Healthcare utilization and costs for patients initiating Dabigatran or Warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) such as dabigatran, when compared to warfarin, have been shown to potentially reduce the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) together with lower healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and similar total costs. This study expands on previous work by comparing HCRU and costs for patients newly diagnosed with NVAF and newly initiated on dabigatran or warfarin, and is the first study specifically in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using data from administrative health care claims during the study period 01/01/2010-12/31/2012. Cox regression analyses were used to compare all-cause risk of first hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. Medical, pharmacy, and total costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were compared between dabigatran and warfarin users. RESULTS: A total of 1110 patients initiated on dabigatran were propensity score-matched with corresponding patients initiated on warfarin. The mean number of hospitalizations (0.92 vs. 1.13, P = 0.012), ER visits (1.32 vs. 1.56, P < 0.01), office visits (21.43 vs. 29.41; P < 0.01), and outpatient visits (10.86 vs. 22.02; P < 0.01) were lower among dabigatran compared to warfarin users. Patients initiated on dabigatran had significantly lower risk of first all-cause ER visits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.98] compared to those initiated on warfarin. Adjusted mean pharmacy costs PPPM were significantly greater for dabigatran users ($510 vs. $250, P < 0.001); however, mean medical costs PPPM ($1912 vs. $1956, P = 0.55) and mean total costs PPPM ($2381 vs. $2183, P = 0.10) were not significantly different compared to warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran users had significantly lower HCRU compared to warfarin users. In addition, dabigatran users had lower risk of all-cause ER visits. Despite higher pharmacy costs, the two cohorts did not differ significantly in medical or total all-cause costs.

Cost efficiency of anticoagulation with warfarin to prevent stroke in medicare beneficiaries with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: in controlled trials, anticoagulation with warfarin reduces stroke risk by nearly two thirds, but the benefit has been less pronounced in clinical practice. This report describes the extent of warfarin use, its effectiveness, and its impact on medical costs among Medicare patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. METHODS: using claims from >2 million beneficiaries in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 5% Sample Standard Analytic Files, we identified patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation from 2004 to 2005. Warfarin use was inferred from 3 or more tests of the international normalized ratio within 1 year. Incidence of ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke and major bleeding was evaluated. Adjusted risk was calculated by Cox proportional-hazards regression. Medical costs (reimbursed amounts in 2006 US dollars) were estimated by multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (N=119 764, mean age=79.3 years), 58.5% were categorized as warfarin users based on the study definition. During an average of 2.1 years' follow-up, the rate of ischemic stroke was 3.9 per 100 patient-years. After multivariate adjustment, ischemic stroke incidence was 27% lower in patients taking warfarin than in patients not taking warfarin (P<0.0001), with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke and a slightly elevated risk of a major bleed. Use of warfarin was independently associated with lower total medical costs, averaging $9836 per patient per year. CONCLUSIONS: these results indicate that 41.5% of Medicare patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation are not anticoagulated with warfarin. The incidence of stroke and overall medical costs were significantly lower in patients treated with warfarin.

Meta-analysis to assess the quality of warfarin control in atrial fibrillation patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects a significant proportion of the American population and increases ischemic stroke risk by 4- to 5-fold. Oral vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, can significantly reduce this stroke risk but can be difficult to dose and monitor. Previous research on the effects of setting (e.g., randomized controlled trials, anticoagulation management by specialty clinics, usual care by community physicians) on the proportion of time spent within therapeutic range for the international normalized ratio (INR) has not specifically examined anticoagulation in AF patients. OBJECTIVES: Use traditional meta-analytic and meta-regressive techniques to evaluate the effect of specialty clinic versus usual care by community physicians on anticoagulation control, measured as the proportion of time spent in therapeutic INR range, for AF patients that received warfarin anticoagulation in the United States. METHODS: Studies included in a previously published meta-analysis (van Walraven et al., 2006), which systematically searched reports between 1987 and 2005, were also screened for inclusion in our analysis. A subsequent systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials from January 2005 through February 2008 was conducted. Studies were included if they (a) contained at least 1 warfarin-treated group including more than 25 patients for whom INR control was monitored for at least 3 weeks; (b) included patients treated for AF in the United States; (c) used a patient-time approach (patient-year) to report outcomes; and (d) reported data on the proportion of time spent in traditional therapeutic INR ranges (i.e., a lower limit INR between 1.8 and 2.0 and an upper limit INR between 3.0 and 3.5. Studies with INR goals outside this range were excluded). The proportion of time spent within the therapeutic INR range for each study group was expressed as an incidence density using a person-time approach (in years). All studies were pooled using a random effects model and were weighted by the inverse of the variance of proportion of time spent in the therapeutic range. In order to determine how study setting influenced the proportion of time spent within a therapeutic INR range, both subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: This analysis included 8 studies and a total of 14 unique warfarin- treated groups; 3 of the 8 studies and 4 of the warfarin groups were not included in the previous meta-analysis (van Walraven et al., 2006). Overall, patients spent a mean 55% (95% CI = 51%-58%) of their time in the therapeutic INR range. Meta-regression suggested that AF patients treated in a community usual care setting compared with an anticoagulation clinic spent 11% (95% CI = 2%-20%, n = 6 studies with 9 study groups) less time in range. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, AF patients spend only about one-half the time within therapeutic INR. Anticoagulation clinic services are associated with somewhat better INR control compared with standard community care.

