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.     

The economic burden of end-of-life care in metastatic breast cancer

Objective: To assess end-of-life (EOL) total healthcare costs and resource utilization during the last 6 months of claims follow-up among patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who received systemic anti-neoplastic therapy.

Methods: Newly diagnosed females with MBC initiating treatment January 1, 2003–June 30, 2011 were identified in a large commercial claims database. Two cohorts were defined based on a proxy measure for EOL 1 month prior to the end of last recorded follow-up within the study period: patients who were assumed dead at end of claims follow-up (EOL cohort) and patients who were alive (no-end-of-life [NEOL] cohort). Proxy measures for EOL were obtained from published literature and clinical expert opinion. Cost and resource utilization were evaluated for the 6 months prior to end of claims follow-up. Baseline variables, resource utilization, and costs were compared between cohorts with univariate statistical tests. Adjusted relative risks were calculated for resource utilization measures. A covariate-adjusted generalized linear model evaluated 6-month total healthcare costs.

Results: Of the 3,878 females included, 18.5% (n?=?718) met the criteria for EOL. Mean observational time (MBC onset to end of claims follow-up) was shorter for the EOL cohort (EOL, 32 months vs NEOL, 35 months; p?p?2 times higher in the EOL cohort (p?Conclusions: Potential EOL presented a greater economic burden in the 6 months prior to death. EOL month-to-month costs increased precipitously in the last 2 months of life and were driven by acute inpatient care.     

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.     

Indirect costs associated with metastatic breast cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the indirect costs of productivity loss between metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and early stage breast cancer (EBC) patients, as well as their respective family members.

Methods:

The MarketScan® Health and Productivity Management database (2005–2009) was used. Adult BC patients eligible for employee benefits of sick leave and/or short-term disability were identified with ICD-9 codes. Difference in sick leave and short-term disability days was calculated between MBC patients and their propensity score matched EBC cohort and general population (controls) during a 12-month follow-up period. Generalized linear models were used to examine the impact of MBC on indirect costs to patients and their families.

Results:

A total of 139 MBC, 432 EBC, and 820 controls were eligible for sick leave and 432 MBC, 1552 EBC, and 4682 controls were eligible for short-term disability (not mutually exclusive). After matching, no statistical difference was found in sick leave days and the associated costs between MBC and EBC cohorts. However, MBC patients had significantly higher short-term disability costs than EBC patients and controls (MBC: $6166?±?$9194 vs EBC: $3690?±?$6673 vs Controls: $558?±?$2487, both p?<?0.001). MBC patients had more sick leave cost than controls ($2383?±?$5539 vs $1282?±?$2083, p?<?0.05). Controlling for covariates, MBC patients incurred 47% more short-term disability costs vs EBC patients (p?=?0.009). Older patients (p?=?0.002), non-HMO payers (p?<?0.05), or patients not receiving chemotherapy during follow-up (p?<?0.001) were associated with lower short-term disability costs. MBC patients’ families incurred 39.7% (p?=?0.06) higher indirect costs compared to EBC patients’ families after controlling for key covariates.

Conclusion:

Productivity loss and associated costs in MBC patients are substantially higher than EBC patients or the general population. These findings underscore the economic burden of MBC from a US societal perspective. Various treatment regimens should be evaluated to identify opportunities to reduce the disease burden from the societal perspective.     

Adherence,persistence, healthcare utilization,and cost benefits of guideline-recommended hepatitis B pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Objective:

To compare pharmacotherapy adherence, persistence, and healthcare utilization/costs among US patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) initiated on an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current national (US) guidelines vs an oral antiviral not recommended as first-line monotherapy.

Research design and methods:

In this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 18–64 with medical claims for CHB who initiated an oral antiviral monotherapy for CHB between 07/01/05 and 01/31/10 were identified from a large US commercial health insurance claims database. Patients were continuously enrolled for a 6-month baseline period and ≥ 90 days follow-up. They were assigned to ‘currently recommended first-line therapy’ (RT: entecavir or tenofovir) or ‘not currently recommended first-line therapy’ (NRT: lamivudine, telbivudine, or adefovir) cohorts.

