Hospital cost and length of stay in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Objective: To provide a detailed picture of the economic impact of hospitalization in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and to identify factors associated with cost and length of stay (LOS).

Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), this study included hospitalizations for IPF (ICD-9-CM 516.3) with a principal diagnosis of respiratory disease (ICD-9-CM 460-519) from 2009–2011; lung transplant admissions were excluded. Total inpatient cost, LOS, in-hospital death, and discharge disposition were reported. Linear regression models were used to determine variables predictive of LOS and cost.

Results: From 2009–2011, 22,350 non-transplant IPF patients with a principal diagnosis of respiratory disease were admitted: mean (±SE) age was 70.0 (0.32), and 49.1% were female. While in hospital, 11.4% of patients received mechanical ventilation and 8.9% received non-invasive ventilation. Mean (±SE) LOS was 7.4 (0.15) days overall (p?Limitations: The positive predictive value of the algorithm used to identify IPF is not optimal. The NIS database does not follow patients longitudinally, and claims after admission are not available. Claims do not indicate whether listed diagnoses were present on admission or developed during hospitalization. The exclusion of transplant-related expenditures lead to under-estimation of cost.

Conclusion: Using a nationally-representative database, we found IPF respiratory-related hospitalizations represent a significant economic burden with ～7,000 non-transplant IPF admissions per year, at a mean cost of $16,000 per admission. Mechanical ventilation is associated with statistically significant increases in LOS and cost. Therapeutic advances that reduce rates and costs of IPF hospitalizations are needed.     

A study of regional variation in the inpatient cost of lower extremity amputation among patients with diabetes in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Understanding of the effects of providers’ cost on regional variation in healthcare spending is still very limited. The objective of this study is to assess cross-state and cross-region variations in inpatient cost of lower extremity amputation among diabetic patients (DLEA) in relation to patient, hospital, and state factors.

Methods:

Patient and hospital level data were obtained from the 2007 US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). State level data were obtained from the US Census Bureau and the Kaiser Family Foundation websites. Regression models were implemented to analyze the association between in-patient cost and variables at patient, hospital, and state levels.

Results:

This study analyzed data on 9066 DLEA hospitalizations from 39 states. The mean cost per in-patient stay was $17,103. Four out of the five most costly states were located on the East and West coasts (NY and NJ, CA and OR). Age, race, length of stay, level of amputation, in-patient mortality, primary payer, co-morbidities, and type of hospital were significantly correlated with in-patient costs and explained 55.3% of the cost variance. Based on the means of costs unexplained by those factors, the three West coast states had the highest costs, followed by five Midwestern states, and four Southern states, and Kansas were the least costly.

Conclusions:

Over 40% of the variations in DLEA hospital costs could not be explained by major patient-, hospital-, and state-level variables. Further research is needed to examine whether similar patterns exist for other costly surgical procedures among diabetic patients.     

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.     

Productivity cost model of the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept

Background: The cost of the biological drug abatacept may be partly offset by reductions in the cost of productivity losses due to employee absences and reduced effectiveness at work because of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: This was a 1-year productivity cost model based on epidemiologic and economic data. The setting was private industry in the US and the primary outcome measure was the difference in the costs of lost productivity and drug treatment with and without abatacept (‘cost difference’).

Results: The lost productivity cost of RA for a firm of 10,000 was $1.69 million, largely due to the cost of RA-related absenteeism ($1.55 million) rather than to worker displacement ($0.12 million) or care-giving for spouses with RA ($0.02 million). In the base case analysis (excluding presenteeism), 37% of the acquisition cost of abatacept was offset by reductions in the cost of RA-related productivity losses. In some industry groups (Utilities and Finance), and in models that included presenteeism, reductions in lost productivity costs exceeded the abatacept cost.

Conclusions: Much of the acquisition cost of abatacept may be offset by reductions in the cost of productivity losses due to RA. Abatacept treatment could be cost saving in some industry groups.     

Length of stay and economic consequences with rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin/vitamin K antagonist in patients with DVT and PE: findings from the North American EINSTEIN clinical trial program

Objective:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [(PE]) represents a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. Using data from the randomized EINSTEIN DVT and PE trials, this North American sub-group analysis investigated the potential of rivaroxaban to reduce the length of initial hospitalization in patients with acute symptomatic DVT or PE.