Comparison of all-cause, stroke, and bleed-specific healthcare resource utilization among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: We compared healthcare utilization outcomes and persistence among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: Using a nationwide, US administrative claims database, a retrospective matched-cohort of newly diagnosed NVAF patients (age≥18 years) treated with dabigatran or warfarin (propensity score matched 1:1) in 01/01/2011-12/31/2013 was evaluated. All-cause, stroke-, and bleed-specific per patient per month (PPPM) healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), incidence rate of hospitalization for stroke or bleed, 30-day readmission, and persistence were reported. RESULTS: In total, 18,890 dabigatran patients were matched to corresponding warfarin patients. Compared to warfarin users, dabigatran users PPPM had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations (0.04 vs 0.05), total outpatient visits (3.98 vs 5.87), and lower 30-day readmissions (14.5% vs 17.4%, all p < 0.001). Dabigatran users had lower incidence rate for stroke (0.65 vs 1.06) and bleed (1.69 vs 2.20), stroke (0.0006 vs 0.0011, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific hospitalizations (0.002 vs 0.003, p = 0.008), and stroke (0.03 vs 0.04, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific outpatient visits (0.07 vs 0.08, p = 0.018), and significantly lower non-persistence (62.1% vs 66.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among newly diagnosed newly treated NVAF patients, dabigatran users had significantly lower all-cause, stroke- and bleed-specific HCRU, lower risk of hospitalization for stroke or bleed events, lower 30-day readmissions, and higher persistence than warfarin users.

Comparison of stroke- and bleed-related healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation and newly treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: This is one of the first head-to-head real-world evidence studies comparing stroke-related and bleed-related healthcare and resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating oral anticoagulants. METHODS: Adult NVAF patients newly diagnosed and treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between 10/01/2010 and 12/31/2014 were identified using MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Per-patient-per-month stroke and bleed-related HCRU and costs were reported. RESULTS: Dabigatran patients were matched 1:1 to 26,592 rivaroxaban and 33,024 warfarin patients (mean age=68 years). Compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related inpatient and outpatient HCRU (0.004 vs. 0.005; 0.099 vs. 0.145) and significantly lower adjusted bleed-related costs ($116 vs. $172), all p <0.05. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran patients had significantly lower stroke-related outpatient visits (0.034 vs. 0.048, p<0.001) and higher bleed-related outpatient visits (0.101 vs. 0.091, p=0.045). Multivariate adjusted bleed-related costs were significantly lower for dabigatran patients than warfarin patients ($94 vs. $138, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related HCRU and costs than rivaroxaban patients, and lower outpatient stroke-related HCRU, higher bleed-related outpatient HCRU, and lower bleed-related costs than warfarin patients. It provides valuable stroke-related and bleed-related HCRU and costs information among commercially insured and Medicare patients.

