Real-World Health Plan Data Analysis: Key Trends in Medication Adherence and Overall Costs in Patients with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) is essential to achieve long-term viral suppression in patients with HIV-1. Single-tablet regimens (STRs) have improved adherence and decreased health care costs and hospitalizations, but previous study results suggest that the relationship between ART adherence and health care costs and utilization is complex. OBJECTIVE: To assess ART adherence trends in patients with HIV-1 to determine if differences in utilization, demographics, and overall costs exist among patients with varying levels of medication adherence. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed medical and pharmacy claims data from an administrative claims database between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2016, for Medicaid or commercially insured patients continuously enrolled for ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 15 months after the index date (date of first medical claim with an HIV diagnosis or pharmacy claim for HIV ART medication between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2014). Qualifying patients were aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of HIV-1 infection or at least 1 pharmacy claim for HIV ART at index and at least 2 pharmacy claims during the follow-up period. Patients were categorized on the basis of adherence as measured by proportion of days covered (PDC; ≥ 95%, highly adherent; < 95%, less adherent) and treatment with an STR or multiple-tablet regimen (MTR). Commercially insured patients were stratified by duration of follow-up data (< 3 or ≥ 3 years). There were not enough Medicaid patients for follow-up analysis. Outcomes of interest were ART adherence and annual medical and pharmacy utilization and costs. Descriptive statistics were generated, and health care resource utilization and costs were reported as annual averages. Chi-square and t-tests were used to examine differences between the cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 332 Medicaid patients and 1,698 patients insured commercially met inclusion criteria. Adherence to ART medication (mean PDC) during the first 15 months was lower in Medicaid patients (65%) versus commercial patients (79%; P < 0.0001). Patients treated with STRs comprised 47% and 37% of patients in the < 3-year and ≥ 3-year follow-up cohorts, respectively. More STR patients achieved ≥95% adherence than MTR patients (< 3-year follow-up, 53% vs. 39%; ≥ 3-year follow-up, 61% vs. 45%; P < 0.001). In both follow-up cohorts, less adherent patients had higher mean annual medical costs, and results were significant for patients with ≥ 3-year follow-up ($8,224 vs. $3,097; P = 0.0007). These results were largely driven by savings in mean annual inpatient costs among the highly adherent patients in both cohorts (< 3-year follow-up, -$2,525 [P = 0.0003]; ≥ 3-year follow-up, -$815 [P < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients on STRs were more adherent than patients on MTRs regardless of length of follow-up. Better adherence was associated with significant inpatient cost savings. The relationship between adherence and total medical costs is nuanced depending on the duration of follow-up. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by ViiV Healthcare, which participated in protocol development, the analysis plan, and interpretation of results but did not have final approval on the decision to publish. Kangethe, Polson, Lord, and Evangelatos are employees of Magellan Rx Management, which was contracted by ViiV Healthcare to conduct the research for this study. Oglesby is an employee of ViiV Healthcare and owns stock in GlaxoSmithKline. Data from this study were previously presented at AMCP Nexus; October 16-19, 2017; Dallas, TX.

Real-world health plan claims analysis of differences in healthcare utilization and total cost in patients suffering from cluster headaches and those without headache-related conditions.

BACKGROUND: According to the World Health Organization, headache disorders are underappreciated by many health systems. These disorders have a substantial impact on quality of life, yet the true correlation between headache conditions and increased total healthcare utilization is not well understood. This study further explores the impact of headache conditions on healthcare utilization. OBJECTIVES: To assess differences in healthcare utilization and total cost in patients suffering from cluster headaches (CH) compared with patients without headache-related conditions. METHODS: Medical and pharmacy claims data from 4 regional health plans were used to evaluate differences in healthcare utilization and cost in patients with a diagnosis code for CH (chronic, episodic, or unspecified) from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification or International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification compared with a control group of patients without headache-related conditions. Qualifying patients were aged at least 18 years and continuously eligible for their health plan for 3 consecutive years during the study period (January 1, 2009-December 31, 2015). The first date with a diagnosis of CH was considered the index date and the subsequent 3 years of claims data were used for this retrospective analysis. The CH cohort was matched with controls using propensity score matching. Differences between cohorts (CH vs control) were assessed with t test or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 4174 patients with diagnosis codes for CH met the study criteria and were matched 1:1 with controls (gender: 48% male; mean age: 47 years; mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score: 0.30). Mean medical costs per patient in the CH cohort during the 3-year measurement period were 155% higher than those of the control group ($25,805 vs $10,140, respectively). Unique encounters and cost per patient by medical services type for the CH cohort compared with the control group were as follows (encounters [costs]): emergency department: 2151 ($1986) versus 962 ($1268); hospital inpatient: 900 ($7312) versus 253 ($8528); hospital outpatient: 3422 ($12,459) versus 2141 ($7644); physician office: 4113 ($7379) versus 4089 ($3672); home infusion/specialty medications: 817 ($4977) versus 427 ($1720). Visit counts per patient were significantly higher for CH patients in all categories. Mean pharmacy costs per patient for the CH cohort were more than double that of the control group ($9197 vs $4368), with these patients 2.3 times as likely to fill a prescription for an opioid. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis show that CH patients utilize healthcare resources at a significantly higher rate and cost the healthcare system significantly more than similar patients without headache-related conditions. There is an unmet need for new treatment modalities in this patient population to improve outcomes and contain cost.