Methods:

A post-hoc analysis of hospitalization and length-of-stay (LOS) data was conducted in the North American sub-set of patients from the randomized, open-label EINSTEIN trial program. Patients received either rivaroxaban (15?mg twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 20?mg once daily; n?=?405) or dose-adjusted subcutaneous enoxaparin overlapping with (guideline-recommended ‘bridging’ therapy) and followed by a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (international normalized ratio?=?2.0–3.0; n?=?401). The open-label study design allowed for the comparison of LOS between treatment arms under conditions reflecting normal clinical practice. LOS was evaluated using investigator records of dates of admission and discharge. Analyses were carried out in the intention-to-treat population using parametric tests. Costs were applied to the LOS based on weighted mean cost per day for DVT and PE diagnoses obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project dataset.

Results:

Of 382 patients hospitalized, 321 (84%), had acute symptomatic PE; few DVT patients required hospitalization. Similar rates of VTE patients were hospitalized in the rivaroxaban and enoxaparin/VKA treatment groups, 189/405 (47%) and 193/401 (48%), respectively. In hospitalized VTE patients, rivaroxaban treatment produced a 1.6-day mean reduction in LOS (median?=?1 day) compared with enoxaparin/VKA (mean?=?4.5 vs 6.1; median?=?3 vs 4), translating to total costs that were $3419 lower in rivaroxaban-treated patients.

Conclusion:

In hospitalized North American patients with VTE, treatment with rivaroxaban produced a statistically significant reduction in LOS. When treating DVT and PE patients, clinicians should consider newer anti-coagulants with less complex treatment regimens.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism in cancer patients treated with anticoagulants

Abstract

Objective: The standard of care for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but oral anticoagulants are also widely prescribed. This study compared VTE-related healthcare resource utilization and costs of cancer patients treated with anticoagulants.

Methods: Claims data from Humana Database (January 1, 2013–May 31, 2015) were analyzed. Based on the first anticoagulant received, patients were classified into LMWH, warfarin, or rivaroxaban cohorts. Characteristics were evaluated during the 6 months pre-index date (i.e. the first VTE); VTE-related resource utilization and costs were evaluated during follow-up. Cohorts were compared using rate ratios, and p-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Healthcare costs were evaluated per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and compared using mean cost differences.

Results: A total of 2,428 patients (LMWH: n?=?660; warfarin: n?=?1,061; rivaroxaban: n?=?707) were included. Compared to patients treated with LMWH, patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly fewer VTE-related hospitalizations, hospitalization days, and emergency room and outpatient visits, resulting in an increase of $12,000 VTE-related healthcare costs PPPY with LMWH vs rivaroxaban. Patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly lower VTE-related resource utilization compared to patients treated with warfarin; however, VTE-related costs were similar between cohorts. The higher drug costs ($1,519) were offset by significantly lower outpatient (?$1,039) and hospitalization costs (?$522) in rivaroxaban relative to the warfarin cohort.

Conclusions: Healthcare resource use and costs associated with VTE treatment in cancer patients are highest with LMWH relative to warfarin and rivaroxaban.     

Relationship of hospital-associated bleeding with length of stay and total hospitalization costs in patients hospitalized for atrial fibrillation

Background:

While literature has focused on the impact of bleeding beginning outside the hospital setting among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), there is little information regarding bleeding that first occurs within a hospital setting. This study was performed to determine the association between hospital-associated bleeding in patients admitted for AF on outcomes of length of stay (LOS) and total hospitalization cost.

Methods and results:

The Premier research database was queried to identify adult inpatients discharged between 2008–2011 having a primary diagnosis code for AF where a bleeding diagnosis code was not present on admission. Regression was used to adjust for baseline differences in patients to estimate outcomes comparing patients with and without a hospital-associated bleed. There were 143,287 patients that met the study criteria. There were 2991 (2.1%) patients identified with a hospital associated bleed. After adjustment for covariates, the mean estimated LOS was significantly greater in the bleed group, at 6.0 days (95% CI?=?5.8–6.1) vs the no bleed group at 3.3 days (95% CI?=?3.3–3.3) (p?<?0.0001). Similarly, the adjusted mean estimated total hospitalization cost was also significantly greater in the bleed group, $12,069 (95% CI?=?$11,779–$12,366) vs $6561 (95% CI?=?$6538–$6583) in the no bleed group (p?<?0.0001).