Differences in All-Cause Health Care Utilization and Costs in a Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Population with and Without a History of Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have reported that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and presence of T2DM and CVD increases risk of death. There is growing interest in examining the effects of antidiabetic treatments on the reduction of cardiovascular events in T2DM adults with a history of CVD and thus at higher risk of cardiovascular events. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental all-cause health care utilization and costs among adults with T2DM and a history of CVD compared with adults without a history of CVD, using a national linked electronic medical records (EMR) and claims database. METHODS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with evidence of at least 1 T2DM-related diagnosis code or antidiabetic medication (date of earliest occurrence was defined as the index date) in calendar year 2012 were identified. The population was divided into 2 cohorts (with and without a history of CVD) and followed until the end of their enrollment coverage, death, or 12 months, whichever came first. Multivariable generalized linear models were used to assess differences in health care utilization and per patient per month (PPPM) total costs (plan- and patient-paid amount for health care services) between the 2 groups during the post-index year, while adjusting for an a priori list of demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 138,018 adults with T2DM was identified, of which 16,547 (12%) had a history of CVD. The unadjusted resource utilization (outpatient: 27.5 vs. 17.8; emergency room [ER]: 0.8 vs. 0.4; inpatient: 0.4 vs. 0.2 days; and total unique drug prescriptions: 10.1 vs. 8.3) and PPPM total health care costs ($2,655.1 vs. $1,435.0) were significantly higher in T2DM adults with a history of CVD versus T2DM adults without a history of CVD. The adjusted models revealed that T2DM adults with a history of CVD had a 31% higher number of ER visits (rate ratio [RR] = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.25-1.37); 27% more inpatient visits (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.21-1.34); 15% longer mean inpatient length of stay (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06-1.25); and 11% more outpatient visits (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.09-1.13) compared with T2DM adults without a history of CVD. Furthermore, the difference in total PPPM health care cost was found to be 16% ($200) higher in adults with a history of CVD (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.13-1.19). PPPM costs associated with outpatient and ER visits were approximately 21% and 19% higher among adults with a history of CVD, respectively (P < 0.0001), while costs for inpatient visits were similar between the 2 groups. In addition, a subgroup analysis revealed that adjusted differences in PPPM total cost was larger in the younger age group (56% higher cost in those aged < 45 years) and diminished in the older age group (only 2% higher in those aged ≥ 65 years). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings showed that resource utilization and costs remains significantly higher in T2DM patients with a history of CVD compared with patients without a history of CVD even after controlling for significant patient comorbid and demographic characteristics. Also, younger age groups had higher differences in outcomes compared with older age groups. This study underscores the importance of cost-effective interventions that may reduce economic burden in this T2DM population with a history of CVD. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. At the time of this study, Mehta and Mountford were employed by IQVIA, which received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim to conduct this study. Mountford is employed by Allergan, which has no connection with this study. Ghosh, Sander, and Kuti are employed by Boehringer Ingelheim. Study concept and design were contributed by Mountford, Mehta, and Ghosh, along with Sander and Kuti. Mountford and Mehta collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Sander and Kuti, along with the other authors, and revised by Mehta and Gosh, along with the other authors.

Treatment and persistence with oral anticoagulants among newly diagnosed patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective observational study in a US commercially insured and Medicare Advantage population.

OBJECTIVES: With the approval of new non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), it is anticipated that their introduction may change NVAF treatment patterns; however, there is limited supporting real-world evidence. This study investigated guideline-recommended oral anticoagulation (OAC) treatment and persistence in newly diagnosed patients with NVAF to understand demographic and clinical characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective observational administrative claims study in the USA. SETTING: Patients with NVAF with ≥1 pharmacy claim for OAC (warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban) and no atrial fibrillation diagnosis within 12 months prior to the first claim were identified in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between 1 November 2010 and 30 November 2013. PARTICIPANTS: 45 092 patients with NVAF were included. OUTCOMES: The proportion of OAC-treated patients was stratified by CHADS2 score. Treatment persistence was measured from OAC initiation to discontinuation, end of eligibility or end of study period (30 November 2014), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: Almost half of the patients (41.1%) received an OAC. The proportion treated differed slightly in baseline stroke risk (CHADS2<2: 39.8%; CHADS2=2 or 3: 42.4%; and CHADS2>3: 40.3%: p<0.001). Treated patients were slightly younger (70±12.2 vs 71±14.3 years; p<0.001), more likely male (59.7% vs 52.5%; p<0.001) and had a slightly elevated stroke risk (CHADS2: 2.03±1.3 vs 1.98±1.4; p<0.001) and a lower bleeding risk (HEMORR2HAGES: 2.55±1.8 vs 2.80±1.9; p<0.001) relative to untreated patients. Overall, patients with higher CHADS2 scores had higher HEMORR2HAGES scores. The mean follow-up was 2.25 years (2.25±0.85) and 72.7% of patients discontinued OACs; nearly 25% within 3 months and 55% within 12 months. The mean time to discontinuation was 255±249 days. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients with NVAF who received OAC treatment was lower than previously reported and differed slightly by stroke risk. Patients with an elevated stroke risk had a higher bleeding risk, suggesting that clinicians may incorporate both in the treatment decision.

