Clinical comorbidities,treatment patterns,and healthcare costs among patients with fibromyalgia newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine in usual care

Abstract

Objective:

To assess comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia (FM) newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine (index event) in usual care settings.

Methods:

Using the LifeLink? Health Plan Claims Database, patients with FM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) were identified. Patients initiated on duloxetine were propensity score-matched with patients initiated on pregabalin (n?=?826; mean age [standard deviation] of 48.3 [9.3] years for both groups). Prevalence of comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12-month pre-index and follow-up periods.

Results:

Both patient groups had multiple comorbidities and a substantial pain-related and adjuvant medication burden. In the pregabalin group, use of other anticonvulsants decreased significantly (31.6% vs 24.9%), whereas use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; 16.5% vs 22.5%) and topical agents (10.1% vs 13.2%) increased in the follow-up period (p?<?0.01). In the duloxetine group, there were significant decreases in the use of other SNRIs (13.0% vs 5.7%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (41.3% vs 21.7%), and tricyclic antidepressants (18.8% vs 13.2%), and an increase in the use of anticonvulsants (28.6% vs 40.1%; p?<?0.0001). There were significant increases (p?<?0.0001) in pharmacy and total healthcare costs in both cohorts, and a significant increase in outpatient costs (p?=?0.0084) in the duloxetine cohort from pre-index to follow-up. There were no significant differences in median total healthcare costs between the pregabalin and duloxetine groups in both the pre-index ($10,159 vs $9,556) and follow-up ($11,390 vs $11,746) periods.

Limitations:

Limitations of this study are typical of those associated with retrospective database analyses.

Conclusions:

Patients with FM prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine were characterized by a significant comorbidity and pain/adjuvant medication burden. Although healthcare costs increased in both groups, there were no statistically significant differences in direct healthcare costs between the two groups.     

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.     

Longitudinal analysis of healthcare costs: a case study of patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine

Abstract

Objective:

To develop and apply a longitudinal model that adjusts for pre-treatment covariates to examine the trajectory of healthcare costs in duloxetine patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Methods:

Retrospective healthcare cost data from Thomson Reuters Marketscan® Database included 10,987 patients with MDD, aged 18–64, receiving duloxetine at low (<60?mg/day), standard (60?mg/day), or high (>60?mg/day) initial doses. A linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures used dose, month, and dose*month as fixed effects and patient (dose) as a random effect, and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, body system disorders, and prior medication history. Model goodness-of-fit was evaluated with R². Rates of change (slopes) were estimated from the fitted model and differences in the cost trajectory among dosing cohorts were tested using the F-test. Bootstrapping and propensity score (PS) stratification were conducted to provide sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Main effects and covariates were all significant (p?<?0.05). Adjustment by pre-treatment covariates greatly improved the model fit (R^2?=?0.43). The model revealed a significant increase in healthcare costs in the 6 months preceding and a significant decrease in the 6 months following duloxetine initiation for each initial dose cohort and the overall cohort (p?<?0.05). In both the pre- and post-treatment periods, the high initial-dose cohort had higher healthcare costs than standard or low initial-dose cohorts (p?<?0.05). Bootstrapping and PS stratification confirmed these test results.

Limitations:

The analyses performed here were based on non-randomized, observational data, and thus subject to potential biases due to unmeasured confounding.

Conclusions:

Longitudinal models, compared with conventional mean-based methods, provide better opportunities to assess changes in cost trajectory patterns around the time of changes in medical treatment. In insured patients with MDD started on duloxetine, healthcare costs increased before duloxetine initiation, perhaps signaling a clinical deterioration that led to a change in treatment strategy. Healthcare costs then decreased following duloxetine initiation.     

Distribution and drivers of costs in type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral hypoglycemic agents: a retrospective claims data analysis

Objective:

To describe the distribution of costs and to identify the drivers of high costs among adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving oral hypoglycemic agents.

Methods:

T2DM patients using oral hypoglycemic agents and having HbA1c test data were identified from the Truven MarketScan databases of Commercial and Medicare Supplemental insurance claims (2004–2010). All-cause and diabetes-related annual direct healthcare costs were measured and reported by cost components. The 25% most costly patients in the study sample were defined as high-cost patients. Drivers of high costs were identified in multivariate logistic regressions.

Results:

Total 1-year all-cause costs for the 4104 study patients were $55,599,311 (mean cost per patient?=?$13,548). Diabetes-related costs accounted for 33.8% of all-cause costs (mean cost per patient?=?$4583). Medical service costs accounted for the majority of all-cause and diabetes-related total costs (63.7% and 59.5%, respectively), with a minority of patients incurring >80% of these costs (23.5% and 14.7%, respectively). Within the medical claims, inpatient admission for diabetes-complications was the strongest cost driver for both all-cause (OR?=?13.5, 95% CI?=?8.1–23.6) and diabetes-related costs (OR?=?9.7, 95% CI?=?6.3–15.1), with macrovascular complications accounting for most inpatient admissions. Other cost drivers included heavier hypoglycemic agent use, diabetes complications, and chronic diseases.