Conclusions:

After adjustments for baseline differences the data show that the 2.1% (n?=?2991) of patients with hospital associated bleeding accounted for an estimated additional 8106 hospitalization days and $16.4 million dollars in cost over the study period compared to non-bleeders.     

Annual cost of relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations in adults with schizophrenia: results from a 12-month,double-blind,comparative study of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release

Abstract

Purpose:

To model the economic impact of annual relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone or quetiapine extended-release (XR).

Methods:

A probabilistic model estimating per-patient-per-year (PPPY) direct mental healthcare (MH) cost differences due to relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations was developed using relapse and relapse-related hospitalization rates from a 12-month, double-blind, parallel-group, global comparison study of lurasidone vs quetiapine XR (all patients previously treated with lurasidone or quetiapine XR for 6 weeks). Analyses were conducted for both all subjects and clinical responders. Direct costs associated with inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare-related services were obtained from a large, prospective, observational study of schizophrenia treatment in usual-care settings for relapsing and non-relapsing patients, including psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency services, medication management, and outpatient individual therapy. Model robustness was tested using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Model-estimated PPPY MH cost savings associated with relapse-related hospitalization rates in all subjects were $3276 for lurasidone vs quetiapine XR. Lurasidone resulted in PPPY MH cost savings of $2702 vs quetiapine XR in all subjects, using relapse rates. Sensitivity analyses indicated lurasidone had lower 1-year MH costs than quetiapine XR in 100% and 99.7% of simulations, using relapse-related hospitalization rates and relapse rates, respectively, in all subjects. Similar results were seen in clinical responders.

Limitations:

The model represents a simplification of treatment patterns and response to treatment. Cost of treatment with lurasidone and quetiapine XR was not included in the model. Estimates of cost savings are likely conservative, as the model did not assess the impact of long-term cardiometabolic consequences. Indirect costs associated with relapses and non-mental health-related costs were also excluded from the model.

Conclusion:

Adults treated for schizophrenia with lurasidone are predicted to have lower 12-month MH costs compared to those treated with quetiapine XR due to fewer relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations.     

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.     

Healthcare costs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and disease progression during targeted therapy: a real-world observational study

Aims: To assess healthcare costs during treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and following disease progression in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A retrospective analysis of medical records of US community oncology practices was conducted. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB/IV) diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2015, initiated treatment with erlotinib or afatinib (first-line or second-line), and had disease progression. Monthly Medicare-paid costs were evaluated during the TKI therapy period and following progression.

Results: The study included 364 patients. The total mean monthly cost during TKI therapy was $20,106 (95% confidence interval [CI]?=?$16,836–$23,376), of which 47.0% and 42.4% represented hospitalization costs and anti-cancer therapy costs, respectively. Following progression on TKI therapy (data available for 316 patients), total mean monthly cost was $19,274 (95% CI?=?$15,329–$23,218), and was higher in the 76.3% of patients who received anti-cancer therapy following progression than in the 23.7% of those who did not ($20,490 vs $15,364; p?<?.001). Among patients who received it, anti-cancer therapy ($11,198; 95% CI?=?$7,102–$15,295) represented 54.7% of total mean monthly cost. Among patients who did not receive anti-cancer therapy, hospitalization ($13,829; 95% CI?=?$4,922–$22,736) represented 90.0% of total mean monthly cost. Impaired performance status and brain metastases were significant predictors of increased cost during TKI therapy.

Limitations: The study design may limit the generalizability of findings.

Conclusions: Healthcare costs during TKI treatment and following progression appeared to be similar and were largely attributed to hospitalization and anti-cancer therapy. Notably, almost one-quarter of patients did not receive anti-cancer therapy following progression, potentially indicating an unmet need; hospitalization was the largest cost contributor for these patients. Additional effective targeted therapies are needed that could prolong progression-free survival, leading to fewer hospitalizations for EGFR mutation-positive patients.     

