and reduced work productivity associated with VKA treatment).

Results: Estimated annual direct medical costs totaled $753.6 per patient. Annual direct non-medical and indirect costs were USD$149.8 and $132.1, respectively.

Limitations: Recruited patients were those who consulted with a cardiologist during the study period and selected due to inclusion criteria. All had received uninterrupted treatment for 12–24 months. Consequently, the results are not fully generalizable to all VKA treated NVAF patients.

Conclusions: The true cost of VKA treatment cannot be appreciated by a consideration of drug costs alone. Ongoing monitoring appointments incur additional expenses for both patients and the healthcare system.     

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.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia

Abstract

Aim: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with high disease burden. This analysis estimated HRU and costs among newly diagnosed AML patients in a US commercially insured population.

Materials and methods: This was a retrospective observational study using the IMS Health PharMetrics Plus and Hospital Charge Detail Master databases. Patients included adults who were newly diagnosed with AML between January 2007 and June 2016 (“study period”). Patients with <12 months of continuous enrollment prior to the index date were excluded, as were those whose first diagnosis was AML in remission/relapse, those diagnosed with acute promyelocytic leukemia, those on Medicare supplemental insurance, or those with a diagnosis of AML in remission/relapse without evidence of treatment during the study period. Patients were stratified by receipt of AML treatment (chemotherapy/hematopoietic cell transplantation [HCT]), and their follow-up was partitioned into initial, remission, and relapsed health states. Mean HRU and costs were tallied by treatment and, for treated patients, by health state and time since entry into health state (≤6 vs >6 months).

Results: A total of 9,455 patients met study criteria, including 6,415 (68%) treated and 3,040 (32%) untreated patients, with mean follow-up of 18.3 and 16.4 months, respectively. Mean age was 55 years in treated patients and 60 years in untreated patients. Mean total costs per patient were $386,077 in treated patients and $79,382 in untreated patients. For treated patients, 60% of total costs ($231,867 per patient) were incurred during the initial health state, representing time without remission/relapse. Mean monthly total healthcare costs were $21,055 and $4,854 among treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Limitations and conclusions: HRU and costs of managing AML patients are substantial. In treated patients, the majority of costs were incurred during the initial treatment period, without claims indicating remission/relapse.     

Major bleeding risk and healthcare economic outcomes of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly-initiated with oral anticoagulant therapy in the real-world setting

Aims: This study compared the risk for major bleeding (MB) and healthcare economic outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) after initiating treatment with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin.

Methods: NVAF patients who initiated apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin were identified from the IMS Pharmetrics Plus database (January 1, 2013–September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance differences in patient characteristics between study cohorts: patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, apixaban vs dabigatran, and apixaban vs warfarin. Risk of hospitalization and healthcare costs (all-cause and MB-related) were compared between matched cohorts during the follow-up.

Results: During the follow-up, risks for all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.2–1.7) and MB-related (HR?=?1.57, 95% CI?=?1.0–2.4) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with rivaroxaban vs apixaban. Adjusted total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban ($3,950 vs $4,333 per patient per month [PPPM], p?=?.002) and MB-related medical costs were not statistically significantly different ($100 vs $233 PPPM, p?=?.096). Risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR?=?1.98, 95% CI?=?1.6–2.4) was significantly greater for patients treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, although total all-cause healthcare costs were not statistically different. Risks for all-cause (HR?=?2.22, 95% CI?=?1.9–2.5) and MB-related (HR?=?2.05, 95% CI?=?1.4–3.0) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with warfarin vs apixaban. Total all-cause healthcare costs ($3,919 vs $4,177 PPPM, p?=?.025) and MB-related medical costs ($96 vs $212 PPPM, p?=?.026) were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs warfarin.

Limitations: This retrospective database analysis does not establish causation.

Conclusions: In the real-world setting, compared with rivaroxaban and warfarin, apixaban is associated with reduced risk of hospitalization and lower healthcare costs. Compared with dabigatran, apixaban is associated with lower risk of hospitalizations.     

Incremental third-party costs associated with COPD exacerbations: a retrospective claims analysis

Abstract

Background:

Exacerbations are a major contributor to the large burden of treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Estimates of exacerbation costs in the United States are limited.

Objective:

To estimate incremental costs associated with COPD exacerbation, particularly severe exacerbation, in the United States.

Methods:

COPD patients with at least one exacerbation were identified in the Thomson Reuters MarketScan administrative claims database. A COPD exacerbation was defined as patient use of oral or parenteral corticosteroids on the same day or within 7 days following a claim with a COPD diagnosis. Severe exacerbation was further defined if the exacerbation was associated with hospitalization or death. Healthcare costs and exacerbations were evaluated at quarterly intervals starting from patients’ first observed claim with COPD diagnostic code in the database. Incremental costs associated with exacerbation were estimated as cost differences between quarters with exacerbation and quarters without exacerbation.