Factors influencing dabigatran or warfarin medication persistence in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Factors influencing differences in persistence between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remain unclear. AIM: Compare differences in persistence between new dabigatran and warfarin users in patients newly diagnosed with NVAF, adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, patient out-of-pocket cost and other covariates. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using a US claims database of Medicare and commercially insured patients with NVAF aged≥ 18 years. Persistence and monthly out-of-pocket costs for dabigatran or warfarin were calculated and adjusted for covariates using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Unadjusted persistence was significantly lower among dabigatran users (n = 1025) compared with matched warfarin users (38 vs 46%). Adjusting for covariates rendered this difference insignificant (hazard ratio = 0.930).

Incremental burden of type 2 diabetes in patients experiencing cardiovascular hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental economic burden of type 2 diabetes in patients experiencing cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with ≥1 CV hospitalization were identified using a US-based healthcare claims database from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014. Outcomes for patients surviving the index hospitalization were compared between patients with vs. without type 2 diabetes (cohorts were identified in the pre-index period). Subsequent CV hospitalizations were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. All-cause and CV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs captured on a per-patient per-month (PPPM) basis during a variable follow-up period were evaluated using appropriate multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 316,207 patients with ≥1 CV hospitalization, 23% had comorbid type 2 diabetes. The mean age ± SD was 62.6 ± 12.3 years and 64.4% were male. During follow-up, the type 2 diabetes cohort had a 19% higher risk of subsequent CV hospitalizations compared to the non-type-2-diabetes cohort (p < .001). This difference in risk was highest in patients aged 35-44 years. Subsequent all-cause hospitalizations for the type 2 diabetes cohort were longer (mean length of stay, 6.7 vs. 6.3 days; p < .001), with higher total bed-days PPPM (mean, 0.52 vs. 0.43; p < .001), compared to the non-type-2-diabetes cohort. The type 2 diabetes cohort had a significantly higher incremental cost for both the index CV hospitalization (mean cost difference, $1046; p < .001) and all-cause costs PPPM following discharge (mean cost difference, $749; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk of subsequent CV hospitalizations and higher costs and HCRU during the follow-up period.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Newly Diagnosed and Oral Anticoagulant-Naive Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with Dabigatran or Warfarin in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin has a long history of use to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but it requires frequent laboratory monitoring to maintain international normalized ratio levels in the therapeutic range. Dabigatran, a novel oral anticoagulant (OAC), has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism and does not require laboratory monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs of OAC-naive patients newly diagnosed with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), using dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data from medical and pharmacy claims extracted from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database representing commercial and Medicare Advantage members. Adults aged > 18 years with a medical diagnosis claim of NVAF were identified between October 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011. The date of first observed OAC prescription claim was the index date. Patients were followed for up to 12 months after the index date. Patients were assigned to the dabigatran or warfarin treatment groups based on their first OAC prescription fills. To reduce potential for selection bias, the cohorts were matched on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching. HCRU was measured and compared between groups on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis for all-cause HCRU, as well as stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleed-specific HCRU. Pharmacy, medical, and total costs were also compared and adjusted to 2012 U.S. dollars. Generalized linear models were conducted to compare all-cause health care costs between cohorts. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1,648 patients were included in the analysis (824 each in the dabigatran and warfarin treatment groups). In the post-index period, patients in the dabigatran group had significantly fewer all-cause PPPM physician office visits (mean [SD] 1.29 [± 0.95] vs. 2.02 [± 1.53], P < 0.001) and outpatient visits (mean [SD] 2.17 [± 2.90] vs. 3.52 [± 3.32], P < 0.001) compared with those in the warfarin group. There were no between-group differences in outcomes for the number of stroke, myocardial infarction, or bleeding-related office visits. All-cause medical costs for the dabigatran cohort were lower than the warfarin cohort; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance ($2,696 [SD ± $6,699] vs. $2,893 [± $6,819], P = 0.179). All-cause pharmacy costs were higher in the dabigatran group versus the warfarin group ($455 [± $429] vs. $328 [± $517], P < 0.001). The dabigatran cohort also had significantly higher stroke-related ($32 [± $71] vs. $20 [± $55], P = 0.006) and nonstroke-related pharmacy costs ($423 [± $422] vs. $308 [± $515], P < 0.001). Despite higher pharmacy costs for the dabigatran cohort, both treatment groups had statistically similar all-cause total costs ($3,151 [± $6,744] vs. $3,221 [± $6,869], P = 0.701). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that among patients newly diagnosed with NVAF who were OAC naive, dabigatran use was associated with significantly less HCRU in terms of physician and outpatient visits but higher pharmaceutical costs in up to 12 months of follow-up. Similar to other real-world studies, this research supports the finding that higher pharmacy costs for dabigatran users was offset by lower medical costs, making total health care costs comparable between dabigatran and warfarin. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, which is the manufacturer of dabigatran, one of the products included in the analysis of this work. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions. Jain and Tan are employed by HealthCore, a research consultancy which was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals for work on this study. Fu was employed by HealthCore at the time of this study. Lim, Wang, Elder, and Sander are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Study concept and design were contributed by Wang, Sander, and Tan, along with Fu and Jain. Fu, Tan, and Jain collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Lim, Wang, and Sander, along with Jain, Tan, and Fu. The manuscript was written by Jain, Elder, Tan, and Wang, along with Lim and Fu, and revised by Jain, Wang, Elder, and Tan. Some of the results of this study were presented at Quality of Care and Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke (QCOR) 2014 Scientific Sessions on June 2-4, 2014, in Baltimore, Maryland.

