Real-World Assessment of Interventional Treatment Timing and Outcomes for Varicose Veins: A Retrospective Claims Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of delaying interventional treatment on varicose vein disease progression, complications, and health care costs in a real-world setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of adults diagnosed with varicose veins between January 2008 and June 2010. Patients were followed for 2 years after diagnosis and categorized into three cohorts based on the timing of interventional therapy: early (≤ 2 mo), intermediate (> 2 mo but ≤ 6 mo), and late (> 6 mo). Disease progression and all-cause health care costs were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 44,206 patients were included, with 43% classified as receiving early interventional therapy, 33% as intermediate, and 24% as late. Early interventional treatment was associated with lower disease progression rates (29.2%) compared with intermediate (42.5%; P < .0001) and late treatment (52.2%; P < .0001). Also, early interventional treatment was associated with lower costs ($17,564) than intermediate ($17,923; P > .05) and late treatment ($18,399; P < .05). Each 30-day delay in treatment initiation was associated with a 7% higher risk of disease progression (P < .0001) and a 1% increase in costs (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that early initiation of interventional varicose vein treatment was significantly associated with a decreased risk of disease progression and costs.

A Budget Impact Model of Maintenance Treatment of Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy with IgPro20 (Hizentra) Relative to Intravenous Immunoglobulin in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is a rare, progressive autoimmune disease causing peripheral nervous system dysfunction. Guidelines recommend immunoglobulin (IG) therapy as an immunomodulatory agent in CIDP. Drawbacks and unmet needs with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) include adverse effects and wear-off effects, along with the burden of administration based on site of care. Subcutaneous administration of Hizentra, a subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) reduces patient burden by allowing self-administration outside the hospital setting and has fewer adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the expected cost of treatment and the budget impact of Hizentra compared with IVIG for maintenance treatment of CIDP in the United States. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to estimate the expected budget impact of maintenance treatment with Hizentra for US stakeholders. The model adopts primarily a US integrated delivery network perspective and, secondarily, a commercial perspective over a 1-year time horizon. Pharmacy costs were based on a payment mix of average sales price (73%), wholesale acquisition cost (2%), and average wholesale price (25%). Costs in the model reflect 2022 US dollars. In accordance with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines and recommendations for budget impact modeling, no discounting was performed. The PATH clinical study of Hizentra maintenance in CIDP was used to determine clinical inputs for relapse rates at initial assessment (24 weeks) and at 52 weeks for Hizentra. The ICE clinical study of Gamunex maintenance in CIDP was the basis of relapse rates for Gamunex (and other IVIGs). Literature-based estimates were obtained for infusion costs by site of care, costs of IVIG infusion-related complications, and significant IVIG AE rates. Hizentra AE rates from the US Hizentra prescribing information were assessed but were not included in the model as the AEs in CIDP were mild, easily treated, and self-limited. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate variations from the base case. RESULTS: The model showed that a Hizentra starting dose of 0.2 g/kg is expected to result in annual cost savings of US$32,447 per patient compared with IVIG. For a hypothetical 25-million-member plan, the budget impact of a 10% market share shift from IVIG to Hizentra is expected to result in savings of US$2,296,235. CONCLUSION: This analysis projects that Hizentra is likely associated with favorable economic benefit compared with IVIG in managing CIDP.

