The cost implications of an early versus delayed invasive strategy in acute coronary syndromes: the TIMACS study

Background:

The Timing of Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes (TIMACS) trial demonstrated that early invasive intervention (within 24 hours) was similar to a delayed approach (after 36 hours) overall but improved outcomes were seen in patients at high risk. However, the cost implications of an early versus delayed invasive strategy are unknown.

Methods and results:

A third-party perspective of direct cost was chosen and United States Medicare costs were calculated using average diagnosis related grouping (DRG) units. Direct medical costs included those of the index hospitalization (including clinical, procedural and hospital stay costs) as well as major adverse cardiac events during 6 months of follow-up. Sensitivity and sub-group analyses were performed. The average total cost per patient in the early intervention group was lower compared with the delayed intervention group (?$1170; 95% CI ?$2542 to $202). From the bootstrap analysis (5000 replications), the early invasive approach was associated with both lower costs and better clinical outcomes regarding death/myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke in 95.1% of the cases (dominant strategy). In high-risk patients (GRACE score ≥141), the net reduction in cost was greatest (?$3720; 95% CI ?$6270 to ?$1170). Bootstrap analysis revealed 99.8% of cases were associated with both lower costs and better clinical outcomes (death/MI/stroke).

Limitations:

We were unable to evaluate the effect of community care and investigations without hospitalization (office visits, non-invasive testing, etc). Medication costs were not captured. Indirect costs such as loss of productivity and family care were not included.

Conclusions:

An early invasive management strategy is as effective as a delayed approach and is likely to be less costly in most patients with acute coronary syndromes.     

Quantifying the defensive medicine contribution to primary care costs

Background:

Defensive medicine represents one cause of economic losses in healthcare. Studies that measured its cost have produced conflicting results.

Objective:

To directly measure the proportion of primary care costs attributable to defensive medicine.

Research design and methods:

Six-week prospective study of primary care physicians from four outpatient practices. On 3 distinct days, participants were asked to rate each order placed the day before on the extent to which it represented defensive medicine, using a 5-point scale from 0 (not at all defensive) to 4 (entirely defensive).

Main outcome measures:

This study calculated the order defensiveness score for each order (the defensiveness/4) and the physician defensive score (the mean of all orders defensiveness scores). Each order was assigned a weighted cost by multiplying the total cost of that order (based on Medicare reimbursement rates) by the order defensiveness score. The proportion of total cost attributable to defensive medicine was calculated by dividing the weighted cost of defensive orders by the total cost of all orders.

Results:

Of 50 eligible physicians, 23 agreed to participate; 21 returned the surveys and rated 1234 individual orders on 347 patients. Physicians wrote an average of 3.6?±?1.0 orders/visit with an associated total cost of $72.60?±?18.5 per order. Across physicians, the median physician defensive score was 0.018 (IQR?=?[0.008, 0.049]) and the proportion of costs attributable to defensive medicine was 3.1% (IQR?=?[0.5%, 7.2%]). Physicians with defensive scores above vs below the median had a similar number of orders and total costs per visit. Physicians were more likely to place defensive orders if trained in community hospitals vs academic centers (OR?=?4.29; 95% CI?=?1.55–11.86; p?=?0.01).

Conclusions:

This study describes a new method to directly quantify the cost of defensive medicine. Defensive medicine appears to have minimal impact on primary care costs.     

The direct medical costs of Huntington’s disease by stage. A retrospective commercial and Medicaid claims data analysis

Abstract

Objective:

This study quantified the direct healthcare costs and major cost drivers among patients with Huntington’s disease (HD), by disease stage in commercial and Medicaid databases.

Methods:

This retrospective database analysis used healthcare utilization/cost data for HD patients (ICD-9-CM 333.4) from Thomson Reuters’ MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid 2002–2009 databases. Patients were classified by disease stage (Early/Middle/Late) by a hierarchical assessment of markers of disease severity, confirmed by literature review and key opinion leader input. Costs were measured over the follow-up time of each patient with total costs per patient per stage annualized using a patient-year cost approach.