Comparison of all-cause costs and healthcare resource use among patients with newly-diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation newly treated with oral anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVES: Compare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among newly-diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients newly treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. METHODS: Newly-diagnosed adult NVAF patients initiating dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin (index event) between October 1, 2010-December 31, 2014 were identified using MarketScan claims data, and followed until medication discontinuation, switch, inpatient death, enrollment end, or study end (December 31, 2015). Dabigatran patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 separately with apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin patients. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause cost, HCRU, and 30-day re-admissions were reported. Costs were analyzed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Final cohorts, each matched with dabigatran patients, included 8,857 apixaban patients, 26,592 rivaroxaban patients, and 33,046 warfarin patients. Dabigatran patients had lower adjusted PPPM total healthcare, inpatient, and outpatient costs compared to rivaroxaban ($4,093 vs $4,636, $1,476 vs $1,862, and $2,016 vs $2,121, respectively, all p ≤ .001) and warfarin ($4,199 vs $4,872, $1,505 vs $1,851, and $2,049 vs $2,514, respectively, all p < .001). Adjusted costs were similar for dabigatran and apixaban. Dabigatran patients had significantly fewer hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and pharmacy claims than rivaroxaban patients (0.06 vs 0.07, 4.84 vs 4.96 and 4.80 vs 4.93, respectively, all p < .020) and warfarin patients (0.06 vs 0.07, 4.77 vs 6.88, and 4.76 vs 5.89, respectively, all p < .001). Dabigatran patients had similar hospitalizations to apixaban, but higher outpatient visits (4.70 vs 4.31) and pharmacy claims (4.86 vs 4.61), both p < .001. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study found adjusted all-cause costs were lower for dabigatran compared to rivaroxaban and warfarin patients and similar to apixaban patients.