Limitations:

The study reports a conservative estimate for the relative share of diabetes-related costs relative to total cost. The findings of this study apply mainly to T2DM patients under 65 years of age.

Conclusions:

Among the T2DM patients receiving oral hypoglycemic agents, 23.5% of patients incurred 80% of the all-cause healthcare costs, with these costs being driven by inpatient admissions, complications of diabetes, and chronic diseases. Interventions targeting inpatient admissions and/or complications of diabetes may contribute to the decrease of the diabetes economic burden.     

Comparison of medical costs and healthcare resource utilization of post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer receiving everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy: a retrospective claims database analysis

Objective:

To analyze medical costs and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy among post-menopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2-negative (HR+/HER2?) metastatic breast cancer (mBC).

Methods:

Patients with HR+/HER2? mBC who discontinued a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor and began a new line of treatment with everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy (index therapy/index date) between July 20, 2012 and April 30, 2014 were identified from two large claims databases. All-cause, BC-related, and adverse event (AE)-related medical costs (in 2014 USD) and all-cause HRU per patient per month (PPPM) were analyzed for both treatment groups across patients’ first four lines of therapies for mBC. Adjusted differences in costs and HRU between the everolimus and chemotherapy treatment group were estimated pooling all lines and using multivariable generalized linear models, accounting for difference in patient characteristics.

Results:

A total of 3298 patients were included: 902 everolimus-treated patients and 2636 chemotherapy-treated patients. Compared to chemotherapy, everolimus was associated with significantly lower all-cause (adjusted mean difference?=?$3455, p?<?0.01) and BC-related ($2510, p?<?0.01) total medical costs, with inpatient ($1344, p?<?0.01) and outpatient costs ($1048, p?<?0.01) as the main drivers for cost differences. Everolimus was also associated with significantly lower AE-related medical costs ($1730, p?<?0.01), as well as significantly lower HRU (emergency room incidence rate ratio [IRR]?=?0.83; inpatient IRR?=?0.74; inpatient days IRR?=?0.65; outpatient IRR?=?0.71; BC-related outpatient IRR?=?0.57; all p?<?0.01).

Conclusions:

This retrospective claims database analysis of commercially-insured patients with HR+/HER2? mBC in the US showed that everolimus was associated with substantial all-cause, BC-related, and AE-related medical cost savings and less utilization of healthcare resources relative to chemotherapy.     

Trajectory analysis of healthcare costs for patients with major depressive disorder treated with high doses of duloxetine

Abstract

Objective:

To examine healthcare cost patterns prior to and following duloxetine initiation in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), focusing on patients initiated at or titrated to high doses.

Research design and methods:

Retrospective analysis of 10,987 outpatients, aged 18–64 years, who were enrolled in health insurance for 6 months preceding and 12 months following duloxetine initiation.

Outcome measures:

Repeated measures and pre–post analyses were used to examine healthcare cost trajectories before and after initiation of low- (<60?mg/day), standard- (60?mg/day), and high-dose (>60?mg/day) duloxetine therapy. Decision tree analysis was used to identify patient characteristics that might explain heterogeneity in economic outcomes following titration to high-dose therapy.

Results:

Low-, standard-, and high-dose duloxetine were initiated for 29.6%, 60.9%, and 9.5% of patients, respectively. Within 6 months, 13.7% of patients had dose increases to >?60?mg/day. Regardless of dose, total costs increased prior to and decreased following initiation of treatment. The High Initial Dose Cohort had higher costs both prior to and throughout treatment compared to the other two cohorts. Following escalation to >?60?mg/day, higher medication costs were balanced by lower inpatient costs. Titration to high-dose therapy was cost-beneficial for patients with histories of a mental disorder in addition to MDD and higher prior medical costs.

Limitations:

Conclusions are limited by a lack of supporting clinical information and may not apply to patients who are not privately insured.

Conclusions:

In data taken from insured patients with MDD who were started on duloxetine in a clinical setting, healthcare costs increased prior to and decreased following initiation of therapy. Compared to patients initiated at low- and standard-doses, costs were greater prior to and following initiation for patients initiated at high doses. Increases in pharmacy costs associated with escalation to high-dose therapy were offset by reduced inpatient expenses.     

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.     