Results:

Among 1272 HD patients, the mean age was similar in commercial (752 patients) and Medicaid (520 patients) populations (48.5 years (SD?=?13.3) and 49.3 years (SD?=?17.2), respectively). Commercial patients were evenly distributed by stage (30.5%/35.5%/34.0%; Early/Middle/Late). However, most (74.0%) Medicaid HD patients were classified as Late stage. The mean total annualized cost per patient increased by stage (commercial: $4947 (SD?=?$6040)–$22,582 (SD?=?$39,028); Medicaid: $3257 (SD?=?$5670)–$37,495 (SD?=?$27,111). Outpatient costs were the primary healthcare cost component. The vast majority (73.8%) of Medicaid Late stage patients received nursing home care and the majority (54.6%) of Medicaid Late stage costs were associated with nursing home care. In comparison, only 40.6% of commercial Late stage patients received nursing home care, which contributed to only 4.6% of commercial Late stage costs.

Conclusions:

The annual direct economic burden of HD is substantial and increased with disease progression. More late stage Medicaid HD patients were in nursing homes and for a longer time than their commercial counterparts, reflected by their higher costs (suggesting greater disease severity). Key limitations include the classification of patients into a single stage, as well as a lack of visibility into full long-term care/nursing home-related costs for commercial patients.     

The association between the severity of chronic kidney disease and medical costs among patients with type 2 diabetes

Aims: Examine healthcare costs across chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages for US patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Materials and methods: IQVIA Real World Data Adjudicated Claims linked electronic medical records and insurance claims from January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2017 were used for this retrospective study. Adults diagnosed with T2D and comorbid CKD were included. General linear models incorporating splines were constructed, and information from these regressions were used to inform the relationship between medical costs and CKD. Multivariable analyses controlled for patient characteristics, vital signs, general health, prior medication use, prior visit to specialists, index A1c, and year of index date.

Results: There were 6,645 individuals who met the study criteria. Results generally indicate sharp increases in annual total medical costs and non-drug medical costs in the 1?year post-period for patients with Stage 4 or 5 CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]?≤?30?mL/min/1.73 m²) with each 1 point reduction in eGFR from 30 associated with an increase of $1,870 in all-cause total medical costs (p?<?0.0001) and $1,805 of all-cause non-drug medical costs (p?<?0.0001). Similarly, each point decline below 30?mL/min was associated annual cost increases of $1,701 for CKD-related total medical costs, $1,695 for CKD-related non-drug medical costs, $173 for diabetes-related medical costs, and $187 for diabetes-related non-drug medical costs (all p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: The investigation included only patients with medical insurance and laboratory test results, and results may not be generalizable to all T2D patients with CKD. The methodology allowed us to determine associations, not causation, and potential confounders, such as duration of diabetes, diet, exercise, or social support, could not be assessed.

Conclusions: Results indicate there are sharp and significant increases in medical costs among T2D patients with Stage 4 and 5 CKD compared to those with earlier stages of CKD.     

Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US.

Methods: Adult patients (18–64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014?US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars.

Results: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism?+?short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism?+?disability.

Conclusion: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.     

Total cost comparison in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Abstract

Objectives:

Advances in survival in multiple myeloma have focused payer attention on the cost of care. An assessment was conducted to compare the costs of two recent treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM), from the perspective of a US payer.

Methods:

An economic model estimated the total costs of care for two guideline-recommended therapies in rrMM patients: bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX). To evaluate total treatment costs, the costs associated with drug treatment, medical resource utilization, and adverse event (AE) management were determined for each regimen over a common 1-year period. Medical costs and grade 3/4 AE costs were based on rates from published literature, package inserts, and fee schedules (US dollars). To evaluate cost per outcome, assessments determined the monthly costs without disease progression based on pivotal clinical trials (APEX [BORT] and MM-009/MM-010 [LEN/DEX]). Univariate sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios were also conducted.