The cost of cardiovascular-disease-related death in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the magnitude of difference in all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who died from a cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related cause in the year preceding death vs. those who did not die during this same period. METHODS: A large US administrative claims database was used to identify patients with T2DM who died of a CVD-related cause from July 2012 to April 2015. These patients were matched 1:1 to patients with T2DM who did not die, using direct matching methods. HCRU and costs were assessed in each of the four quarters (Q4: 12-10 months; Q3: 9-7 months; Q2: 6-4 months; and Q1: 3-0 months) prior to death and compared between patient cohorts using paired t-tests and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: A final matched cohort of 7648 patients who died and 7648 patients who did not die were identified. A significantly higher proportion of patients who died utilized inpatient services vs. those who did not die (Q4: 12.6% vs. 4.6%, p < .001; Q3: 14.6% vs. 4.6%, p < .001; Q2: 17.6% vs. 5.5%, p < .001; and Q1: 65.0% vs. 10.1%, p < .001). In addition, patients who died incurred significantly higher all-cause costs (Q4: $8882 vs. $3970, p < .001; Q3: $10,462 vs. $3661, p < .001; Q2: $12,564 vs. $4169, p < .001; and Q1: $36,076 vs. $6319, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: T2DM patients with a CVD-related death had significantly greater HCRU and costs in the year including and preceding death compared to those who did not die.

Evaluation of echinacea for the prevention and treatment of the common cold: a meta-analysis.

Echinacea is one of the most commonly used herbal products, but controversy exists about its benefit in the prevention and treatment of the common cold. Thus, we did a meta-analysis evaluating the effect of echinacea on the incidence and duration of the common cold. 14 unique studies were included in the meta-analysis. Incidence of the common cold was reported as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI, and duration of the common cold was reported as the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. Weighted averages and mean differences were calculated by a random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird methodology). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q statistic and review of L'Abbé plots, and publication bias was assessed through the Egger weighted regression statistic and visual inspection of funnel plots. Echinacea decreased the odds of developing the common cold by 58% (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.25-0.71; Q statistic p<0.001) and the duration of a cold by 1.4 days (WMD -1.44, -2.24 to -0.64; p=0.01). Similarly, significant reductions were maintained in subgroup analyses limited to Echinaguard/Echinacin use, concomitant supplement use, method of cold exposure, Jadad scores less than 3, or use of a fixed-effects model. Published evidence supports echinacea's benefit in decreasing the incidence and duration of the common cold.

Electrocardiographic and hemodynamic effects of coenzyme Q10 in healthy individuals: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) is an endogenous cofactor required for mitochondrial energy production and touted to treat heart failure and prevent statin-induced myopathy. In guinea pig ventricular myocytes, CoQ10 prolongs action potential duration, an effect that might prolong the QTc interval in humans. Additionally, CoQ10 reduced blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To determine the electrocardiographic (ECG) and hemodynamic impact of CoQ10 in healthy individuals. METHODS: Healthy volunteers (N = 26; 62% male, age 24 +/- 3 y) were randomized to receive a single dose of CoQ10 50 mg and matching placebo in a crossover fashion with a 7 day washout period between treatments. Twelve-lead ECGs, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and other hemodynamic parameters (cardiac index and systemic vascular resistance index) were evaluated immediately before (baseline) and 1, 3, 5, and 8 hours after ingestion of the study drug. ECG parameters (P wave and QRS complex duration; PR, QT, QTc, and RR intervals) were measured in lead II by one blinded investigator. For each time point, duplicate blood pressure levels were taken manually and then averaged. Hemodynamic parameters were measured using bioelectrical impedance cardiography. RESULTS: CoQ10 had no effect on any of the evaluated ECG parameters. The maximum postdosing systolic blood pressure showed a statistically significant increase with CoQ10 (117 +/- 10 vs 119 +/- 10 mm Hg; p = 0.037), an effect driven by increases in cardiac index (3.09 vs 2.95 L/min/m(2); p = 0.017). However, blood pressure elevation was most evident at the 5 hour timepoint (116 +/- 10 vs 113 +/- 11 mm Hg; p = 0.049) and was only transient. There were no differences between groups for maximum postdosing diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: One dose of CoQ10 does not have any effect on ECG variables and exhibits only mild and transient effect on systolic blood pressure in young, healthy people.