Main outcome measures:

Multivariate analyses were conducted to compare treatment adherence, persistence, healthcare utilization, and costs for RT vs NRT cohorts.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between RT (n?=?825) and NRT (n?=?916) cohorts. In multivariate analyses, RT patients were twice as likely as NRT patients to be adherent (OR?=?2.09; p?<?0.01) and persistent (mean: RT?=?361 days, NRT?=?298 days; p?<?0.01) and half as likely to have an inpatient stay (OR?=?0.527; p?<?0.01). Between the two oral antivirals recommended as first-line treatment, even though pharmacy cost was higher for entecavir, mean total healthcare costs for entecavir and tenofovir were similar ($1214 and $1332 per patient per month, respectively). Similar results were also observed with regard to adherence, persistence, and healthcare use for entecavir and tenofovir.

Conclusions:

A limitation associated with analysis of administrative claims data is that coding errors can be mitigated but are typically not fully eradicated by careful study design. Nevertheless, the current findings clearly indicate the benefits of initiating CHB treatment with an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current guidelines.     

One-year follow-up healthcare costs of patients hospitalized for transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke and discharged with aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole or clopidogrel

Abstract

Objective:

To examine healthcare costs among patients hospitalized for transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke (TIA/stroke) and prescribed aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole (ASA-ERDP) or clopidogrel (CLOPID) within 30 days post-discharge using a retrospective claims database from a large US managed care organization.

Methods:

Adult patients with ≥1 hospitalizations for TIA/stroke between January 2007–July 2009 and ≥1 claims for an oral anti-platelet (OAP) were observed for 1 year before and after the first TIA/stroke hospitalization or until death, whichever came first. Cohorts were defined by the first claim for ASA-ERDP or CLOPID within 30 days post-discharge. A generalized linear model, adjusting for demographics, baseline comorbidities and costs, compared total follow-up costs (medical?+?pharmacy) between ASA-ERDP and CLOPID patients.

Results:

Of 6377 patients (2085 ASA-ERDP; 4292 CLOPID) who met the selection criteria, mean (SD) age was 69 (13) years and 50% were male. Unadjusted mean total follow-up costs were lower for ASA-ERDP than CLOPID ($26,201 vs $30,349; p?=?0.002), of which average unadjusted medical and pharmacy costs were $22,094 vs $26,062 (p?=?0.003) and $4107 vs $4288 (p?=?0.119), respectively. Multivariate modeling indicated that the following were associated with higher total costs (all p?<?0.05): higher baseline Quan-Charlson comorbidity score, history of atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction, index stroke hospitalization, death post-discharge, and index CLOPID use. Adjusted mean total follow-up costs for CLOPID were 9% higher than ASA-ERDP (cost ratio: 1.09; p?=?0.038).

Conclusion:

In this study, compared to CLOPID patients, ASA-ERDP patients were observed to have lower total costs 1 year post-discharge TIA/stroke hospitalization, driven primarily by lower medical costs. Further research into the real-world impact of OAP therapies on clinical and economic outcomes of patients with stroke/TIA is warranted. The findings of this study should be considered within the limitations of an administrative claims analysis, as claims data are collected for the purpose of payment.     

Healthcare costs associated with nephrology care in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the healthcare costs of pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients cared for in a nephrology clinic setting versus other care settings.

Methods:

An analysis of health claims between 01/2002 and 09/2007 from the Ingenix Impact Database was conducted. Inclusion criteria were ≥18 years of age, ≥1 ICD-9 claim for CKD, and ≥1 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) value of <60?mL/min/1.73?m². Patients were classified in the nephrology care cohort if they were treated in a nephrology clinic setting at least once during the study period. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to compare average annualized healthcare costs of patients in nephrology care versus other care settings.