Results:

Drug costs for the treatments were very similar, differing by under $10 per day. Medical and AE management costs for BORT were higher by more than $40 per day. Treatment with BORT had annual excess total costs of >$17,000 compared with LEN/DEX. A cost advantage for LEN/DEX was maintained across a variety of sensitivity analyses. Total cost per month without progression was 11% lower with LEN/DEX.

Limitations:

This analysis relied on separate studies having similar comparators, populations, and end-points. Actual treatment patterns and costs pre- and post-relapse may vary from the base scenario and sensitivities modeled. The 12-month time frame captures the preponderance of costs for a relapse line of therapy, yet may not reflect the entirety of costs. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether, or how, a difference in the lifetime costs of the two regimens would vary from the 1-year cost difference.

Conclusion:

While rrMM treatment with BORT and LEN/DEX had comparable drug costs, total treatment costs for BORT were higher due to ongoing direct medical and AE management costs. Total costs per outcome (a month without disease progression) were lower for LEN/DEX.     

Costs of inpatient and emergency department care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an elderly Medicare population

Objective:

Treatment in the hospital setting accounts for the largest portion of healthcare costs for COPD, but there is little information about components of hospital care that contribute most to these costs. The authors determined the costs and characteristics of COPD-related hospital-based healthcare in a Medicare population.

Methods

Using administrative data from 602 hospitals, 2008 costs of COPD-related care among Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years were calculated for emergency department (ED) visits, simple inpatient admissions and complex admissions (categorized as intubation/no intensive care, intensive care/no intubation, and intensive care/intubation) in a cross-sectional study. Rates of death at discharge and trends in costs, length of stay and readmission rates from 2005 to 2008 also were examined.

Main results:

There were 45,421 eligible healthcare encounters in 2008. Mean costs were $679 (SD, $399) for ED visits (n = 10,322), $7,544 ($8,049) for simple inpatient admissions (n = 25,560), and $21,098 ($46,160) for complex admissions (n = 2,441). Intensive care/intubation admissions (n = 460) had the highest costs ($45,607, SD $94,794) and greatest length of stay (16.3 days, SD 13.7); intubation/no ICU admissions had the highest inpatient mortality (42.1%). In 2008, 15.4% of patients with a COPD-related ED visit had a repeat ED visit and 15.5–16.5% of those with a COPD-related admission had a readmission within 60 days. From 2005 to 2008, costs of admissions involving intubation increased 10.4–23.5%. Study limitations include the absence of objective clinical data, including spirometry and smoking history, to validate administrative data and permit identification of disease severity.

Conclusions:

In this Medicare population, COPD exacerbations and related inpatient and emergency department care represented a substantial cost burden. Admissions involving intubation were associated with the highest costs, lengths of stay and inpatient mortality. This population needs to be managed and treated adequately in order to prevent these severe events.     

Managing acute acetaminophen poisoning with oral versus intravenous N-acetylcysteine: a provider-perspective cost analysis

Abstract

Background: Acetaminophen (APAP) overdose, which can lead to hepatotoxicity, is the most commonly reported poisoning in the United States and has the highest rate of mortality, with more than 100,000 exposures and 300 deaths reported annually. The treatment of choice, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), is effective in both oral (PO) and intravenous (IV) formulations. The main difference in therapies, other than administration route, is time to complete delivery – 72 hours for PO NAC versus 21 hours for IV NAC, according to full prescribing information. This distinction is the primary basis for variation in management costs for hospitalized patients receiving these products.

Objectives: To quantify and compare full treatment costs from the provider perspective to manage acute APAP poisoning with either PO or IV NAC in a standard treatment regimen.

Methods: A cost model was developed and populated with published data comprising probabilities of potential clinical outcomes and the costs of resources consumed during patient care.