Results:

A total of 2644,174 patient-quarters, derived from 228,978 COPD patients, were included in the analysis. The average patient was followed an average of 2.9 years. The mean total cost was $17,016 per patient-quarter with severe exacerbation, $6628 per patient-quarter with non-severe exacerbation, an average of $8726 per patient-quarters with any exacerbation compared to $4762 per patient-quarter with no exacerbation. After adjusting for patient demographics, the mean incremental total cost was $11,261 per patient-quarter with severe exacerbation, $1509 per patient-quarter for non-severe exacerbation, and $3439 per patient-quarter with any exacerbation compared with patient-quarters with no exacerbation.

Limitations:

The method used for defining exacerbations does not capture mild exacerbations. Additional limitations exist due to the nature of claims data.

Conclusions:

Exacerbations, especially severe ones, result in a significant economic burden for third-party payers. Effective management of COPD and prevention of exacerbations may lead to improved patient outcomes and reduction in total healthcare costs for long-term management of COPD.     

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

Abstract

Background:

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

Cost per responder analysis in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism on dialysis treated with cinacalcet

Abstract

Background:

Growing financial pressure on US dialysis providers requires economic efficiency considerations. The objective of this study was to examine short-term economic efficiencies of a cinacalcet-based treatment approach for secondary hyperparathyroidism.

Methods:

This study retrospectively assessed cost per biochemical response of the OPTIMA trial. OPTIMA was conducted in end-stage renal disease patients to compare biochemical control in patients receiving cinacalcet in addition to vitamin D sterols and phosphate binders vs patients receiving vitamin D sterol and phosphate binders alone. It explored three laboratory measurement response definitions from baseline to week 23: (1) decreases in parathyroid hormone (PTH) ≥30%; (2) PTH?≤?300?pg/ml; and (3) PTH?≤?300?pg/mL, calcium <9.5?mg/dL and phosphorus <5.5?mg/dL. Medication use and costs were measured to calculate average costs and incremental cost per responder. Stratification by lower and higher baseline PTH assessed cost per response by disease severity.

Results:

There were 38–77% more responders with cinacalcet vs control, depending on response definition. Mean (SD) per patient total medication costs were $5423 ($3698) for cinacalcet and $2633 ($2334) for control, leading to a mean difference of $2790 over 23 weeks. When response was defined as a decrease in PTH?≥?30% from baseline, the average cost per responder was $11,266 for control vs $7027 for cinacalcet. The incremental cost per incremental responder ranged from $5186–$9168. Across all response measures, cost per responder was lower in patients with lower baseline PTH.

Conclusions:

Representing a more efficient allocation of economic resources over the short-term, cinacalcet-based treatment algorithm led to a lower cost per biochemical response, particularly in patients with lower disease severity, vs vitamin D sterols and phosphate binders alone. These findings should be interpreted alongside the study limitation of converting international trial-based medication utilization into US costs.     

Economic evaluation of a pharmacogenomic multi-gene panel test to optimize anti-hypertension therapy: simulation study

Abstract

Aims: Hypertension is the strongest modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, affecting 80 million individuals in the US and responsible for ～360,000 deaths, at total annual costs of $93.5 billion. Antihypertension therapies guided by single genotypes are clinically more effective and may avert more adverse events than the standard of care of layering anti-hypertensive drug therapies, thus potentially decreasing costs. This study aimed to determine the economic benefits of the implementation of multi-gene panel guided therapies for hypertension from the payer perspective within a 3-year time horizon.

Materials and methods: A simulation analysis was conducted for a panel of 10 million insured patients categorized clinically as untreated, treated but uncontrolled, and treated and controlled over a 3-year treatment period. Inputs included research data; empirical data from a 11-gene panel with known functional, heart, blood vessel, and kidney genotypes; and therapy efficacy and safety estimates from literature. Cost estimates were categorized as related to genetic testing, evaluation and management, medication, or adverse events.

Results: Multi-gene panel guided therapy yielding savings of $6,256,607,500 for evaluation and management, $908,160,000 for medications, and $37,467,508,716 for adverse events, after accounting for incremental genetic testing costs of $2,355,540,000. This represents total 3-year savings of $42,276,736,216, or a 47% reduction, and 3-year savings of $4,228 and annual savings of $1,409 per covered patient.

Conclusions: A precision medicine approach to genetically guided therapy for hypertension patients using a multi-gene panel reduced total 3-year costs by 47%, yielding savings exceeding $42.3 billion in an insured panel of 10 million patients. Importantly, 89% of these savings are generated by averting specific adverse events and, thus, optimizing choice of therapy in function of both safety and efficacy.