Results:

Among the 20,135 patients identified for analysis, 1,547 patients were cared for in a nephrology clinic setting. Nephrology care was associated with lower healthcare costs with an unadjusted cost savings of $3,049 ($11,303 vs. $14,352, p?=?0.0014) and a cost ratio of 0.8:1 relative to other care settings. After adjusting for covariates, nephrology care remained associated with lower costs (adjusted cost savings: $2,742, p?=?0.006).

Limitations:

Key limitations included potential inaccuracies of claims data, the lack of control for patients’ ethnicity in the calculation of eGFR values, and the presence of potential biases due to the observational design of the study.

Conclusions:

The current study demonstrated that pre-dialysis CKD patients treated in nephrology clinics were associated with significantly lower healthcare costs compared with patients treated in other healthcare settings.     

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.     

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.     

Resource utilization and healthcare costs for acute coronary syndrome patients with and without diabetes mellitus

Abstract

Objective:

This study compared differences in healthcare costs and resource utilization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study of a large, US employer-based claims database identified adults hospitalized for ACS between 01/01/2005 and 12/31/2006 and categorized them based on DM status. Resource utilization and costs during the index hospitalization and in the 12-month follow-up period were compared for ACS patients with and without DM using the propensity score stratification bootstrapping method, adjusting for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results:

Of 12,502 patients who met selection criteria, 3,040 (24%) had a history of DM and 9,462 (76%) did not. Patients with DM were older, female, and had higher rates of previous cardiovascular and renal diseases. After the propensity score stratification, patients with DM incurred higher index hospitalization costs ($32,577 vs. $29,150, p?<?0.01) as well as higher total follow-up healthcare costs ($35,400 vs. $24,080, p?<?0.01), including higher inpatient ($17,278 vs. $11,247, p?<?0.01), outpatient ($12,357 vs. $8,853, p?<?0.01), and pharmacy costs ($5,765 vs. $3,980, p?<?0.01).

Limitations:

General limitations exist with any retrospective claims database analysis including potential diagnostic or procedural coding inaccuracies. Additionally, the patient population was representative of a working-age population with employer-sponsored health insurance and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Conclusions:

DM is significantly associated with increased healthcare resource utilization and costs for ACS patients.     

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.     

Impact of upper and lower gastrointestinal blood loss on healthcare utilization and costs: a systematic review

Abstract

Objectives:

Gastrointestinal (GI) blood loss is a common medical condition which can have serious morbidity and mortality consequences and may pose an enormous burden on healthcare utilization. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the impact of upper and lower GI blood loss on healthcare utilization and costs.

Methods:

We performed a systematic search of peer-reviewed English articles from MEDLINE published between 1990 and 2010. Articles were limited to studies with patients ≥18 years of age, non-pregnant women, and individuals without anemia of chronic disease, renal disease, cancer, congestive heart failure, HIV, iron-deficiency anemia or blood loss due to trauma or surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract and article relevance.

Results:

Eight retrospective articles were included which used medical records or claims data. Studies analyzed resource utilization related to medical care although none of the studies assessed indirect resource use or costs. All but one study limited assessment of healthcare utilization to hospital use. The mean cost/hospital admission for upper GI blood loss was reported to be in the range $3180–8990 in the US, $2500–3000 in Canada and, in the Netherlands, the mean hospital cost/per blood loss event was €11,900 for a bleeding ulcer and €26,000 for a bleeding and perforated ulcer. Mean cost/ hospital admission for lower GI blood loss was $4800 in Canada, and $40,456 for small bowel bleeding in the US.

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest that the impact of GI blood loss on healthcare costs is substantial but studies are limited. Additional investigations are needed which examine both direct and indirect costs as well as healthcare costs by source of GI blood loss focusing on specific populations in order to target treatment pathways for patients with GI blood loss.