Ultrafiltration versus diuretics for the treatment of fluid overload in patients with heart failure: a hospital cost analysis

Abstract

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a common, serious disease in the US and Europe. Patients with HF often require treatment for fluid overload, resulting in costly inpatient visits; however, limited evidence exists on the costs of alternative treatments. This study performed a cost-analysis of ultrafiltration (UF) vs diuretic therapy (DIUR-T) for patients with HF from the hospital perspective.

Methods: The model used clinical data from the literature and hospital data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project to follow a decision-analytic framework reflecting treatment decisions, probabilistic outcomes, and associated costs for treating patients with HF and hypervolemia with veno-venous UF or intravenous DIUR-T. A 90-day timeframe was considered to account for hospital readmissions beyond 30?days. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results.

Results: Although initial hospitalization costs were higher, fluid removal by UF reduced hospital readmission days, leading to cost savings of $3,975 (14.4%) at the 90-day follow-up (UF costs, $23,633; DIUR-T costs, $27,608).

Conclusions: UF is a viable alternative to DIUR-T when treating fluid overload in HF patients because it reduces hospital readmission rates and durations, which substantially lowers costs over a 90-day period compared to DIUR-T.     

The economic impact of acute coronary syndrome on length of stay: an analysis using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) databases

Objective:

To assess the economic impact of initial and repeat hospitalizations associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) over 1 year (2009).

Design and methods:

National- and state-level data on length of stay (LOS) and related charges for ACS-associated hospital admissions were assessed using two Healthcare Utilization Project databases. The first, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), provided clinical and resource use information from ～8 million hospital stays, representing a 20% stratified sample of ～40 million annual hospital stays in the US in 2009. The second, the State Inpatient Databases, provided 100% of inpatient data from nine states that included both patient age and linked information on multiple patient admissions within the same calendar year. For patients with repeat admissions, the LOS, primary diagnosis, and total charges between the first and subsequent admissions were evaluated. All patients ≥18 years of age with at least one diagnosis of ACS, defined using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, were included (code 410.xx [except 410.x2], 411.1x and 411.8x). Variables evaluated for each discharge included demographics, cardiovascular events and procedures, LOS, discharge status, and total charges.

Results:

The NIS reported 1,437,735 discharges for ACS in 2009. In this dataset, mean LOS for an initial ACS event was 5.56 days. Patients >65 years of age had the highest numbers of admissions; this group also had the most comorbidities. Approximately 40% of ACS patients with data on repeat visits had more than one admission, >70% of these within 2 months of the primary discharge. Mean charges were $71,336 for the first admission and $53,290 for the second admission.

Conclusion:

Despite a variety of new therapies to prevent ACS, it remains a common condition. Better therapies are called for if the clinical and cost burden of ACS is to be alleviated.     

Healthcare costs for Crohn’s disease patients treated with infliximab: a propensity weighted comparison of the effects of treatment adherence

Objective:

The objective for the research was to evaluate the direct healthcare costs for Crohn’s disease (CD) patients categorized by adherence status.

Methods:

Adult patients with ≥1 claim for infliximab and ≥2 claims for CD who were continuously insured for 12 months before and after their first infliximab infusion (index date) were identified in a 2006–2009 US managed care database. Patients were excluded if they had rheumatoid arthritis claims, received infliximab billed as a pharmacy benefit, or received another biologic drug. Patients were categorized as being either adherent or intermittently adherent to infliximab using a pre-defined algorithm. Total and component direct costs, CD-related costs, rates of surgery, and days of hospitalization were estimated for the 360-day post-index period. Propensity weighted generalized linear models were used to adjust the cost estimates for potential confounding variables.