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Hyperkalemia in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalemia (HK) is a concern for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure (HF), and for those receiving treatments that inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAASi). An analysis of 1.7 million medical records of patients in the United States revealed that among individuals with more than 2 potassium values during 2007 to 2012, HK was detected in 34.6% of patients with CKD and 30.0% of patients with HF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of HK and use of RAASi therapies at optimal and suboptimal doses in patients with CKD and/or HF with health care resource utilization and overall cost of care in a diverse cohort of commercially insured patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using medical and pharmacy claims from multiple regional health plans. Qualifying patients were ≥ 18 years old, continuously enrolled for 6 months before and throughout the study period (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015) and had an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM diagnosis code of CKD and/or HF. Health care resource utilization, including hospital visits, length of stay, office visits, and associated medical and pharmacy costs, were assessed according to the 3 cohorts (CKD alone, HF alone, and concomitant CKD and HF). For the 3 cohorts, the results were also compared between patients with and without HK and between patients with and without RAASi use at optimal and suboptimal doses. Generalized linear models were used to further examine the predictors of medical and overall costs. RESULTS: In this study, 15,999 patients met inclusion criteria. Among patients using RAASi therapy, 26.8% received the optimal dose. Optimal dosing of RAASi was associated with decreased median outpatient office visits (8, 10, and 15, respectively, for patients with CKD, HF, and both CKD and HF) compared with suboptimal dosing of RAASi (12, 15, and 23, respectively). Similarly, optimal dosing of RAASi was associated with decreased overall median medical costs ($2,092, $4,144, and $7,762, respectively, for patients with CKD, HF, and both CKD and HF) compared with suboptimal dosing of RAASi ($3,121, $8,289, and $12,749, respectively). Patients with CKD, HF, or both CKD and HF, all in combination with HK, had higher overall costs, compared with those without HK. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this real-world analysis suggest that HK and suboptimal dosing of RAASI were associated with a median increase in outpatient office visits as well as increased overall medical costs among patients with CKD and/or HF. This evaluation of median costs suggests effective HK management may potentially reduce costs in patients with CKD and/or HF, including those currently receiving RAASi therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by Magellan Rx Management and funded by Relypsa. Brenner, Alvarez, and Oestreicher were employed by Relypsa during the development of this study and the writing of this manuscript. Polson, Lord, Kangethe, Speicher, and Farnum are employees of Magellan Rx Management, which received funding from Relypsa for conducting the retrospective study and writing the manuscript. Study concept and design were contributed by Lord, Polson, Brenner, Alvarez, and Oestreicher. Data collection and interpretation were performed by Polson and Kangethe, with assistance from Lord. The manuscript was written by Farnum, with assistance from Kangethe and Speicher and revised by all authors.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Hyperkalemia in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalemia (HK) is a concern for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure (HF), and for those receiving treatments that inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAASi). An analysis of 1.7 million medical records of patients in the United States revealed that among individuals with more than 2 potassium values during 2007 to 2012, HK was detected in 34.6% of patients with CKD and 30.0% of patients with HF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of HK and use of RAASi therapies at optimal and suboptimal doses in patients with CKD and/or HF with health care resource utilization and overall cost of care in a diverse cohort of commercially insured patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using medical and pharmacy claims from multiple regional health plans. Qualifying patients were ≥ 18 years old, continuously enrolled for 6 months before and throughout the study period (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015) and had an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM diagnosis code of CKD and/or HF. Health care resource utilization, including hospital visits, length of stay, office visits, and associated medical and pharmacy costs, were assessed according to the 3 cohorts (CKD alone, HF alone, and concomitant CKD and HF). For the 3 cohorts, the results were also compared between patients with and without HK and between patients with and without RAASi use at optimal and suboptimal doses. Generalized linear models were used to further examine the predictors of medical and overall costs. RESULTS: In this study, 15,999 patients met inclusion criteria. Among patients using RAASi therapy, 26.8% received the optimal dose. Optimal dosing of RAASi was associated with decreased median outpatient office visits (8, 10, and 15, respectively, for patients with CKD, HF, and both CKD and HF) compared with suboptimal dosing of RAASi (12, 15, and 23, respectively). Similarly, optimal dosing of RAASi was associated with decreased overall median medical costs ($2,092, $4,144, and $7,762, respectively, for patients with CKD, HF, and both CKD and HF) compared with suboptimal dosing of RAASi ($3,121, $8,289, and $12,749, respectively). Patients with CKD, HF, or both CKD and HF, all in combination with HK, had higher overall costs, compared with those without HK. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this real-world analysis suggest that HK and suboptimal dosing of RAASI were associated with a median increase in outpatient office visits as well as increased overall medical costs among patients with CKD and/or HF. This evaluation of median costs suggests effective HK management may potentially reduce costs in patients with CKD and/or HF, including those currently receiving RAASi therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by Magellan Rx Management and funded by Relypsa. Brenner, Alvarez, and Oestreicher were employed by Relypsa during the development of this study and the writing of this manuscript. Polson, Lord, Kangethe, Speicher, and Farnum are employees of Magellan Rx Management, which received funding from Relypsa for conducting the retrospective study and writing the manuscript. Study concept and design were contributed by Lord, Polson, Brenner, Alvarez, and Oestreicher. Data collection and interpretation were performed by Polson and Kangethe, with assistance from Lord. The manuscript was written by Farnum, with assistance from Kangethe and Speicher and revised by all authors.