Healthcare costs associated with bevacizumab and cetuximab in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the health care costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received second-line treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab) versus Erbitux (cetuximab), from the third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were selected from the PharMetrics claims database if they received second-line therapy containing either bevacizumab (second-line bevacizumab cohort) or cetuximab (second-line cetuximab cohort). Six-month costs following second-line therapy start date and average monthly healthcare costs while on second-line therapy (in 2009 US$) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results:

A total of 2188 patients with mCRC who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis, including 1808 patients receiving bevacizumab and 380 patients receiving cetuximab in second-line treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients’ mean age was 61 years and 56% were males. In second-line treatment, bevacizumab was commonly used with oxaliplatin (43.5%) and irinotecan-based regimens (40.4%), whereas cetuximab was commonly used with irinotecan-based regimens (68.2%). Bevacizumab patients had significantly lower total all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients (adjusted difference: –$10,231, p?=?0.020), and lower medical costs (–$10,796, p?=?0.012) during the 6 months following second-line therapy initiation. Approximately half of the difference in total all-cause healthcare costs was attributable to the lower chemotherapy and targeted therapy costs (–$5635, p?=?0.032) of bevacizumab patients than those of cetuximab patients. While on second-line therapy, bevacizumab patients also had lower average monthly all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients.

Limitations:

Second-line treatment in the current study was defined based on changes in mCRC medications, not based on disease progression due to the limited clinical information available in claims.

Conclusion:

The use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in mCRC patients, compared to the use of cetuximab.     

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

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

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

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

Healthcare costs,treatment patterns,and resource utilization among pancreatic cancer patients in a managed care population

Abstract

Background:

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has few effective treatment options and poor survival. The objective of this study was to characterize treatment patterns and estimate the costs and resource use associated with its treatment in a commercially-insured US population.

Methods:

In this retrospective claims-based analysis, individuals ≥18 years old with evidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2010 were selected from a managed care database. Treatment phase (either initial non-metastatic or metastatic) was determined using a claims-based algorithm. Patients in the pancreatic cancer population were matched 1:3 to a control population. Resource use (events/person-years), treatment patterns, and healthcare costs (per-patient per-month, PPPM) were determined during a variable length follow-up period (from first pancreatic cancer diagnosis to earliest of death, disenrollment, or study end).

Results:

In this study, 5262 pancreatic cancer patients were matched to 15,786 controls. Rates of office visits, inpatient visits, ER visits, and inpatient stays, and mean total all-cause healthcare costs PPPM ($15,480 vs $1001) were significantly higher among cancer patients than controls (all p?<?0.001). Mean inpatient costs were the single largest cost driver ($9917 PPPM). Also, mean total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly higher during the metastatic treatment phase vs the initial treatment phase of non-metastatic disease ($21,637 vs $10,358, p?<?0.001).

Conclusions:

These results indicate that pancreatic cancer imposes a substantial burden on the US healthcare system, and that treatment of more advanced disease is significantly more costly than initial treatment of non-metastatic disease.

Limitations:

Additional research is needed to validate the accuracy of the claims-based algorithms used to identify the treatment phase.     

A real-world analysis of healthcare costs and relative risk of hyperprolactinemia associated with antipsychotic treatments in the United States

Abstract

Aims: Antipsychotic medications are associated with an increased risk of hyperprolactinemia, but differ in their propensity to cause this complication. This study aimed to assess the economic burden of hyperprolactinemia, and to compare its risk among adult patients using atypical antipsychotics (AAs) with a mechanism of action associated with no/low vs high/moderate prolactin elevation.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on US Commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Healthcare costs were compared between matched hyperprolactinemia and hyperprolactinemia-free cohorts using a two-part model. Risk of hyperprolactinemia was compared between patients receiving AAs with a mechanism of action associated with no/low (no/low prolactin elevation cohort) vs high/moderate prolactin elevation (high/moderate prolactin cohort) using logistic regression.

Results: In the commercially insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort (n?=?499), the hyperprolactinemia cohort (n?=?499) was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $5,732 ($20,081 vs $14,349; p?=?.004), and incremental medical costs of $3,861 ($13,218 vs $9,357; p?=?.040), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related costs. In the Medicaid-insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort, the hyperprolactinemia cohort was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $10,773 ($30,763 vs $19,990; p?=?.004), and incremental medical costs of $9,246 ($20,859 vs $11,613; p?=?.004), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related and mental health-related costs. The odds of hyperprolactinemia in the no/low prolactin elevation cohort were 4–5-times lower than that in the high/moderate prolactin elevation cohort (odds ratio =0.21; p?<?.001).

Limitations: Hyperprolactinemia may be under-reported in claims data.

Conclusions: Hyperprolactinemia is associated with substantial healthcare costs. AAs associated with no/low prolactin elevation reduce the risk of hyperprolactinemia by 4–5-times compared to AAs associated with moderate/high prolactin elevation. Treatment options with minimal impact on prolactin levels may contribute to reducing hyperprolactinemia burden in AA-treated patients.