Brolucizumab vs aflibercept and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide and is the most common cause of blindness in developed countries. Despite antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy demonstrating improvements in visual and anatomical outcomes, unmet needs remain. Brolucizumab-dbll (ie, brolucizumab), a VEGF inhibitor for treatment of neovascular (wet) AMD and recently approved by the FDA for its treatment of wet AMD, attempts to mitigate treatment burden through less frequent injections. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab compared with aflibercept and ranibizumab, given similar costs per injection and the potential for longer dosing intervals based on phase 3 clinical trial data. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to model the treatment of wet AMD patients with brolucizumab vs aflibercept and vs ranibizumab over a lifetime time horizon (base case) and 5-year time horizon (scenario analysis). The Markov model consisted of 3 primary health states: on treatment, off treatment, and death. Markov substates (5 total) described visual acuity (VA) ranging from no vision impairment to blindness. These VA-based substates were defined by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) values measured using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Fixed-dosing regimens for each therapy were included in the model: dosing every 4 weeks (q4w) for the first 3 months followed by dosing q8w/q12w for brolucizumab, dosing q4w for the first 3 months followed by dosing q8w for aflibercept, and q4w for ranibizumab. RESULTS: In the base case, brolucizumab was less costly than aflibercept ($63,614 vs $72,189), and brolucizumab generated 0.0079 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than aflibercept (4.580 vs 4.572). Lower total costs with brolucizumab were driven by reduced drug costs ($56,432 vs $64,057), reduced administration costs ($6,013 vs $6,825), and reduced monitoring costs ($1,168 vs $1,306). When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab over a 5-year time horizon, brolucizumab was less costly than aflibercept ($44,644 vs $50,772) and generated an additional 0.0049 QALYs (2.953 vs 2.948). Additionally, brolucizumab was less costly than ranibizumab ($63,614 vs $128,163) and generated 0.0078 more QALYs than ranibizumab (4.580 vs 4.572) in the base case. Lower total costs with brolucizumab were driven by reduced drug costs ($56,432 vs $114,516), reduced administration costs ($6,013 vs $11,541), and reduced monitoring costs ($1,168 vs $2,107). When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab over a 5-year time horizon, brolucizumab was less costly than ranibizumab ($44,644 vs $89,665), and brolucizumab generated an additional 0.0046 QALYs (2.953 vs 2.948). CONCLUSIONS: Brolucizumab can be cost saving and cost-effective compared with aflibercept and ranibizumab in the treatment of wet AMD. DISCLOSURES: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation provided funding to Xcenda for the cost-effectiveness analysis and preparation of this manuscript. Carlton is an employee of Xcenda. Agashivala is employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Yu was an employee of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation at the time of this study. Hassan reports personal fees from iOPEN, BVI/Visitrec, ArcticDx, Bayer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Broadspot, BMC, Katalyst Surgical, Alcon, Vitreq, Surgicube, personal Ocugenix, Regeneron, Allergan, Oculus Surgical, Novartis, Genentech, and Eyepoint, unrelated to this work. Wykoff reports personal fees from Corcept Therapeutics, DORC, EyePoint, Gyroscope, IVERIC Bio, Merck, Notal Vision, ONL Therapeutics, Oxurion, Palatin, PolyPhotonix, Takeda, Thea Open Innovation; grants from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Aldeyra, Gemini Therapeutics, Graybug Vision, IONIS Pharmaceutical, LMRI, Mylan, Neurotech Pharmaceuticals, Outlook Pharmaceuticals, Samsung Bioepis, Senju, Taiwan Liposome Company, Xbrane BioPharma, Santen; and grants and personal fees from Adverum, Allergan, Apellis, Chengdu Kanghong Biotechnologies (KHB), Clearside Biomedical, Genentech, Kodiak Sciences, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Opthea, Recens Medical, Regenxbio, Roche, and Regeneron, unrelated to this work. This research was presented as a virtual poster at the AMCP 2020 Annual Meeting, April 2020.

Correction to: The cost-effectiveness of albumin in the treatment of decompensated cirrhosis in Germany, Italy, and Spain.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported that one of the numbers within Fig. 6 contains a mistake.

The cost-effectiveness of albumin in the treatment of decompensated cirrhosis in Germany, Italy, and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Albumin is frequently prescribed in cirrhotic patients with acute decompensation. However, the true cost effectiveness of albumin use in cirrhotic patients is still under debate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of albumin in the treatment of decompensated cirrhosis in Germany, Italy, and Spain. METHODS: A decision-tree economic model was developed to evaluate treatments for decompensated cirrhosis from the hospital perspective over a typical inpatient admission. The treatments for large volume paracentesis (LVP) were albumin vs saline, gelatin, or no fluid. The treatments for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) were albumin plus antibiotics vs antibiotics alone. The treatments for hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) were albumin plus a vasoconstrictor vs a vasoconstrictor alone. Effectiveness inputs were literature-based. Cost inputs included pharmacy costs and medical complication costs of decompensated cirrhosis. The primary model assessments were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life saved and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Albumin was found to be both less costly and more effective relative to saline, gelatin, and no fluid for the treatment of LVP across all 3 countries. For SBP, albumin plus antibiotics was more clinically effective than antibiotics alone in all 3 countries. The combination of albumin plus antibiotics was less costly than antibiotics alone in Germany and Italy, making albumin a dominant treatment (ie, less costly and more effective). In the management of SBP in Spain, albumin plus antibiotics compared to antibiotics alone resulted in ICERs of €1516 per life saved and €3369 per QALY gained. Albumin plus a vasoconstrictor was both less costly and more effective than vasoconstrictor alone in the treatment of HRS across all 3 countries. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that albumin is cost-effective in terms of lives saved and QALYs gained in the management of decompensated cirrhosis associated with LVP, SBP, or HRS.