Cardiovascular event incidence and cost in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Medicare claims-based actuarial analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic burden of cardiovascular events in Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This claims-based actuarial analysis queried 2013 and 2014 Medicare 5% samples, defining a denominator of fee-for-service beneficiaries. Average per patient per month allowed cost ($PPPM) was calculated for T2DM, demographically adjusted non-T2DM, and denominator. Per member per month allowed cost ($PMPM) was calculated by dividing total population cost by member months in the denominator. Costs of five pre-specified cardiovascular events were calculated as a contribution to denominator $PMPM, as contribution to $PPPM in T2DM, and as incremental cost. RESULTS: During the study period, 22.1% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries had T2DM; of these, 9.68% experienced a cardiovascular event or cardiovascular-related death. T2DM cost represented 37.9% of total allowed $PMPM for the denominator. Average total allowed $PPPM for a T2DM beneficiary was $1,834, compared with $850 for a non-T2DM beneficiary (2.2-times higher). Annual rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina admission, heart failure admission, and coronary revascularization in T2DM were 3.3-, 2.4-, 3.2-, 4.0-, and 2.8-times higher than in non-T2DM, and utilization of health services was also greater in T2DM. Cardiovascular events in T2DM accounted for 50% of denominator cardiovascular event cost; 3.6% of denominator population $PMPM was attributable to cardiovascular events in T2DM. Risk-adjusted incremental cardiovascular event cost represented 18.1% of $PPPM in T2DM or 6.9% of $PMPM in the denominator population. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular events in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with T2DM contribute substantially to Medicare cardiovascular events, resource utilization, and cost.

All-Cause, Stroke-, and Bleed-Specific Healthcare Costs: Comparison among Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) Newly Treated with Dabigatran or Warfarin.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare all-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific healthcare costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: Administrative claims data from the MarketScan® Databases for 2009-2014 were used. Patients with NVAF newly treated with dabigatran were matched 1:1 to those treated with warfarin. All-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($US, year 2015 values) up to a 12-month follow-up period were analyzed. Stroke- or bleed-specific costs were defined as hospitalizations with stroke or bleed as the primary discharge diagnosis and outpatient claims with stroke or bleed diagnosis in any position. Differences in costs between dabigatran and warfarin users were assessed using descriptive and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 18,980 dabigatran-treated patients were matched to corresponding warfarin-treated patients. Adjusted all-cause total healthcare, inpatient, and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran cohort ($US3053 vs. 3433; $US904 vs. 1194; $US1594 vs. 1894, respectively; all p < 0.001), but mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher ($US556 vs. 345, p < 0.001). Stroke-specific total healthcare and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US30.37 vs. 40.99 and $US7.36 vs. 12.20, respectively; p < 0.05 for both values). Similarly, bleed-specific total healthcare and inpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US50.00 vs. 73.49 and $US27.75 vs. 48.66, respectively; p < 0.01 for both values). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving dabigatran had significantly lower total all-cause, inpatient, and outpatient costs but higher pharmacy costs than those receiving warfarin. In addition, stroke-specific total and outpatient costs and bleed-specific total and inpatient costs were significantly lower in dabigatran users compared with warfarin users.

The impact of coenzyme Q10 on systolic function in patients with chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) is an endogenous cofactor in the mitochondrial energy production. CoQ10 has been touted to improve heart failure, but its effect on systolic function is controversial. Several small, randomized controlled trials evaluating CoQ10 showed variable results and were largely underpowered. We conducted a meta-analysis of these trials to evaluate the impact of CoQ10 therapy on ejection fraction and cardiac output. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized, controlled trials of CoQ10 in heart failure between 1966 and June 2005. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess clinical heterogeneity between trials. Of the 11 trials identified, 10 evaluated ejection fraction (n = 277) and 2 evaluated cardiac output (n = 42). Doses ranged from 60 to 200 mg/day with treatment periods ranging from 1 to 6 months. There was a 3.7% net improvement in ejection fraction (95% CI 1.59-5.77; P < .00001 for statistical heterogeneity). A more profound effect among patients not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was observed (6.74% [95% CI 2.63-10.86]). Cardiac output increased an average of 0.28 L/minute (95% CI 0.03-0.53; P = .96 for statistical heterogeneity). CONCLUSION: CoQ10 enhances systolic function in chronic heart failure, but its effectiveness may be reduced with concomitant use of current standard therapies.