Results: For patients who present <10 hours post-ingestion, the estimated total cost of care with PO NAC in the treatment regimen is $5,817 (ICU patients) or $3,850, (ward patients) compared with $3,765 and $2,768 for similar care with IV NAC. Potential cost savings equal – $2,052 (–35%) or –$1,083 (–28%), respectively, in favor of IV NAC. Similar potential savings were estimated for patients presenting 10–24 hours post-ingestion.

Conclusion: IV NAC is the less costly therapeutic option for APAP poisonings, based on simulation modeling and retrospective data. The current economic evaluation is restricted by the absence of comparative data from head-to-head, matched-cohort studies and the limitations common to retrospective APAP toxicology datasets. Additional research could refine these results.     

Economic assessment of doripenem versus imipenem in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia

Abstract

Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), the most common nosocomial infection in critically ill patients, is associated with significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and increased mortality, hospital days, and health-care costs. A previously published prospective, randomized study established the noninferiority of intravenous (IV) doripenem versus IV imipenem/cilastatin (‘imipenem‘) for VAP. This study compares the economic outcomes of IV therapy with doripenem versus imipenem as first-line treatment for VAP.

Methods: A decision-analytic model of inpatient care and outcomes for VAP was used to estimate costs associated with VAP treatment. The model calculates total hospital costs, comprising costs of initial and concomitant therapy, and costs associated with mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stays, and total days in hospital.

Results: Total treatment costs for doripenem were $10,630 lower than for imipenem ($71,259 vs. 81,889), driven primarily by differences in costs of mechanical ventilation ($45,224 for doripenem, $57,348 for imipenem). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found doripenem consistently cost saving versus imipenem in 1,000 simulations. Study limitations include use of a simple model to represent a complex disease process and reliance on trial data that may not reflect real-world care and outcomes.

Conclusions: Doripenem is a cost saving first-line treatment for VAP versus imipenem while providing an equivalent rate of cure.     

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.     

Economic outcomes of exenatide vs liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in the United States: results from a retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Objective:

The safety and efficacy of the GLP-1 receptor agonists exenatide BID (exenatide) and liraglutide for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been established in clinical trials. Effective treatments may lower overall treatment costs. This study examined cost offsets and medication adherence for exenatide vs liraglutide in a large, managed care population in the US.

Methods:

This was a retrospective cohort analysis comprising adult patients with T2DM who initiated exenatide or liraglutide between 1/1/2010 and 6/30/2010 and had 6 months pre-index and post-index continuous eligibility. Patients were propensity score-matched to controls for baseline differences. Medication adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-test and McNemar’s test were used to compare outcomes.

Results:

Matched exenatide and liraglutide cohorts (n?=?1347 pairs) had similar average total 6-month follow-up costs ($6688 vs $7346). However, exenatide patients had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($2925 vs $3272, p?<?0.001). Among liraglutide patients, patients receiving the 1.8?mg dose had significantly higher average total costs compared to those receiving the 1.2?mg dose ($8031 vs $6536, p?=?0.026), with higher mean pharmacy costs in the 1.8?mg cohort ($3935 vs $3146, p?<?0.001). There were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient costs or medication adherence between groups (mean PDC: exenatide 56% vs liraglutide 57%, p?=?0.088).

Limitations:

The study assumed that all information needed for case classification and matching of cohorts was present and not differential across cohorts. The study did not control for covariates that were unavailable, such as HbA1c and duration of diabetes.

Conclusions:

Patients initiating exenatide vs liraglutide for T2DM had similar medication adherence and total healthcare costs; however, exenatide patients had significantly lower total pharmacy costs. Patients prescribed 1.8?mg liraglutide had significantly higher costs compared to those on 1.2?mg.     