Budget Impact of Appropriate Low-Dose Aspirin Use for Primary and Secondary Cardiovascular Event Prevention in the Managed Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in adults in the United States and constitutes a substantial portion of overall national health expenditures. Aspirin is generally recommended for primary cardiovascular event prevention based on a given patient's underlying cardiovascular event risk profile, particularly for those aged 50-69 years with a 10-year risk of coronary heart disease of ≥ 10%. Evidence-based clinical guidelines are in agreement for secondary prevention consisting of lifelong, low-dose aspirin therapy following a cardiovascular event. Despite these recommendations, research suggests suboptimal concordance between guidelines and clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of appropriate low-dose aspirin use for primary and secondary cardiovascular event prevention compared with current rates of low-dose aspirin use. METHODS: An economic model measuring budget spend for cardiovascular events, aspirin, and aspirin-related adverse events was developed from the perspective of a U.S. payer. The model compared current rates of aspirin use to appropriate rates of aspirin use according to guideline recommendations for both primary and secondary cardiovascular event prevention. RESULTS: For a hypothetical plan with 1 million members, an estimated 18,026 patients were on aspirin therapy for primary cardiovascular event prevention, while guidelines recommend that 55,788 patients should have been on aspirin therapy for this indication. Optimal aspirin use in the primary cardiovascular event prevention population reduced the number of nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MIs; -367), ischemic strokes (-232), and deaths (-60), with an increase in the number of gastrointestinal bleeds (169) and hemorrhagic strokes (98). Evidence-based guideline-compliant use of aspirin for primary cardiovascular event prevention resulted in total cost savings of approximately $4.2 million over a 5-year time horizon. For secondary cardiovascular event prevention, an estimated 48,663 patients were on aspirin, while clinical guidelines recommend that 71,316 patients should have been on aspirin therapy for this indication. Optimal aspirin use in secondary cardiovascular event prevention reduced the number of nonfatal MIs (-515), ischemic strokes (-375), and deaths (-217), with an increase in the number of gastrointestinal bleeds (98) and hemorrhagic strokes (58). Evidence-based guideline-compliant use of aspirin for secondary cardiovascular event prevention resulted in total cost savings of approximately $11 million over a 5-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate low-dose aspirin use for primary and secondary cardiovascular event prevention can result in improved patient outcomes with significant cost savings for U.S. payers. As a simple and inexpensive prophylactic measure for cardiovascular event prevention, aspirin use should be carefully considered in all appropriate at-risk adult patients. DISCLOSURES: Development of this manuscript and the corresponding budget impact analysis was funded by Bayer. Coppolecchia, Williamson, and Cameron are employees of Bayer. Carlton, Lennert, and Moradi are employees of Xcenda, a consulting firm that received funding from Bayer to assist in the completion of this study. Khalaf-Gillard was an employee of Xcenda at the time of the study. The corresponding poster was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017; October 16-19, 2017; Dallas, TX.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients with Varicose Veins.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 24% of adults in the United States have visible varicose veins, and an estimated 6% have evidence of advanced chronic venous disease. The majority of individuals with varicose veins seek treatment because of symptoms, such as aching, throbbing, fatigue, pruritus, ankle swelling, and tenderness, rather than cosmetic reasons. Furthermore, varicose veins are a manifestation of chronic venous insufficiency, which can progress to leg pain, leg edema, chronic skin changes, and nonhealing ulcers. OBJECTIVE: To assess varicose vein treatment patterns and their corresponding outcomes, including additional treatment rates, disease progression to new ulcers, and associated costs from a US perspective. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective claims database study using data from the Truven Health MarketScan database. Adults who were newly diagnosed with varicose veins between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2010, and met the study inclusion criteria were eligible to participate and were divided into 6 cohorts based on the type of first or initial therapy they received after the index diagnosis date, including surveillance and compression therapy, surgery, laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, sclerotherapy, or multiple therapies. The patients were followed for 2 years after the index diagnosis date to assess their treatment patterns and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 144,098 patients met the study criteria. Of these patients, 100,072 (69.5%) were under surveillance for disease progression and/or received compression therapy; 14,007 (9.7%) received laser ablation; 9125 (6.3%) received radiofrequency ablation; 4778 (3.3%) received sclerotherapy; 4851 (3.4%) had surgery; and 11,265 (7.8%) received multiple therapies. During the 2-year follow-up period, among patients receiving interventional treatment, 54.7% of patients received additional interventional treatment (either with the same mode or a different mode from the initial treatment); 30.1% had >1 postintervention claim for symptomatic varicose veins (not including additional procedures) at 8 weeks; and 44.2% had >1 postintervention claim for symptomatic varicose veins at 1 year after the initial interventional therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of the patients in the study received conservative management. For patients receiving interventional therapy, the outcomes varied based on the treatment cohort. The surgery cohort was associated with the most favorable outcome regarding the need for additional treatment and evidence of postintervention claims for symptomatic varicose veins, followed by the multiple therapies cohort. A better understanding of these treatment outcomes in the real-world setting may affect new strategies to improve the management of patients with varicose veins.