Comparative safety and efficacy of urokinase and recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for peripheral arterial occlusion: a meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in the efficacy and safety of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) and urokinase in the treatment of peripheral arterial occlusion. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective comparative trials. DATA SOURCE: PubMed/MEDLINE database from 1966-October 2004. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The literature was systematically searched to identify prospective comparative trials of urokinase and rt-PA for the treatment of peripheral arterial occlusion. The primary outcome measure was successful complete lysis of the occlusion. Other outcome measures were hemorrhage (major, minor, or combined), intracranial hemorrhage, limb loss, and mortality. Six trials were identified, five of which were randomized. On meta-analysis, the rate of clot lysis was higher with rt-PA than with urokinase (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.10, p=0.007). However, urokinase was associated with lower rates of minor (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.97, p=0.04) and total (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.91, p=0.02) bleeding. Rates of major hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, limb loss, and mortality were similar between agents. CONCLUSION: Urokinase was less effective than rt-PA in successfully lysing acute peripheral arterial occlusion, but it was associated with lower rates of total and minor bleeding. Overall, rt-PA was a reasonable substitute for urokinase, now that urokinase has been removed from the market in the United States. However, judicious monitoring for minor bleeding is necessary.

Delivery of esomeprazole magnesium through nasogastric and gastrostomy tubes using an oral liquid vehicle as a suspending agent in vitro.

PURPOSE: The optimal delivery medium for esomeprazole magnesium enteric-coated pellets dispersed in various concentrations of Ora-Plus suspension through commonly used nasogastric and gastrostomy tubes using a previously used standardized in vitro protocol was studied. METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases. In phase A, 60 size 14 French nasogastric tubes were used to compare esomeprazole pellet delivery via tap water or 30, 50, or 70% Ora-Plus concentrations (15 tubes for each). In phase B, tap water and the concentration that yielded the best pellet delivery from phase A were used with the narrower size 8 and shorter size 20 French tubes. In both phases, the appropriate volume of water was added. All capsules were assumed to have 1,240 pellets. At the end of each administration, pellet retention counts were performed. RESULTS: The results showed excellent delivery of esomeprazole pellets using water as a medium for tube delivery. When compared with tap water as a delivery medium, no differences in pellet retention were observed when 30% and 50% Ora-Plus were used; thus, these Ora-Plus concentrations are feasible alternatives to tap water for nasogastric tube delivery of esomeprazole pellets. CONCLUSION: Administration of esomeprazole magnesium enteric-coated pellets dispersed in tap water or Ora-Plus through size 14 French nasogastric tubes in vitro delivered over 99% of capsule contents, regardless of the Ora-Plus concentration used. For immediate bedside administration, Ora-Plus at 50% concentration is a feasible alternative to water when delivering the pellets through size 14 French tubes, while 30% Ora-Plus is an alternative to water for all tubes studied.

Health Care Resource Utilization, Costs, and Persistence in Patients Newly Diagnosed as Having Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Newly Treated With Dabigatran versus Warfarin in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study compared health care resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and persistence among patients newly diagnosed as having nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and newly treated with dabigatran versus warfarin. METHODS: This retrospective claims-based study used data from a large US managed care organization. The earliest claim for dabigatran or warfarin during October 1, 2010 through October 31, 2011 was the index date, with cohort assignment based on index medication. Evidence of newly diagnosed NVAF within 30 days before the index date and no claims for oral anticoagulants during the 12-month preindex period were required. Cohorts were matched using propensity scores. Per-patient-per-month HCRU, costs, and persistence were calculated during the variable follow-up period of up to 12 months after the index date. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were used to examine differences in outcomes. FINDINGS: After matching, 869 patients per cohort were identified (mean age, 67.8 years; 40.4% female). Compared with warfarin, dabigatran had fewer per-patient-per-month emergency department (0.10 vs 0.13, P = 0.010), office (1.98 vs 2.96, P < 0.001), and outpatient (1.05 vs 1.48, P < 0.001) visits. Despite higher mean pharmacy costs for dabigatran (P < 0.001), mean total health care (P = 0.309) and medical costs (P = 0.568) were similar to warfarin. Persistence was higher with dabigatran versus warfarin (median, 204 vs 161 days; mean, 213.7 vs 195.5 days, P = 0.001). IMPLICATIONS: Among patients newly diagnosed as having NVAF, those newly treated with dabigatran had lower HCRU, higher persistence, and similar total health care costs compared with those treated with warfarin.