Association between provider specialty and healthcare costs and glycemic control for patients with diabetes

Aims: To analyze the association between provider, healthcare costs, and glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study identified adults with type 1 or 2?DM (T1D, T2D) in the Optum database. The main independent variable was provider (endocrinologist or primary care). Regression analysis compared total medical and pharmacy costs, adjusting for health status and other patient differences, by provider.

Results: For all patients, HbA1C improvement was greater, and medical costs significantly lower with an endocrinologist rather than a primary care provider. The largest HbA1C improvement (4%) occurred for insulin-dependent patients seen by endocrinologists. Significant medical savings with endocrinologist management occurred within the Medicare Advantage population in every sub-group of patients, with 14% lower costs ($4,767) for patients with T1D, 11% lower costs ($3,160) for patients with macro- and microvascular complications, and 10% lower costs ($2,237) for insulin-dependent patients. Within the commercial insurance population, medical costs were reduced by ≥9% in every sub-group of patients, with a 20% reduction ($8,450) for patients with micro- and macrovascular complications. Overall total costs (medical and pharmacy) were 8% ($1,541) higher for patients receiving endocrinologist rather than primary care, although endocrinologist care resulted in a 9% reduction (–$3,710) in costs for Medicare Advantage patients with T1D. Total medical costs (excluding pharmacy costs) may be a more accurate indicator of costs associated with patients in various stages of DM.

Limitations: There was insufficient data to develop risk-adjustment payments for pharmacy costs based on disease severity. The cross-sectional design identifies associations and not cause–effect relationships.

Conclusion: DM management by an endocrinologist was associated with greater HbA1C improvement and significantly lower medical costs. Total costs were higher with an endocrinologist, but for patients with T1D lower costs were seen, ranging from 2–9% regardless of insurance type.     

Evaluating the length of stay and value of time in a pediatric emergency department with two models by comparing two different albuterol delivery systems

Abstract

Objective:

Asthma is one of the most common childhood illnesses and accounts for a substantial amount of pediatric emergency department visits. Historically, acute exacerbations are treated with a beta agonist via nebulizer therapy (NEB). However, with the advent of the spacer, the medication can be delivered via a metered dose inhaler (MDI?+?S) with the same efficacy for mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations. To date, no study has been done to evaluate emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) and opportunity cost between nebulized vs MDI?+?S. The objective of this study was to compare ED LOS and associated opportunity cost among children who present with a mild asthma exacerbation according to the delivery mode of albuterol: MDI?+?S vs NEB.

Methods:

A structured, retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Medical records were reviewed from children aged 1–18 years treated at an urban pediatric ED from July 2007 to June 2008 with a discharge diagnosis International Classification of Disease-9 of asthma. Length of stay was defined: time from initial triage until the time of the guardian signature on the discharge instructions. An operational definition was used to define a mild asthma exacerbation; those patients requiring only one standard weight based albuterol treatment. Emergency department throughput time points, demographic data, treatment course, and delivery method of albuterol were recorded.

Results:

Three hundred and four patients were analyzed: 94 in the MDI?+?S group and 209 in the NEB group. Mean age in years for the MDI?+?S group was 9.57 vs 5.07 for the NEB group (p?<?0.001). The percentage of patients that received oral corticosteroids was 39.4% in the MDI?+?S group vs 61.7% in the NEB group (p?<?0.001). There was no difference between groups in: race, insurance status, gender, or chest radiographs. The mean ED LOS for patients in the MDI?+?S group was 170 minutes compared to 205 minutes in the NEB group. On average, there was a 25.1 minute time savings per patient in ED treatment time (p?<?0.001; 95% CI?=?3.8–31.7). Significant predictors of outcome for treatment time were chest radiograph, steroids, and treatment mode. Opportunity cost analysis estimated a potential cost savings of $213,532 annually using MDI?+?S vs NEB.

Conclusion:

In mild asthma exacerbations, administering albuterol via MDI?+?S decreases ED treatment time when compared to administering nebulized albuterol. A metered dose inhaler with spacer utilization may enhance opportunity cost savings and decrease the left without being seen population with improved throughput.