Evaluating the Expected Costs and Budget Impact of Interventional Therapies for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous disease is a common disorder in the United States. The manifestations of chronic venous disease include varicosities and related sequelae that are frequent contributors to the morbidity and high costs associated with the disease. The interventional treatment options for chronic venous disease have expanded greatly in recent years and include various surgical and vein ablation techniques. Polidocanol injectable foam (also known as polidocanol endovenous microfoam 1%), a chemical ablation agent, is the most recent entrant to the market. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the expected patient-level total treatment costs and health plan-level budgetary impact of polidocanol injectable foam compared with the currently available interventional treatment options from a third-party US payer perspective. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based budget impact model was designed to compare the costs of polidocanol injectable foam with other interventional treatments (ie, laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, surgery, and multimodality treatment). The model included drug acquisition, medical procedure, administration, additional treatment, and disease progression costs. The treatment patterns and rates of additional treatment were incorporated from a recent retrospective claims analysis for established treatment modalities and from the clinical trials for polidocanol injectable foam. The model estimates the 1-year total estimated costs and the health plan budget impact assuming an 8-week treatment time frame. RESULTS: The total expected 8-week treatment costs were $2165 for polidocanol injectable foam, $1827 for endovenous laser ablation, $2106 for radiofrequency ablation, $2374 for surgery, and $2844 for multimodality treatment. The initial treatment costs were higher for surgery and multimodality treatment compared with polidocanol injectable foam and were lower for endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation treatments. Polidocanol injectable foam is projected to have a relatively small budget impact ($0.01 per member per month) at an initial 5% market share. CONCLUSION: Polidocanol injectable foam offers an alternative to other interventional options for the treatment of varicose veins and is projected to have a relatively small budget impact. From a health plan perspective, this drug is likely to have a relatively low budget impact as it becomes more widely used.

Economic Impact of the Use of an Absorbable Adhesion Barrier in Preventing Adhesions Following Open Gynecologic Surgeries.