Results:

The total propensity weighted cost for infliximab adherent patients was $40,425 (95% CI?=?[$38,686, $42,242]), compared to $41,082 (95% CI?=?[$38,163, $44,223]) for the intermittently adherent (p?=?0.71). However, adherent patients had lower total direct medical costs, exclusive of infliximab, that were $13,097 (95% CI?=?[$12,141, $14,127]) compared with $20,068 (95% CI?=?[$17,676, $22,784]) for intermittently adherent patients as a result of substantially lower hospital and outpatient costs (p?Conclusions:

Greater drug-related costs for infliximab adherent patients were offset by lower costs from hospitalization and outpatient visits. These findings indicate that adherent patients have improved clinical outcomes, at a similar aggregate cost, than patients who are only intermittently adherent to therapy.     

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.     

Comparison of hospital length of stay and hospitalization costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with apixaban or warfarin: An early view

Objective: To quantify and compare hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs between hospitalized non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients treated with either apixaban or warfarin via a large claims database.

Methods: Adult patients hospitalized with AF were selected from the Premier Perspective Claims Database (01JAN2013-31MARCH2014). Patients with evidence of valvular heart disease, valve replacement procedures, or pregnancy during the index hospitalization were excluded. Patients treated with apixaban or warfarin during hospitalization were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for baseline imbalances between patients treated with apixaban or warfarin. Primary outcomes were hospital LOS (days), post-medication administration LOS, and index hospitalization costs, and were compared using paired t-tests in the matched sample.

Results: Before PSM, 2894 apixaban and 124,174 warfarin patients were identified. Patients treated with warfarin were older and sicker compared to those treated with apixaban. After applying PSM, a total of 2886 patients were included in each cohort, and baseline characteristics were balanced. The mean (standard deviation [SD] and median) hospital LOS was significantly (p?=?0.002) shorter for patients treated with apixaban for 5.1 days (5.7 and 3) compared to warfarin for 5.5 days (4.8 and 4). The trend appeared consistent in the hospital LOS from point of apixaban or warfarin administration to discharge (4.5 vs 4.7 days, p?=?0.051). Patients administered apixaban incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs compared to those administered warfarin ($11,262 vs $12,883; p?<?0.001).

Conclusions: Among NVAF patients, apixaban treatment was associated with significantly shorter hospital LOS and lower costs when compared to warfarin treatment.     

Cost-per-remission analysis of infliximab compared to adalimumab among adults with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis

Abstract

Objective:

To compare cost per remission (CPR) of infliximab (IFX) versus adalimumab (ADA) for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active UC.

Methods:

This is CPR model comparing IFX and ADA in the treatment of UC using clinical trial data. Clinical outcome measures include clinical remission and sustained clinical remission (SCR). Economic endpoints were modeled as medication costs. CPR ratios and number needed to treat (NNT) costs were computed at 8, 52, and 54 weeks.

Results:

CPR for bio-naïve patients for IFX and ADA at weeks 8, 52, and 54 was $42,086 vs. $79,558: $147,379 vs. $320,097; $147,379 vs. $330,767, respectively. CPR for all patients for IFX and ADA at weeks 8, 52, and 54 was $42,086 vs. $113,812; $147,379 vs. $349,197; $147,379 vs. $360,836, respectively. Cost per SCR for bio-naïve patients and all patients for IFX and ADA was $203,205 vs. $682,873 and $203,205 vs. $698,393, respectively. NNT and NNT costs for clinical remission for bio-naïve patients at weeks 8, 52, and 54 were lower for IFX (4 vs.10, $40,235 vs. $81,945; 5 vs.10, $134,115 vs. $307,293; 5 vs. 10, $134,115 vs. $317,536, respectively) than for ADA. NNT and NNT costs for clinical remission for all patients at weeks 8, 52, and 54 were lower for IFX (4 vs.14, $40,235 vs. $114,723; 5 vs.11, $134,115 vs. $338,022; 5 vs. 11, $134,115 vs. $349,290, respectively) than for ADA. NNT and NNT costs for SCR for bio-naïve and all patients were lower for IFX (8 vs. 22, $214,584 vs. $676,045; 8 vs.23, $214,584 vs. $706,774) than for ADA. Study limitations include lack of head-to-head trial data, different primary endpoints between the two clinical trials, and indirect costs were not included.

Conclusion:

IFX had lower CPR and cost per SCR than ADA in the treatment of moderately to severely active UC.