Limitations:

The key limitations of this study include its retrospective design, the proxy non-standard definition of mild asthma exacerbation, and the opportunity cost calculation, which may over-estimate the value of ED time saved based on ED volume.     

Cost estimate of platelet transfusion in the United States for patients with chronic liver disease and associated thrombocytopenia undergoing elective procedures

Aims: This study aimed to estimate the cost of platelet transfusion in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD)-associated thrombocytopenia undergoing an elective procedure in the United States.

Materials and methods: The study was conducted in two parts: development of a conceptual framework identifying direct, indirect and intangible costs of platelet transfusion, followed by the estimation of the total cost of platelet transfusion in patients with CLD-associated thrombocytopenia before an elective procedure in the United States using the conceptual framework and cost data obtained from a literature search. The cost of the entire care required to raise a patient’s platelet count before the procedure was considered.

Results: The final conceptual framework included the costs of generating the supply of platelets, the platelet transfusion itself, adverse events associated with platelet transfusion and refractoriness to platelet transfusion. When costs were accounted for in all the framework cost categories, the total direct cost of a platelet transfusion in a patient with CLD and associated thrombocytopenia was estimated to be in the range of $5258 to $13,117 (2017?US dollars) in the United States. The largest portion of costs was incurred by the transfusion event itself ($3723 to $4436) and the cost of refractoriness ($874 to $7578), which included the opportunity cost of a delayed procedure and subsequent platelet transfusions with human leukocyte antigen-matched platelets.

Limitations and conclusions: Although we were unable to include all cost components identified in the conceptual framework in our total cost estimate, thus likely underestimating the true total cost, and despite the data gaps and challenges limiting our estimate of the full cost of a platelet transfusion in patients with CLD-associated thrombocytopenia undergoing an elective procedure in the United States, this study outlines a comprehensive conceptual framework for estimating the cost elements of a platelet transfusion in these patients.     

Medical cost reductions associated with the usage of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin among atrial fibrillation patients,based on the RE-LY,ROCKET-AF,and ARISTOTLE trials

Abstract

Objective:

The randomized clinical trials, RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE, demonstrate that the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are effective options for stroke prevention among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. This study aimed to evaluate the medical cost reductions associated with the use of individual NOACs instead of warfarin from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

Rates for efficacy and safety clinical events for warfarin were estimated as the weighted averages from the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF and ARISTOTLE trials, and event rates for NOACs were determined by applying trial hazard ratios or relative risk ratios to such weighted averages. Incremental medical costs to a US health payer of an AF patient experiencing a clinical event during 1 year following the event were obtained from published literature and inflation adjusted to 2010 cost levels. Medical costs, excluding drug costs, were evaluated and compared for each NOAC vs warfarin. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the influence of variations in clinical event rates and incremental costs on the medical cost reduction.

Results:

In a patient year, the medical cost reduction associated with NOAC usage instead of warfarin was estimated to be ?$179, ?$89, and ?$485 for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. When clinical event rates and costs were allowed to vary simultaneously, through a Monte Carlo simulation, the 95% confidence interval of annual medical costs differences ranged between ?$424 and +$71 for dabigatran, ?$301 and +$135 for rivaroxaban, and ?$741 and ?$252 for apixaban, with a negative number indicating a cost reduction. Of the 10,000 Monte-Carlo iterations 92.6%, 79.8%, and 100.0% were associated with a medical cost reduction >$0 for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively.

Conclusions:

Usage of the NOACs, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban may be associated with lower medical (excluding drug costs) costs relative to warfarin, with apixaban having the most substantial medical cost reduction.     

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific.

Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., “Hepatectomy”, “Colectomy”, “Costs and Cost Analysis”) and keywords (e.g. “liver resection”, “bowel removal”, “economics”). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD.

Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30?min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time.

Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.