We used an economic model to assess the impact of using the GYNECARE INTERCEED absorbable adhesion barrier for reducing the incidence of postoperative adhesions in open surgical gynecologic procedures. Caesarean section surgery, hysterectomy, myomectomy, ovarian surgery, tubal surgery, and endometriosis surgery were modeled with and without the use of GYNECARE INTERCEED absorbable adhesion barrier. Incremental GYNECARE INTERCEED absorbable adhesion barrier material costs, medical costs arising from complications, and adhesion-related readmissions were considered. GYNECARE INTERCEED absorbable adhesion barrier use was assumed in 75% of all procedures. The economic impact was reported during a 3-year period from a United States hospital perspective. Assuming 100 gynecologic surgeries of each type and an average of one GYNECARE INTERCEED absorbable adhesion barrier sheet per surgery, a net savings of $540,823 with GYNECARE INTERCEED absorbable adhesion barrier during 3 years is estimated. In addition, GYNECARE INTERCEED absorbable adhesion barrier use resulted in 62 fewer cases of patients developing adhesions. Although the use of GYNECARE INTERCEED absorbable adhesion barrier added $137,250 in material costs, this was completely offset by the reduction in length of stay ($178,766 savings), fewer adhesion-related readmissions ($458,220 savings), and operating room cost ($41,078 savings). Adoption of the GYNECARE INTERCEED absorbable adhesion barrier for appropriate gynecologic surgeries would likely result in significant savings for hospitals, driven primarily by clinical patient benefits in terms of decreased length of stay and adhesion-related readmissions.

Willingness to pay to avoid metastatic breast cancer treatment side effects: results from a conjoint analysis.

PURPOSE: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients are treated with a variety of regimens with differing side effects that can reduce the patients' quality of life. This study assessed the willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid side effects related to MBC treatment using conjoint analysis. METHODS: An online, self-administered conjoint analysis survey of US adult female MBC patients was conducted to elicit preferences for MBC treatment side effects. Attributes included in the analysis were hair loss, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, tingling in hands and feet, pain, risk of infection, and out-of-pocket costs. Fifteen choice-based conjoint questions were presented where patients selected the most preferred therapy. A partial profile design was used to allow for each treatment description to be made with 3 instead of all 8 attributes. The attribute choices for each question included 2 side effects and a yearly out-of-pocket price. RESULTS: There were 298 respondents. MBC patients were willing to pay (US$) $3,894 to avoid severe diarrhea, $3,479 to avoid being hospitalized due to infection, $3,211 to avoid severe nausea, $2,764 to avoid severe tingling in hands and feet, $2,652 to avoid severe fatigue, $1,853 to avoid obvious hair loss, and $1,458 to avoid severe pain. The most important attributes when selecting a therapy for MBC in terms of average utility were risk of infection, diarrhea, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: MBC patients were willing to pay significant amounts to avoid side effects associated with MBC treatment, with patients willing to pay the most to avoid diarrhea, risk of infection, and nausea.

Healthcare costs among patients with excessive sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea, shift work disorder, or narcolepsy.

BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness affects nearly 20% of the general population and is associated with many medical conditions, including shift work disorder (SWD), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and narcolepsy. Excessive sleepiness imposes a significant clinical, quality-of-life, safety, and economic burden on society. OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs for patients receiving initial therapy with armodafinil or with modafinil for the treatment of excessive sleepiness associated with OSA, SWD, or narcolepsy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of medical and pharmacy claims was conducted using the IMS LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database. Patients aged ≥18 years who had a pharmacy claim for armodafinil or for modafinil between June 1, 2009, and February 28, 2012, and had 6 months of continuous eligibility before the index prescription date, as well as International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis for either OSA (327.23), SWD (327.36), or narcolepsy (347.0x) were included in the study. Patients were placed into 1 of 2 treatment cohorts based on their index prescription and followed for 1 month minimum and 34 months maximum. The annualized all-cause costs were calculated by multiplying the average per-month medical and pharmacy costs for each patient by 12 months. The daily average consumption (DACON) for armodafinil or for modafinil was calculated by dividing the total units dispensed of either drug by the prescription days supply. RESULTS: A total of 5693 patients receiving armodafinil and 9212 patients receiving modafinil were included in this study. A lower DACON was observed for armodafinil (1.04) compared with modafinil (1.47). The postindex mean medical costs were significantly lower for the armodafinil cohort compared with the modafinil cohort after adjusting for baseline differences ($11,363 vs $13,775, respectively; P = .005). The mean monthly drug-specific pharmacy costs were lower for the armodafinil cohort compared with the modafinil cohort ($166 vs $326, respectively; P <.001). In addition, lower total healthcare costs were observed for the armodafinil cohort compared with the modafinil cohort after correcting for baseline differences ($18,309 vs $23,530, respectively; P <.001). CONCLUSION: As shown in this analysis, armodafinil may have real-world DACON advantages and may be associated with lower overall healthcare costs compared with modafinil.